Your Love Of Wine Is Driving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

See, on one hand, high ranking poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology have stated that ‘climate change’ will ruin wine (forgetting that previous warm periods saw great wines being produced in England). And the other hand

How Does Your Love of Wine Contribute to Climate Change?
Consumers don’t have access to much information about how businesses operate, but they can ask questions and focus on one tangible item, the bottle.

Consumers mostly do not care in the least, they just want some wine, not a lecture from anti-science buffoons.

Evil wine causes world to be hazy from carbon pollution

The exquisite vulnerability of grapes to nuances of weather makes wine both particularly susceptible to climate change and a harbinger of what’s to come for many other agricultural products.

Do wine consumers have a role in encouraging producers to take stronger steps to combat climate change? Some in the wine industry think they do, particularly by throwing their economic support to companies that are already acting decisively.

“The consumer is the key to this,” Adrian Bridge, the chief executive of Taylor Fladgate, the historic port producer, wrote in an email. “Changing our own behavior matters, and asking others to change theirs as well. This does mean buying from companies that are doing a good job and avoiding companies that are not.”

Things like grapes are always going to be vulnerable to things like weather. Always have and always will.

It’s equally important for consumers to make clear to the wine industry that fighting climate change is an urgent issue. Both through their buying decisions and through old-fashioned advocacy — which might include letters and emails to producers, importers and wine publications, as well as direct conversations with wine merchants and restaurateurs — consumers must demand that the wine industry take action.

Important to whom? Not the vast majority of people who buy wine, and do not give it any thought as to how it is supposedly linked to climate change, regardless of whether it is natural or man-caused.

That industry is simply a microcosm of larger society. Just as politicians have little incentive to address climate change unless voters require it, many wine producers are less inclined to reduce their own carbon footprints unless consumers demonstrate that such steps are important to them.

And few do, so, let’s move on from this stupidity. But, this is the NY Times, so, we haven’t even gotten a quarter way through the screed.

But how can anybody distinguish the environmental heroes from the do-nothings? That requires consumers to educate themselves in ways that are not easy, particularly because reliable information is difficult to come by. Many in the wine industry are notoriously opaque about their agriculture, their cellar techniques and their ingredients.

How dare they hide their trade secrets! Let’s skip to the end

As Gandhi suggested, no step is too small. The least we can do is make climate issues more urgent in our own lives, and to pass that message on to others.

“Things change,” Mr. Bridge said, “when society demands it.”

Society isn’t demanding it, nor are Warmists making changes in their own live.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Your Love Of Wine Is Driving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    “That requires consumers to educate themselves in ways that are not easy, …”

    This consumer has plenty of information already. I don’t need to know how wine is made. I need to know that the winery used accepted practices to exclude contamination, so I won’t get sick when i drink it.

  2. Mangoldielocks says:

    Seeds for Needs has the answer.

    *IPCC, 2014

    The challenge
    With climatic uncertainty and extremes projected to increase in the future, agriculture and food production are more vulnerable than ever. This instability puts livelihoods, farmers’ incomes and ecosystems at risk. It is estimated that by 2050:

    climate change will reduce agricultural production by 2% every decade
    demand will increase by 14% every decade
    by 2050 yields of major crops will face an average decline of 8% for Africa and South Asia
    smallholder farming communities in the developing world will be hardest hit.

    In other words the scientific community is on top of changing and warming climate. In fact the IPCC claims catastrophic changes and food shortages but THEN….offer a solution to solve the problem which is as easy and seed bio-diversity.
    Bioversity International and CGIAR

    This research is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) which is carried out with support from CGIAR Fund Donors and through bilateral funding agreements. For details please visit

    And one final really cool aspect of this website all up in arms over AGW:

    This video shows a time series of five-year global temperature averages, mapped from 1880 to 2014, as estimated by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

    AS ESTIMATED. With their billion dollar computers they cant even offer facts. Only ESTIMATES. This is why their is such a strong push back against AGW and a warming planet. Yeah the planet is warming. But the real question is so what? Well we are gonna have food shortages. NO WE ARE NOT…even according to the IPCC they have a solution to this.

    We are going to have droughts. Yeah. We have them every year around the world since the dawn of oxygen and H20 on this planet.

    TL:DR Chill out we got it covered claims the IPCC.

  3. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    ~97% of greenhouse gasses come from natural sources and there is nothing we can do about it.
    Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.
    Besides Greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are but a fart in the wind of global warming when compared to the variation in energy imparted by the sun due to solar cycles.

    • Professor Hale says:

      Not to mention all the formic acid the ants make. An astronomical amount.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        And yet, besides termites and ants, the Earth is warming from the CO2 that humans are adding the atmosphere.

        Atmospheric CO2 starting increasing about 200 years ago, and the growth exploded some 100 years ago. Is that when termites appeared on Earth?

        Is formic acid a greenhouse gas? How much formic acid is an “astronomical amount”?

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          Once again it is a good thing the earth is warming. Not a bad thing.

          See the AGW movement has tried awfully hard to convince you warm weather is BAD. This is the assumed close. The begin with the premise that WARM is HORRIBLE and were all gonna die. Once they establish that as fact then the debate is over.

          What annoys them mindlessly is that we wont buy their bunk. A warm planet is a good thing. 1700 PPM the earth flourished. 4400 PPM the earth flourished. At 4400 ppm for 12k years only 40 percent of the ice melted.

          The AGW loons would have you believe that 550ppm will flood the world and destroy life as you know it.

          WRONG. The earth is a closed system. Co2 is released and sequestered and put back into the ground in many forms, otherwise the earth would be facing runaway greenhouse effects.

          So folks. I can only look at the past record of a planet that has spent most of its time as a molten ball of lava or a frozen ball of ice and the crazies are going insane over a degree or two of warming which has occurred naturally many, many times over the past million years.

          • Mangoldielocks says:

            *million years should read billion years. Would be nice if we had 5 minutes to edit our post after its posted. I understand why you dont want to edit your posts hours or days later after your found wanting but 5 minutes would not be too much to ask.

        • Professor Hale says:

          Type into your browser window. They are standing by to answer all your questions.

  4. JGlanton says:

    If Taylor Fladgate wants to set an example, they can stop using tractors, trucks, cars, and pesticides. They can only produce their fermented products in large wooden barrels, and only provide it to the consumer in large wooden barrels drawn by mules to central locations where the consumer can arrive on bicycles to refill their containers with port and wine. No more filling millions of glass bottles. No more container shipping to the United States and China. No more air freight.

    No, they know that they cannot make significant change and stay in business. So they advocate that “no step is too small”. They’ll put up some solar panels at their visitor center and buy a few electric carts to shuttle obese tourists to their tasting room, featuring them prominently in their brochures so the world can see how progressive they are.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      Not mules. They fart Methane. We will have to use child labor to draw the wagons to market.

  5. Dan says:

    Grapes (and their byproduct wine) were for centuries found only in Europe. In the past century enterprising humans have spread grapes AND wine all over the planet. You can now buy wine from EVERY continent except Antarctica. So these “fragile” grapes appear capable of growing in just about climate where temperatures are warm enough. Wine being at risk from climate is just more bullshit lies and propaganda from the evil left.

Pirate's Cove