Sign in to follow this  

Why will global warming kill only the cute animals?

7 posts in this topic

Why will global warming kill only the cute animals?

Rats! It’s global warming again. Can’t we get a break?

No, literally. Not from the warming part. It’s actually quite chilly outside and there hasn’t been any measurable planetary warming since 1999. From the rats. Big ugly swarms of them spreading disease and biting your kids.

Monday’s Post headline actually said “Explosion of rats feared as climate warms.” So the good news is rats aren’t increasing any more than temperature. The bad news is a further increase in passive-voice predictions of doom.

Before the rats reach your face I’d like to note that this “news” story is remarkable for having the plumbing on the outside. It starts “Scientists have shown that the likely 2 degrees of global warming to come this century will be extremely dangerous, but, you know, ‘2 degrees’ is hardly a phrase from horror films. How about ‘rat explosion?’ ”

Exactly. It’s openly a story about hype not science. “The physics of climate change doesn’t have the same fear factor as the biology.” So cue the Fu Manchu-style mandibles, mould and plague because “it’s the creatures multiplying in outbreaks and infestations that generate horror.”

It’s also old news. I’ve collected quite the file of creepy-crawly global-warming scare stories over the years including “super-sized, extra-itchy poison ivy” (Ottawa Citizen 2006), “tropical and potentially lethal fungus” (Globe and Mail 2007), venomous jellyfish the size of refrigerators (MSNBC 2009), mass starvation and the extinction of humanity (Globe and Mail 2009), bigger and more frequent kidney stones (Ottawa Citizen 2008), soggy pork chops (Globe and Mail 2009), asthma, allergies and runny noses (NBC 2015) and the conflict in Darfur (Ottawa Citizen 2007). Not to mention drought and flooding and the migration of France’s fabled wine industry to … um… Scotland (all Ottawa Citizen 2007), where they’ll be pairing a fine ruby Loch Ness with rat haggis I suppose. Och aye mon.

I could go on and on. But they already did. And don’t go reading these stories and thinking they offer evidence, or rather speculation, that warmth benefits life generally.

Far from it. Virtually none of these stories has anything cute or cuddly flourishing. Unless you count stray cats in Toronto (National Post 2007). Instead it’s a strangely un-PC combination of lookism and speciesism. So if you want to be a climate alarmist without all that tedious mucking about with facts, here’s how.


Even voters have figured this one out, and voted down the carbon taxes and "clean energy" deals the Democrats cooked up to make billions.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

" cooked up to make billions." Again, the deliberate naivete' inherent in this kind of assumption. As if the ecology movement never needed money before, despite all their tremendous achievements. :o

Oh sure. They somehow only need money now that they're threatening soft energy-industry regulations again; now we coincidentally wake up to their nefarious aims; conveniently now they've been "caught red-handed bilking the 'merican gummin't out of funds". :rolleyes:

Far be it for anyone to agree that such funds ever did any good work at all. The Clean Air Act? Oh yeah, that never needed any money. The Clean Water Act? Ditto. Probably didn't cost anyone a red cent. :wacko:

The entire field of environmental science was probably "just thrown together overnight" as a fund-raising hoax; it never really did anything for anyone. So why pay them. Right?

Oh, and there's also no real, actual scientists who work to improve our environment. They're just actors, it's all rigged. They have no resumes nor decades of experience; they just 'say they do'. They're uh..ummm...err...paid to say so. :huh:

So no, don't force giant energy conglomerates annually grossing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits and sucking on big-breasted government contracts, to ever get off their gravy train and give even a pittance to this cause which benefits all of us. That would be sooo wrong. Why, it would practically be communism.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hamradio said:

The Clampetts had her pet for dinner. (talk about a girl with nerves of steel)


and granny even diced the tail!...

that's what those stringy things are floating at the top.


Image result for tethro possum soup

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:


Having problems?

Contact Us