Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North

by William Teach | April 10, 2013 8:24 am

Facts: a .08C increase in global temperatures since 1997. A miniscule .28F from 1990-2012. Varying data collections which show warming has paused anywhere from 15-19 years. Warmists who think this is all so dire that they refuse to give up their own fossil fueled lifestyles and refuse to go carbon neutral. Their cult is dying[1] around them. Their attempts at science are continuously beaten by real science. What to do? More scary prognostications!

(Sydney Morning Herald[2]) In 50 years, wines from Bordeaux and Tuscany will be insipid. Instead, we’ll all be drinking Montana merlots and Chinese clarets.

That, at any rate, is the implication of a paper published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which estimates that anywhere from 19 to 73 per cent of the land suitable for wine-growing in today’s major wine regions will be lost to climate change by 2050. (The wide variance reflects the great uncertainty in climate prediction models.) As vineyards in Spain, Italy, and southern France wither, colder regions that are inhospitable today will be poised to take their place as the new grands crus.

If your prediction models predict a variance of 19 to 73 percent, your models stink and are based on wishful thinking, not science. We’re still waiting for the Warmists to tell us exactly what the optimum temperature for the Earth should be. Furthermore, Warmists are like Flat Earthers, in that they expect everything to always stay the same.

There’s just one catch, according to the study. Many of those new wine regions coincide with important habitat for species such as the gray wolf, the pronghorn, the grizzly bear, and in China’s case, the panda.

The most promising new region of all, according to lead author Lee Hannah of the non-profit organisation Conservation International, may be the area north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. That would put it directly in the path of a conservation initiative designed to connect Yellowstone to the Yukon. It’s that very type of wildlife corridor that scientists say may be needed to allow animals such as grizzly bears to respond to climate change themselves. “Vineyards would be a major impediment to this connectivity,” Hannah writes in a blog post about the study. “They provide poor habitat for wildlife, and would probably have to be fenced to avoid bears snacking on the grapes.”

And, there we go, the New Climate Deniers have linked “climate change” with conservation in an attempt to ramp up the scary prognostications from a 6 to a 9. During the previous warm period they were growing wine, good ones, in England. During the Little Ice Age wine grape production moved further south. But, seriously, all the way up to Wyoming and Montana? This is hysteria and cultish behavior, not science. The Carbon Sense Coalition[3] pulls a great quote from H.L. Menken which perfectly encapsulates the New Climate Deniers

“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.”

Warmists are never willing to abandon their ideas: they’re only willing to stretch them so that no matter what happens, it is the fault of Mankind.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[4]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[5].

  1. cult is dying:
  2. Sydney Morning Herald:
  3. The Carbon Sense Coalition:
  4. Pirate’s Cove:
  5. @WilliamTeach:

Source URL: