So, I’m reading, yet another, goofy article about how some nations are more exposed to risks of “climate change” more than others.
This really isn’t new. It’s simply a repeat of what has been stated for decades. And, it’s still incredibly sophist.
The expected costs of climate change are painting a grimmer and grimmer picture of the future for people around the world.
Does it ever paint any other kind of picture instead of “grimmer”? Aren’t they all increasingly grimmer and grimmer in spite of the empirical evidence to the contrary?
In its sixth annual Climate Change Vulnerability Index, risk consultancy firm Maplecroft revealed the countries most likely to suffer from the effects of warming climates by 2025.
To develop its analysis, researchers evaluated 193 countries on three factors: the capacity of nations to combat the effects of climate change, …..
Shouldn’t we first come to an agreement as to what exactly are the “effects of climate change”? I mean, has that ever truly been defined, other than just really bad stuff?
….. exposure to extreme weather events ……
Hmm, okay, as I understand the ambiguous language of the nutters, isn’t the “effects of climate change” more “extreme weather events”? So, would these two factors actually be one factor?
….. and sensitivity of populations to this exposure in areas such as health and agricultural dependence. Maplecroft then assigned a risk level of “extreme,” “high,” “medium” or “low,” along with a numeric ranking to each country.
Ahh, okay, something nearly measurable! But, couldn’t this simply be defined by the position of economic development of the particular nation? Agricultural dependence, and health. If they’re both poor, then normally, we call them “developing” or “underdeveloped” nations. And, if you look at the map above, that’s pretty much it.
According to the report provided to The Huffington Post, Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone have the most “extreme” risk rating. Of cities around the world, Dhaka (the capital of Bangladesh) and the Indian metropolis of Mumbai are the most at risk of being impacted by climate change. ….
On the opposite end of the index, the northern European nations of Ireland, Norway and Iceland rounded out the bottom of the list. Their low-risk rankings may have something to do with the “ambitious” energy and climate goals proposed by the environmental ministers of countries in the region.
This has to be the most laughable part of the article. Because Iceland, whose GHG contributions are negligible on scale, would somehow prevent an imaginary global phenomena from occurring in their country, a veritable force field, if you will. Because a nation plants a couple of whirly gigs, global warming will note the mark on the door and Passover that nation. Why do all of the nuanced religions feel obliged to borrow from the Judeo-Christian faiths? I’d be a lot less critical of this madness if they’d simply admit that they’re practicing religion rather than science.
But, let’s look at the claim about “grimmer, and grimmer”. As noted, we may as well say “developing nations” as a replacement for their “risk” map.
You know what brings me great satisfaction? It’s that I’ve played this game so long that I know when and where these lunatics are going to jump next. It’s nothing conscious, mind you, it’s more instinctive. So, a few days ago, I wrote this ….
Oops, it seems the picture for food security isn’t getting “grimmer and grimmer” for these at risk nations, it’s getting better and better!
Source is FAOSTAT
Life expectancy can often be seen as a proxy for health conditions. That is to say, the longer a population lives, especially in developing nations, the better the health is getting in that population. Looking at the map above, we see mostly SE Asia and Africa as the places with “grimmer and grimmer” prospects. Let’s look ……
While the situation for people in developing nations is still not where we’d like them, we can easily see that their situation isn’t getting “grimmer and grimmer” it’s getting better and better. Their food security is better, their health is better, and their ability to adapt to any changes real or imagined, is better.
Again, I’d be a lot less critical of these people if they’d just allow themselves a bit of honesty. Who can trust these people to speak for the world’s poorest and in need when their dishonesty is plain for anyone who wishes to see?
Global warming, anthropological induced climate change, or the revenge of Gaia, or whatever else they wish to call their mythology, has supposedly been occurring, in it’s most dramatic effects, since the mid 70s. And, yet, through all of that supposed harm to our environment, we see that the world is much better off today, than then.
It’s time to remove these lunatics and their enablers as spokespeople for anything. They’ve had their voice, and they told us nothing but lies, and they continue to do so. We need to end their charade.