In 2013 National Geographic announced that the Statue of Liberty was doomed. Destined to be swallowed up by the sea, thanks to the cataclysmic, uncontrolled, chaotic climate calamity of global warming. Well, maybe. (Though probably not by 2018.)
Liberty is not alone. In a global effort to get Joe and Jane six-pack to give a moles-ass about their climate-cult voodoo a slew of world heritage sites have been placed “at risk.” The latest “victim” is Stonehenge, which some “experts” at the UN have announced could collapse–after an exhaustive examination of the GDP of western democracies, no doubt–because of the risk of moles overpopulating the region; a result of the ravages of rising CO2.
(IOL) The report was produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the UN Heritage body Unesco and the United Nations Environment Programme who warned that warmer winters in the UK are likely to boost populations of moles, rabbits and badgers. As a result of their increased burrowing, they could disturb the prehistoric monuments in Wiltshire, some of which weigh more than 40 tonnes.
Stonehenge was one of 31 natural and cultural World Heritage sites in 29 countries in the report that are said to be vulnerable to increasing temperatures, melting glaciers, rising seas, more intense weather, worsening droughts and longer wildfire seasons.
Mechtild Rossler, director of Unesco’s World Heritage Centre, said: ‘Globally, we need to better understand, monitor and address climate change threats to World Heritage sites.’ – Daily Mail
But no need to monitor the fact that there has been no significant warming in over a decade and that the Atlantic (AMO) is flipping into its decades-long cold cycle.
The AMO will–CO2 be damned–make Europe colder. This past spring France experienced record late-season cold that put the wine crop at risk and Germany had an unseasonably cold April including snow, frost, and freezing temperatures.
The weather has been less severe for over a decade.
Droughts and wildfires have decreased from historical averages of both frequency and intensity.
As for the seas, if the waters at Battery Park were “rising” at (a catastrophic rate of 2.77 mm/year +/- .09) it would take 23,500 years for Liberty to satisfy the National Geographic’s 2013 unscientific scaremongering, a time by which we’ll have entered another ice age.
Are you not convinced of this mole’s folly?
Maybe you are a member of the climate cult, and your pagan climate gods will not allow you to accept the obvious. You insist it is getting warmer, and the weather more extreme because your Klimate Rekruitment Klegal says it is so. Then explain how your scientism proves that moles, rabbits, and badgers will increase in numbers during a time of warmer weather despite the “rising seas, more intense weather, worsening droughts and longer wildfire seasons“?
Why does your climate-driven fantasy predict growing populations of burrowing critters but not the natural predators who thrive on them on the ground or from the air? What is your selective evolutionary inconvenient truth to explain that?
Why are they only a threat when Western democracies are still ripe for financial pillaging? Stonehenge is over 5000 years old, and we’ve had warmer weather, more extreme weather, longer droughts, and hotter years long before today’s convenient get-rich-quick-climate scheme.
What about all the actual scientists, geologists, writers and editors of travel books, and don’t forget the bloody tourists, all of whom have been traipsing all over Amesbury, Wiltshire, photographing, prodding, poking, measuring, and exploring? I thought our mere presence was the bane of animals and nature but not this time?
Is it not a more plausible scenario that the extensive use of ground penetrating radar–to examine the extensive stone work and structures under and around Stonehenge–will mutate the moles and badgers into Ishiro Honda-esque monument-ruining behemoths?
Does your climate cartoon fantasy make room for a mutated civilization of mechanized mole-people destined to conquer the surface world? It should; your science is about as reliable as science-fiction.
Finally, assuming the ground directly under the monument is even conducive to a modern climate-driven invasion of burrowing beasties, rather than enriching politicians and their cronies with trillions of dollars to which they are not entitled, wouldn’t it be easier (and cheaper) to just set a few Have-a-Heart traps, kill the little buggers, or failing that, relocate them to Al Gore’s multi-million dollar ocean front mansion?
He’s obviously not worried about sea level. What’re a few moles to him?