Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The ongoing effort by climate advocates to find a way to make us care about their failed cause has reached a new low, with a claim that global warming is making young vulnerable girls more likely to be forced into marriage, in barbaric cultures which sanction some forms of child abuse.
Here’s How Climate Change Is Sexist
First, two facts:
1.) Bangladesh has been ravaged by flooding and cyclones in recent years.
2.) Some 30 percent of girls in Bangladesh get married before they turn 15, meaning it has one of the highest rates of child marriage in the world.
What could those two things possibly have in common? They’re both the product of climate change.
It might seem crazy, but it’s true: Around the world, climate change disproportionately affects people living in poverty, especially poor women and girls. In Bangladesh, for example, big shifts in weather patterns have caused cyclones, flooding, and droughts, forcing families that spent generations farming the countryside to pick up and leave. To survive, they’re are forced to relocate to cities to look for work, and families often resort to marrying off their young daughters so they have fewer mouths to feed.
…
Read more: http://www.glamour.com/story/heres-how-climate-change-is-sexist
Leaving aside the fact that even the IPCC admits there is no evidence CO2 is making storms worse, lets assume for a moment that the claim was true – that storms were getting worse, and that this was forcing more destitute parents to sell their girl children to pedophiles.
Would the best way to help these poor girls really be to build more wind turbines? Or would that money better be spent on specific programmes to empower women? Initiatives such as Microfinance programmes to help poor people develop a reliable income, so desperate parents could be spared the agony of having to sell some of their children?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…I think that’s a great idea
We should import more people from these countries….since their culture is so modern progressive and in sync with ours
And let us remind ourselves once again here that climate change is also supposed to drive more women into prostitution…….
http://ijr.com/2014/01/107526-house-democrats-climate-change-turns-women-prostitutes/.
Quote: “The Democratic party has found a new consequence of climate change: prostitution. Rep. Barbara Lee and twelve other House Democrats issued a resolution stating that climate change can cause food and water shortages, which could lead impoverished women to turn to prostitution as a means of income….”
Just when you think it can’t get more ridiculously bazaar, then it does.
Poverty, not climate change, is the principle driver of child marriage. Solving poverty usually involves fossil fuels to provide food, clean water, waste treatment, etc.
So the choice may be to solve climate change or solve child marriage. The proposition that climate change drives more child marriage is, frankly, laughable.
Lets not forget that some of the most noxious groups and governments on the planet are big supporters of AGW. From Bin Laden to the haircut challenged Kim’s these bad actors see AGW mania as a wonderful tool to undermine Western values.
That puts them in the same camp with the UN, Greenpeace, and many others. Junkafied science is the preferred method of creating a false body of work justifying otherwise unpalatable public policy. For this we can thank Al Gore and his boss Bill Clinton.
All of my reading suggests that as climate climbed out of the medieval cold period, European child marriages decreased. For example, the mother of Henry Tudor, later to become Henry VII gave birth to him at age 13. Anne Neville, the wife of Richard III was first married to Edward Duke of Westminster at age 14. Her later marriage to Richard was at the ripe old age of 16!
Child marriages decreased in frequency as wealth and life expectancy increased for the [population as a whole, the very things brought about by more reliable energy.
Looking at the marriage age of the nobility is misleading. First, their marriages had serious political consequences, so were planned, and not so much based on mutual attraction, and second, the nobility could afford to marry earlier. Most people had to wait until they could afford to set up a household, which meant mid-20s for men, early 20s for women. In hard times, it’s going to take longer to earn your grubstake; in good ideas, the opposite. In a culture where extended families live together instead of in separate households, the cost of setting up a new couple may be lower, and earlier marriage possible.
Things change again when you introduce polygamy into the picture. To avoid offending Muslims, let’s turn to http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/. Here’s a summary of the ages in that table:
> summary(w)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
14.00 19.00 27.00 29.06 36.00 58.00
At the beginning of his career, he married a 22-year-old. The 14-year-olds came a year before his death by mob violence, at which time he could well afford a few more.
It looks like old Shay is a true bleeding heart liberal.
Absolutely a SJW and gonna save the world from itself.
No fact could possibly change any belief held.
Honesty can be ignored for the cause.
The problem here is that there are no truthful sentences that contain the words: “Bangla Desh” that do not also contain words predicting a catastrophe. Bangla Desh has far too many people, far too little land, and an absolutely poisonous culture. Catastrophes predicted for Bangla Desh cannot be the basis for sensible policies for any other place in the world.
I don’t know about the capabilities of Global Warming, but Islam does cause more child marriages.
Hurrah… another quality science article from Eric.