The threat of climate change is as severe as nuclear warfare, according to an emergency summit of the world's Nobel Laureates.Oh noes! What’s going to happen if we don’t, please tell me, eminent scientists (and jug-eared future figurehead)?
The group of Nobel winners, together with Prince Charles, issued a memorandum which declared the best chance of stopping catastrophic climate change is to keep the predicted temperature rise at or below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).
Without action, they envisaged three times that temperature rise, which would mean global warming would cause a huge rise in sea levels, and swamp the cities of London, Paris and Copenhagen.Is that all?
No giant marshmallow man? No radioactive monster lizard? No hot hail?
Pah! Some disaster movie…
The eminent group unveiled a number of ambitious targets on cutting carbon emissions that go far beyond anything the world has so far managed to achieve during the Kyoto Protocol or any previous international summit on climate change.Yeah. Good luck with that, chaps…
They said global greenhouse gases will have to peak by 2015, meaning the current growth in carbon dioxide caused by the rapid development of China and India will have to stop in the next six years.
The paper has been compared to the Einstein-Russell manifesto in 1955 when Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell brought together scientists from around the world to speak out against the threat posed by the H-bomb.After which, the entire world immediately dismantled their nuclear arsenals and…
Oh, wait. Everyone ignored them too.
9 comments:
'Without action, they envisaged three times that temperature rise'
Now I enjoy a global catastrophe theory as much as the next person, but envisaged? Isn't that a bit of a cop-out?
I mean, I can envisage lots of things, including radical polar shift or the rise of triffids; doesn't mean it's a realistic possibility.
"...envisaged? Isn't that a bit of a cop-out?"
Indeed. Not very scientific, is it?
It's supported by an inbred wingnut who talks to plants and sells overpriced jam with dubious claims. Okay, I'm sold. Where do I sign up?
There was another report which tried to claim that "climate change" was already killing 300,000 people a year. Of course it was unsubstantiated bollocks, but for the AGW supporters it's not about real science - just about getting their agenda implemented.
I think it's probably accurate to state that man-made climate change has already killed as many people as the Israelis have massacred in indiscriminate shootings in Gaza and the West Bank.
Any questions?
OK, so now we know what the model says the effect of climate change would be, lets do what they have clearly failed to do and compare that with the climate effects of a nuclear war and see which is worse.
Step forward "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences", authored by Alan Robock, Luke Oman and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, a 2007 study of the climatic effects of a nuclear war which is rather adequately summarised by the wikipedia entry on nuclear winter . For a conflict involving one third of the world's nuclear arsenal
"A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions."So, no agriculture for at least a decade. At all. None. Most of the surface of the earth at or below freezing. And that's just the climate, without taking into account the additional destruction to life and infrastructure.
So in point of fact it isn't really even comparable.
You'd like to think that such a supposedly elite bunch of 'scientists' would have bothered to check the facts before issuing such utter tripe as a press release, but apparently if you're a climate scientist, this isn't necessary.
Either that or the bastards are happy to knowingly participate in a deceitful propaganda campaign that suits their agenda.
Either way, is it possible to have someone's Nobel taken off them ?
"You'd like to think that such a supposedly elite bunch of 'scientists' would have bothered to check the facts before issuing such utter tripe as a press release, but apparently if you're a climate scientist, this isn't necessary."
Being a climate scientist means never having to say you're sorry - or wrong...
"I think it's probably accurate to state that man-made climate change has already killed as many people as the Israelis have massacred in indiscriminate shootings in Gaza and the West Bank.
Any questions?"
Yes.
How many people have the Israelis massacred in indiscriminate shootings in Gaza and the West Bank?
What is your methodology?
Are you netting off the lives saved from hypothermia and other cold-related deaths?
Mr Potarto
I do not believe that there have been any Israeli massacres in Gaza and the West Bank at all.
I do not believe that there is any man-made climate change at all.
Consequently, the score is even:
a nil-nil draw.
My "methodology" was ham-fisted irony and I apologize that it has failed to do the job I intended.
I am occasionally better at it.
Post a Comment