Repent, or Global Warming You Will Suffer … or Not!
October 30, 2006 · By George Freeman
In light of more jeremiad prophesies bewhaling the future consequence of man-induced global warming …
Global warming could devastate the world economy on a scale we haven’t seen since the world wars and the Great Depression, a major report by a British economist says.
Sir Nicholas Stern, the report’s author and a senior government economist, said unchecked global warming could shrink the global economy by 20 per cent — and cost a whopping $7 trillion in lost output.
However, taking action now would cost just one per cent of global gross domestic product, Sterns says in his 700-page study.
… and subsequent calls for repentance …
If no action is taken, says Stern, up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood from rising sea levels.
Further, up to 40 per cent of wildlife species could become extinct, and melting glaciers could cause water shortages for one sixth of the world’s population, the report says.
“It is not in doubt that, if the science is right, the consequences for our planet are literally disastrous,” said Blair.
“This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime.
“Unless we act now … these consequences, disastrous as they are, will be irreversible.”
… it is solacing to have Friends of Science. Check out the video: “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.”
I think the key phrase is ‘if the science is right’. They’re always leaving a loophole. If they are so sure about the damn science, they wouldn’t have the escape phrase in it. As the article is at present, it is just another reason why this whole thing should be considered junk science and nothing more.
Can you imagine in 40 years how stupid we’ll all seem for wasting 1% of the GDP - “if the science is wrong” ;)
Well said, Biggie Rection. ;-)
Stupidity is right when you consider that Kyoto advocates expect Western industrialised nations to make all of the major sacrifices, giving poorer, less stable countries an economic boost. Nothing like compromising geopolitical advantage!
‘if the science is right’
Well, it’s not a paper discussing if global warming is happening and they rightly state their premise. If you want a scientific paper discussing if climate change is occuring, there are couple thousand of them.
And an article originally from the Globe and Mail about the dubious motives of “Friends of Science”
http://www.mail-archive.com/na.....03182.html
To deny that global warming is _happening_ is the epitome of willful ignorance. The question ‘did we cause it?’ is still not completely certain, but a great deal of evidence suggests that we are partly responsible for it.
Now Biggie and Tom imagine if there were ever a government funded program that actually came within an order of magnitude of what it was estimated to cost. Take your pick of any of the projects of the last 13 years to get an idea of what it will really cost.
If the science is right? Does anyone recal Y2K? The concensus of experts said that there would be mayhem. So the politicians who for the most part saw their last sceince or math class in grades having a single digits bought into the doomsday scenario. Every public company had to have specific disclosure about its Y2K plan and every agreement had to have about three pages of Y2K language. and what happened - planes falling from the sky? wordlwide blackouts? dogs and cats living together? Nope. Nothing. It turns out that the only peopel that did anything were the Y2K consultants that told these end of days stories. After looking at it it turned out that the systems were either too smart i.e. could recognize and deal with the year 2000 or too stupid i.e. indifferent about 2000.
Let’s talk about the current pandemic of bird flu that should be ravaging us right now.
or about all of the plagues that should have befell us in the last 30 years according to the Limits of Growth.
or DDT which was the worst thing unleashed on the earth since Pandora’s box was opened, but then it turned out that after about 30 years and probably hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths from malaria, it turns out not to be so bad after all.
Anthropogenic cliimate chage is as yet an unverified theory. The only climate change theory that has had some scientific experimentation to verify it is solar flares - which I bet are not caused by humanity. Until verified this is little more than a simple “post hoc ergo propter hoc”(sp?) argument that ought to get you kicked out of any reputable debating club.
Then what about the Lomberg (sp?) propositions that does assume that climate changes is real, and that there will be winners as well as loser from the changes and the money that would other be spent buying credits from Russia could be spent dealing with the effects of climate change.
Further there will be technological change that will ameliorate the affects of the change and probably reduce CO2 emissions in the ordinary course of business. Just consider that 100 years ago the pollution challenge for major cities was what to do with all of the horse manure piling up. This must have been substantial problem if you visualize every truck and cab in the city being replaced by four horses. However, without limiting the bodily functions of our equine workers, this problem seems to have been solved by a shift in technology..
One final point before I get back to work and quit stealing from my partners, remember that we are taking a leap of faith in dismantling society as it exists today based on a temperature change of one degree fahrenheit (not celcius) over the past century and projecting this forward. If we consider that a century ago people were sh*tting outside, how much trust should we be placing on their temperature records.
mth,
How quickly will faulty analogies get you kicked out of the Oxford debating society?
Ha Ha, that is all you got - that’s the best you can do?
Pathetic…
Has anyone seen Al Gore’s movie?
Mth,
Y2K was a real problem to a mathematical certainty; looking at the code in many computer programs would easily confirm that. Some of these program tracked accounting for major corporations and some aided in air traffic control. The problem was diagnosed and, for the most part fix, in time to avoid major problems. I’m, therefore, not sure what your point is with that analogy other than to prove the point that we can anticipate problems ahead of time and we can fix them.
Bird flu: Which expert said exactly when bird flu would be raging?
DDT is an environmental problem when used indiscriminately. We now know that we can use it in a more sensible way that will help protect people while minimizing environmental damage.
As to unverified theories: it is not absolutely proven that smoking causes cancer and until recently there was a group of scientists that would deny a link. If we had taken action to reduce smoking when there was at first significant evidence of a link, particularly in situations where second-hand smoke is a problem, we may have saved many lives. Is this a case were an unverified theoretical should have been acted upon sooner? When is comes to disastrous life and death consequences, absolute proof is probably a little too high of a bar? As for if there is significant evidence now: there is. There will always be opposition; just as there will always be people who think that the world is 6000 years old. We are dealing, however, with a problem that could cause massive changes affecting where people can live, what they can grow, and a economic loss that will make the early 80s look like a minor economic correction. If you’re looking for absolute proof I suggest you take up smoking; it might relax you.
Putting faith in technology has gotten us where we are today. Technology can help, but the world’s ecosystem is a complex system that we have barely begun to understand. Every technological advance has had unexpected, and often times, negative consequences, so putting faith in the ability of technology to solve the problem is a little risky. For example, a lot of people have suggested carbon sequestration either in the ground or in the oceans. However, for example, pumping CO2 into pockets in the ocean increases PH levels, which causes the dissolution of shells on various sea creatures, a problem perhaps.
Your last paragraph is a little bit of an over simplification and is kind of insulting to anyone with half a brain. Temperature projections are based on a bit more than putting a ruler on a page and extending the line.
We are facing many environmental problems; at least at the moment people are noticing this one. Why I’m here arguing with small majority who have their heads in the sand is beyond me. I guess I needed some writing practice. But anyway, if you’re going to provide some actual scientific arguments disagreeing with the evidence that’s great but enough with the silly rhetoric that is being passed off as science in an attempt to confused and dumb down people.