where was I.
Oh yes 4 degrees Celsius.
Doesn't sound much does it? Might be quite pleasant to be 4 degrees warmer. Not as cold in winter, pleasant early spring, good summer. Wouldn't be too bad at all.
Except there's a wee price. France Italy and Spain would be deserts. Not all desert but enough to make it unlivable in the south. Oh and you can kiss North Africa goodbye.
Oh well, say American readers, that wouldn't really affect us. And you're right. You'd probably be too busy fighting for food because the grain belt all along the Great Plains would almost certainly dry up
And lets not forget over 1 BILLION people from India Bangladesh Pakistan Burma Vietnam etc etc who would be moving from dried up land.
Plus the wee problem of less land as sea levels would be up about 6 feet at least.
Scared yet? No? That's the upper limit of the IPCC speculation says you and isn't likely to happen.
Well yes that is in the upper limit of IPCC. The problem is IPCC is a document over which governments have control and if there is something they don't like they can have it removed.
Real climate scientists, who after all are the people who know, think it could be at least that and possibly much much worse.
The major problem is communication. Politicians are expert communicators. Most of them can fake complete honesty. Scientists are expert scientists. If you ask a scientist if there is any doubt in global warming theory he will say "Yes".
It's true. There is. How bad is it going to be? Exactly what will happen? That's the doubt in global warming theory. It's down to the world basically being chaotic especially the atmosphere which makes prediction and accurate measurements difficult and a well trained scientist will spend half a day making observations before he or she will admit it's raining. If they can't give you every exact detail, repeatable by experiment they'll tell you there is doubt.
I have actually heard a climate scientist admit that 3 weather events were down to climate change, which is most unusual. The only reason he admitted it was because all 3 events were beyond 3sigma.
Yeah, that's what I did as well. As I understand it that means that the chances of it not being connected to climate change were so remote as to make it probable they were connected. If that doesn't make sense, sorry it's the best I can do.
Politicians on the other hand, don't need stuff proved as long as they can make out you'll be better off with them. They can sound convincing without a clue what they're talking about and frankly take an extremely short view. The next election is a long time for them and in the meantime they have to make you feel warm and fuzzy so you'll vote for them again. They also have vested interests in big energy companies who either fund them or otherwise lovebomb them into seeing their short term profits as the most important issue.
Journalists in the mainstream generally report what they are handed by politicians so there is little wonder you may be a bit confused.
In part 3 I'll talk a bit more about where we are and where we could be heading. If I haven't scared you yet I might manage then.
In the meantime. please find out for yourself and PLEASE leave comments good or bad.
The solution to climate change is a very simple one & nature being what it is will implement it either before it's too late for mankind or after. The solution is depopulation. You know it & I know it, the nature of mankind prevents us from voluntarily taking less from our planet. The only time mankind as a whole will take less is when it is forced to do so.
ReplyDelete