View Single Post
Old 26-08-2008, 12:10 AM   #10 (permalink)
habitaddict
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Party: UKIP
habitaddict is just starting out
Default Dissecting the Guardian article originally posted here

Contrast...
Climate change: Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist | Environment | The Guardian
with...
[b]...the chief scientific adviser to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs...
> Headline grabs, content does not. <

Finally, some sense...
...we don't know in detail how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to realise a 2 degree target, we should be prepared to adapt to 4C...
> Grow a palm tree? <

The EU is committed to limiting emissions globally...
> Outside their remit! <

...between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15 to 35% in Africa and 20 to 50% of animal and plant species would face extinction...
> All because of overpopulation. <

My own feeling is that if we get to a 4 degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase," said [Sir David] King.
> Care to back that up? <

We begin to have to talk about ordered retreat from some areas of Britain because it becomes impossible to defend...
> From the Taliban? <

Other experts were concerned that Watson's comments might be seen as defeatist and an admission that emissions reductions were impossible to achieve.
In fact, one of them said...
"There is no science on how we are going to adapt to 4 degrees warming. It is actually pretty alarming"
> Rank hypocrisy. <

Now let's identify the DEFRA guy.
...Watson [is]... ex-chief scientist at the World Bank.
> And they are climate experts??? <

And to top it all...
"The sulphur aerosols are actually preventing some warming from taking place currently...
This offsetting effect, which is equivalent to about 100 parts per million of carbon dioxide, will largely disappear if China and India follow the lead of the US and Europe in limiting sulphur emissions"

> Thus proving the global warming movement is all about hurting the poor in developing countries; they aren't allowed smog-free fuels because the greeny meanies say they can't have them.

I rest my case.

Last edited by habitaddict; 26-08-2008 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Tidy up the formatting tags
habitaddict is offline   Reply With Quote