Un terç del planeta serà desert el 2100, segons un informe d'experts britànics:
"We're talking about 30 per cent of the world's land surface becoming essentially uninhabitable in terms of agricultural production in the space of a few decades," Mark Lynas, the author of High Tide, the first major account of the visible effects of global warming around the world, said. "These are parts of the world where hundreds of millions of people will no longer be able to feed themselves."El catastrofisme ven. I els que reben els beneficis directes d’aquesta venda interessada són els polítics, els mitjans de comunicació i els científics, i no necessàriament per aquest ordre. L’anunci del nou apocalipsi que arriba espanta els ciutadans i els predisposa a acceptar que els governs assumeixin més poders per front a l’amenaça i que hi destinin més diners, en una acció preventiva contra les emissions de CO2 que eviti o palii la catàstrofe anunciada. D’aquesta manera, els científics obtenen més diners per a la recerca, que d’altra manera no tindrien. Els polítics obtenen més poder i més diners per manegar que d’altra manera tindrien més difícil d’obtenir i els mitjans de comunicació augmenten les audiències i els ingressos publicitaris. Un nego rodó.
Hi ha consens científic sobre el canvi climàtic per la senzilla raó que el clima ha variat, i molt, al llarg de tota la vida del planeta Terra. Ningú no nega que el clima canvii o pugui canviar. El que es discuteix és si els canvis climàtics que es prediuen són naturals o provocats per l’activitat humana, o per les dues coses alhora. I saber-ho, no és un petit detall sense importància. És crucial per evitar, si és dona el cas, l’abast de la suposada catàstrofe. Si destinem grans quantitats de diners a lluitar contra una cosa que no afecta a l’escalfament, o hi afecta molt poc, estem fent un mal negoci. Pel contrari, si destinem aquests diners a que els països pobres es desenvolupin, tots tindrem més recursos per fer front a les catàstrofes naturals que puguin venir.
JunkScience comenta les informacions de la cimera de Monterrey:
"Study warns of stark costs of failing to counter climate change as leaders meet" - "Gordon Brown is about to publish a ground-breaking study which will warn the world that it faces paying multi-trillion pound economic costs if it does not move urgently to act on climate change." (The Guardian)
Beckett's error in this piece is not understanding her own statement: "It is sound economic sense to respond to climate change and economic nonsense not to." Exactly! We should respond to climate change by adaptation. What we most assuredly should not do is squander vast resources vainly attempting to tweak the global thermostat -- something we cannot knowingly and predictable do.
"Investors take the lead to help save the planet" - "Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing the planet. Scientific evidence shows that temperature changes are likely to have profoundly negative consequences for human society, the global economy and the world’s natural systems. This poses risks and opportunities to which investors and companies must respond.
Tackling climate change will hinge on the investment decisions made by institutional investors. Pension funds, insurance companies and other institutional investors hold approximately half of the shares listed on the London Stock Exchange. Other big markets around the world have similar concentrations of ownership.
How quickly these institutions move their investments from high-carbon to low-carbon companies will, to a large extent, determine our success in mitigating global warming. These investors’ decisions will turn on assessments of the longevity of oil and gas fields; the ownership and control of energy supplies; the effectiveness of any regulations to control carbon emissions; the profitability of emerging low-carbon technologies and carbon capture techniques; and the willingness of consumers to change their lifestyles." (Douglas Ferrans and Peter Scales, Financial Times)
Actually, by the IPCC's estimate, "The global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century." This is smaller than the error margin estimating the global mean temperature of 14 ± 0.7 °C, a metric devoid of specification. Ignoring the question of whether such a small warming since the Little Ice Age is in any way harmful, I was moved to ask the following:
"Why should investors believe the small warming possible from human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause massive positive feedback and large, catastrophic warming when much greater warming such as the 1997/98 El Niño event did not? The National Climatic Data Center annual means show the world as warming 3.8 °C from January to July every year (11.6 °C for land surface measures) -- a warming in excess of the IPCC median scenario of 3 °C by 2100 -- without any indication of the warming feedback mechanisms supposedly due from the 0.25 °C warming physically possible from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Please tell us why we should spend any money or avoid any profit to supposedly address a 'problem' the world demonstrates that it ignores each and every year."
It will be interesting to see if they have an answer. Perhaps you'd like to ask them a question too? -- Ed."Cosmic rays may solve global warming problem" - "Cosmic events could help soften the impact of global warming by triggering cloud formations, suggests research published yesterday. A team of Danish scientists concluded in the Proceedings of the Royal Society that making clouds is plausible, using the Sun's magnetic field. The Sun has been at its strongest for more than 60 years and a period of high solar activity could be approaching its end. "This would produce a cooling effect that could counter part of the global warming predicted for the next century," said Dr Jens Olaf Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Centre." (London Telegraph)
