Test Your Knowledge of Global Warming

[stiefnu]

The global warming movement has been stunningly unsuccessful in its overarching goal of slowing or reversing global warming. Assuming their track record continues and their most dire predictions come to pass, including rising sea levels, coastal areas will be threatened and evacuation and relocation becomes a very real issue.

But it hasn't been for want of trying to raise awareness of what the great majority of climate scientists have been saying, that our climate is changing.  I think we have found some common ground here, Bob, because I for one believe that we have reached the stage where our emphasis should now be on how to cope with what seems likely to happen (rising sea levels, for example, and the consequent inundation of low lying land already being experienced in Bangladesh, the Maldives and elsewhere), rather than fruitlessly fighting against the inevitable.

I don't recall any public discussion of thorium as a replacement

The development of nuclear power took place through the Cold War.  Depressingly, it seems that the reason thorium was overlooked was because uranium fueled reactors had one major advantage.  They could produce weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product...

Steve

[NIHILIST]

it hasn't been for want of trying to raise awareness

I spent 35 years in the advertising business as a media specialist and account manager. One of the first lessons I learned is that RAISING AWARENESS doesn't accomplish jackshit. The real goal should be raising levels of CONSIDERATION.

I think there's plenty of awareness of the GLOBAL WARMING BRAND. I don't think that there will be much in the way of consideration increase until the charlatans, self-serving shills, fast-buck artists and manipulators of data are weeded out.

On the other subject I certainly agree that weapons grade plutonium was the by-product that has fueled ( pun certainly intended ) the nuclear power industry from day 1.

THIS JUST IN:  Today Duke Power Co. , the owner of the nuke that I referred to, has thrown in the towel and will not restore the plant. It is currently considering replacing it with a natural gas plant at about 40% of the $ 3 billion that was budgeted for the nuke's repair.

Great news for the anti-nuke gang, but the downside is that the small county where the nuke is located will be decimated. Current estimate is 600 lost jobs and a decrease in Duke's property tax bill from $ 30 million to about $ 13 million. This of course will have a disastrous effect on county services.

But, hey, WTF, one less nuke to worry about.

Bob

[stiefnu]

A bridge is a physical structure, made of concrete and steel. You can touch it, drive on it, and engineers can examine it from all aspects with the most current technology.

...an interesting illustration, but it has flaws that render it false and inapplicable...

Let me try rewording the 99 engineers' warning to:  "We are very concerned about the stability of this bridge.  It's not behaving in a predictable way, we believe it's showing signs of unusual stress and we strongly advise you not to cross it."  Happier with that?

Steve

[NIHILIST]

If it was the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge I'd have found an alternate route.

Bob

[stiefnu]

If it was the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge I'd have found an alternate route.

Good decision!   

[Zorba]

How many years did NIHILIST spent on academic education in the natural sciences, and how many years did he work as a scientist?

Just because you spent your life in the advertising business mostly misleading people, does not mean everybody else does. You're projecting your own mindset onto climate scientists.

[Zorba]

Here's what the tens of thousands of highly educated scientists from all over the world, all sorts of religions, all sorts of political backgrounds, have to say about it:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

    The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
    "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
    If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Wow, that's interesting. American petroleum geologists were the longest lasting deniers. Gee I wonder how that happened.

The tobacco industry was also the last to admit that smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer, and back then you had all these (smoking) people tell you they had an uncle that lived until 95 smoking every day. Some still try to tell you smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Denial is a b#t#h!

[NIHILIST]

Let's suppose I agree with every dire prediction and warning offered up by the global warming industry.

Polar ice and massive inland glaciers will melt raising the ocean's levels to heights that would put major coastal areas underwater. This would wipe out cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle, etc. Maybe even Al Gore's new $ 5 million mansion on the California coast. Since, as I stated earlier, the global warming industry has been stunningly ineffective in getting the nations of the world to either accept their findings, act on them, or both, this scenario now seems likely, especially since this same group has admitted there's no immediate hope of REVERSING global warming, but that the best the world can hope for is to STABILIZE the current warming and hold it to an overall increase of about 2.5 degrees C.

I accept all of it, but..................... I have one troubling concern.

Armed with the certain knowledge of all these acclaimed scientists that this scenario WILL occur, what is their PLAN B ?

Where is the master plan out of the UN, the USA, Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, The Vatican or Albania that deals with evacuation and relocation of these populations soon to be underwater ?

The scenes of New Orleans underwater from Katrina and the ramifications of botched evacuation efforts are still all too fresh in our memories.

Am I the only one who thinks it's irresponsible that no such plan has been offered up in the face of the global warming industry's overwhelming consensus of rising sea levels and the unconscionable inaction of the nations of the world ?

When has the global warming industry ever put forth the OR ELSE scenario ? NEVER.

Why haven't they ? Because, IMHO, they DON'T BELIEVE THEIR OWN BULLSHIT !

The Kyoto protocol was agreed to in 1997, that's 16 effing years ago and basically nothing to show for it, certainly not enough in those  16 years to reverse the warming trend, so, we're all doomed to watery graves.

_{removed unrelated personal attack as per forum guidelines - Zorba}

Bob

[Zorba]

• There is no "global warming industry". There is a huge oil industry in the USA, however, and the USA produces an awful lot of greenhouse gases
• Whether major areas of land will flood depends of course on the actions taken against that. Apparently you are completely unaware that governments all over the world have already started programs for flood control, heightening and strengthening coastal defences, etc.
• The prediction (IPCC 2007)of the ocean level rise for this century is between 18-59cm (7 inches to 2 feet), so your remarks about "wiping out Los Angeles" etc. are just the ramblings of an apparently completely uninformed person.
• The findings in the reports of the IPCC have been generally accepted all over the world, by all sorts of scientists and scientific organizations but also by governments, and actions have been taken and plans are made on all continents. The IPCC reports have been very effective. Once again you seem to be completely uninformed about this, even though you could have learned this from my previous post.
• The predictions in the IPCC reports are indeed very certain that global warming will not be reversed any time soon, this is the first point in your post that you are right about. IPCC 2007 says "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."
• Asking climatologists for a "plan B" shows once again that you don't understand science. Climatologists are not politicians. They just study the climate, try to make the best measurements possible, try to understand their findings, create the best climate models possible, and based on that try to make the best predictions. It is up to mankind as a whole to respond to this, and this is where the realm of politics start, which is not science.
• There is no need for the kind of masterplan you ask for, as the populations you mention are not "soon to be underwater". Once again you seem terribly misinformed.
• Hurricanes like Katrina are not new and have always caused mass flooding when they hit low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC 2007 report calls it "likely" that the intensity of hurricanes might increase though, and a sea level rise will also increase chances of this happening, and increase the area that's flooded and the amount of flooding if nothing is done to prevent that.
• There is no "global warming industry"
• There is a lot of action taken, everywhere. Where it is enough action or not, is up for debate, and at least partly a political question, not a scientifical one.
• As pointed out above in various items, the bullshit is coming from you, as you are obviously uninformed and uneducated about this matter.
• The Kyoto protocol, although agreed on in 1997, only entered into force on 16 february 2005.
• Whether the Kyoto protocol has "basically nothing to show for" is debatable, since we can't be sure what would've happened without it. I would say, it is at least encouraging that Russia, the EU and the USA have more or less stabilised their anthropogenic carbon emissions over the last 2 decades.

Interesting reads for people that like to inform themselves:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2218 The Case Against the Skeptics
Stirring Up the Warming Debate
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html The Myth of "Saudi America"

and of course there's always wikipedia, a much more valuable source of information than the bubonic plague of extremist right wing american blogs where some  people seem to spend their time.

[NIHILIST]

There is no global warming industry

Jesus, now who's being naïve ?

Billions of dollars in research grants, the UN's own propaganda machine, the potential to make billions of dollars in carbon trading schemes. That, my friend, is an INDUSTRY.

I think your comments about water damage to coastal areas are a bit naïve also also. Did Dutch tv not carry footage of the massive flooding of New York City and the coastal areas of New Jersey ? If Superstorm Sandy is a result of global warming, and similar and even more severe storms are to follow, it only buttresses my point.

But my key point, unanswered by you or the global warming industry, remains WHERE IS THE BACKUP PLAN ? During Sandy those areas most affected were under evacuation orders. At what point does this become more permanent ? If ocean levels continue to rise and water encroachment in Manhattan only increases by an inch or 2 every year, then the writing is on the wall, isn't it ?

There is no need for the kind of masterplan you ask for, as the populations you mention are not "soon to be underwater".

Has the UN begun evacuation and relocation of the peoples of island nations that are even now threatened by rising sea levels ? I believe representatives of these island nations have been asking for just such a plan at the last two unproductive world climate summit meetings.

As for my being uninformed, that's why I rely on you. You were good enough to point out that I lack a formal education in science. Perhaps you can share with the group your curriculum vitae and numerous degrees you have received in science or climate study.

It's one thing to be uneducated in science and question issues based on common sense. It's quite another to be similarly uneducated and blindly accept everything you read like  nodding, drooling sheep. 

Bob

[stog]

it's a pity that people confuse Weather with Climate. The global average temperature is increasing. How else does ice melt? More heat in the atmosphere means more energy, more water bearing capacity, more evaporation and therefore more rain. Stalling jet streams and other large scale oscillations are being disrupted by decreasing ocean salinity, and that is making snow in winter. Basic physics.

this is a reader comment from an interesting bbc article "Are public attitudes to climate change as fickle as the weather?" 7/2/13

[moonshadow]

Let me try rewording the 99 engineers' warning to:  "We are very concerned about the stability of this bridge.  It's not behaving in a predictable way, we believe it's showing signs of unusual stress and we strongly advise you not to cross it."  Happier with that?

Steve

How can I be happier with that when you completely ignored the specific reasons I gave to show your illustration is completely invalid? What part of why your illustration fails do you not understand?

If you had understood why the basis of your illustration was a false equivalency and therefore completely irrelevant, you would have come up with another way of trying to make your point. (And exactly what is your point? How many billions of dollars of tax payer money are you wanting to spend?)

Structural engineering is HIGHLY predictable, climate science is HIGHLY UNPREDICTABLE.

Climate science is not snake oil, but compared to the science of structural engineering, its a lot closer to reading the entrails of a goat in terms of making reliable predictions.

[stiefnu]

moonshadow,

My reworded analogy seems a fair one.  The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing and the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as a major cause of this.  The skeptics are in a very significant minority.  My point is, quite obviously, that we ignore the considered advice of the majority at our peril.  I did not mention money.  However, I for one believe that investment (by individuals, not just by 'Big Government', though that would undoubtedly help) into alternative Green energy systems, transport systems, agriculture and the rest - would be a Good Thing.

As to your contention that structural engineering is highly predictable, this is usually so but, as an architect that worked with various engineers for many years, I can assure you that it is not always the case, especially when working with complex systems, using natural materials; for example, ancient timber structures.  This is why engineers routinely build in (sometimes to the annoyance of my profession) large safety factors into their designs.

For the last century or more humankind has been effectively carrying out a massive experiment on the planet, by incautiously altering its ecological balance, without any regard to its future.  Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Steve

[NIHILIST]

The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing

Only 99% ? I'd venture to say if you walked into any ghetto poolhall or urban Mc Donalds and asked those present " IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING " ? you'd get a 100% response. It's what the climate does, and the climate WILL change whether man burns coal or simply farts a lot to heat his home. What I find incredibly nonsensical and arrogant is that some scientists think humankind can somehow buy the weather by throwing billions of dollars at it.

At one time, only a few years ago, the opinion was that by spending enough money warming temperatures could be reversed. Now the global warming industry's mantra is that we need to spend all that money to stabilize temperatures and keep the increase to about 2-3 degrees C.

Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Back in 1968 millions of people listened to an eminent scientist named Paul Ehrlich. His best-selling book, THE POPULATION BOMB, scared the crap out of people, made a talk-show and cocktail party guru out of Ehrlich and made him the global warming guru of his day.

Ehrlich's book contended that population growth had rendered the Earth incapable of feeding its people and that huge famines and mass starvations were in our near future.

Early editions of The Population Bomb began with this cheery statement:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

Jesus, at least the global warming industry gave humankind a few years. Ehrlich waited til we were all fucked before he published his book.

One of Ehrlich's more elegant ideas regarding how to mitigate the coming misery stated, " Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which "were far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated.

Bye Bye, India.

Course, Ehrlich turned out to be just the latest nude emperor. His horror scenario never unfolded, India has a population of about 1.2 billion and is one of the world's most vibrant, growing economies.

As a final footnote, with more than a smidgen of irony, to the question put to him in 2004, "Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right?", Ehrlich responded, "I have always followed UN population projections as modified by the Population Reference Bureau -- so we never made "predictions," even though idiots think we have. When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year.

Population projections from a UN bureaucracy, peer review of his work, and the "consensus" of 58 academies of science and untold scientists. Doesn't that part sound just a bit too familiar ?

Bob

[moonshadow]

moonshadow,

My reworded analogy seems a fair one.  The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing and the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as a major cause of this.  The skeptics are in a very significant minority.  My point is, quite obviously, that we ignore the considered advice of the majority at our peril.  I did not mention money.  However, I for one believe that investment (by individuals, not just by 'Big Government', though that would undoubtedly help) into alternative Green energy systems, transport systems, agriculture and the rest - would be a Good Thing.

As to your contention that structural engineering is highly predictable, this is usually so but, as an architect that worked with various engineers for many years, I can assure you that it is not always the case, especially when working with complex systems, using natural materials; for example, ancient timber structures.  This is why engineers routinely build in (sometimes to the annoyance of my profession) large safety factors into their designs.

For the last century or more humankind has been effectively carrying out a massive experiment on the planet, by incautiously altering its ecological balance, without any regard to its future.  Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Steve

I am not making a blanket statement that structural engineering is highly predictable, which as you have pointed out is not always the case, but I am claiming that when compared to climate science it is highly predictable by several orders of magnitude, so much so that to equate the predictability of structural engineering in general with the predictability of climate science is not only a false equivalency, but quite ludicrous as the difference is so great.

As you suggest, let's listen to "people (climate scientists} whose job it is to study these things"

In response to the Met office release in December showing the latest global temperatures showing no change in the last 16 years, Prof Judith Curry, head of the the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university stated the computer  models used to predict future global warming are deeply flawed. To reiterate, DEEPLY FLAWED:

'Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.'

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the 'Climategate' scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – 'it could go on for a while'.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: 'We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don't know what natural variability is doing.'

So the people who study these things really don't know what to predict. It doesn't matter why, its just they don't know a great many things and by their own admission their computer models are not just flawed, but deeply so.

And also perhaps natural forces within nature are mitigating against anthropogenic Co2 emissions so as to re-establish equilibrium?

As you suggest, we should listen to these scientists and take them at their word. They don't know. They really don't.

Thank goodness structural engineers have a bit more confidence in being able to predict how to build bridges that won't come crashing down. 

Since you are determined to use this illustration, lets further reword it to be more closely aligned with the facts:

"We are very concerned about the reliability of our data about the reliability of this bridge.  Our computer models are deeply flawed and not behaving in a predictable way, so even though we believe the bridge will show signs of unusual stress in the future, its safe to use now so go ahead and cross, just keep in mind a maximum load limit of 5000 kilos per axle. " 

[diane]

And also perhaps natural forces within nature are mitigating against anthropogenic Co2 emissions so as to re-establish equilibrium?

As you suggest, we should listen to these scientists and take them at their word. They don't know. They really don't.

On the first comment, I really think it is...the ice will melt, the land will disappear, and the greatest plague to ever hit this planet will be wiped off the face of it. Then equilibrium will gradually return. Lets hope something more compassionate gets the upper hand next time. Hell, it might even spend long hours hypothesising about what wiped out the previously most successful species to dwell on this planet...maybe it was a meteor??

On the second - watch this...and particularly the last section...you can argue about the last 10 years, 16 years whatever...you need to look at a much bigger picture than that. Even this is small scale..but if it does this over the next 100 years, it will all be over for land dwellers.

This planet is changing so much now, that it may not be suitable for us any more - probably not too far into the future, maybe even your children's lifetime. You put as many Billion dollars into that as you think it is worth. Face it, you will have nothing to spend those Billions on when the stock exchange is under water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU

You can also get started on doing something that doesn't cost anything, and may even benefit your household budget - if every single over consumer of energy slowed it down a bit - well we could perhaps slow the march forward.

[Zorba]

Billions of dollars in research grants, the UN's own propaganda machine, the potential to make billions of dollars in carbon trading schemes. That, my friend, is an INDUSTRY.

If Superstorm Sandy is a result of global warming, and similar and even more severe storms are to follow, it only buttresses my point.

If ocean levels continue to rise and water encroachment in Manhattan only increases by an inch or 2 every year, then the writing is on the wall, isn't it ?

Has the UN begun evacuation and relocation of the peoples of island nations that are even now threatened by rising sea levels ?

It's one thing to be uneducated in science and question issues based on common sense.

• 
  I googled "global warming industry" and couldn't find one reference to it, other than those extremist right-wing blogs I mentioned earlier and a reference to this very thread, with your post. Nobody seems to use the term, outside lobbyists from the oil industry, an industry that is very real. If you want to lump scientists from all over the world together with politicians from all over the world and the UN, you're free to do so but it doesn't make your point any clearer.
  
• Individual weather events cannot be attributed to "global warming", as climate is by definition about long term. Science can at best try to determine whether such storms are more likely to occur as a result of global warming.
• The writing is indeed on the wall, that's why I mentioned in my previous post that all over the world actions is taken and plans are made to deal with sea level rise, that includes Manhattan, the Jersey Shore and many other parts of the USA, and also the Netherlands of course.
• The Maldives is considering buying land on the continent (f.i. India) for a feature (permanent) mass evacuation, as large parts of this country lie less than 2 metres above sea level. As sea level rise is a slow, gradual process, there is no reason to do this right away.
• You are not questioning issues about climate change, you just present your own personal right wing extremist "gut feelings" on the subject without properly informing yourself and get discredited for that.

[Zorba]

What I find incredibly nonsensical and arrogant is that some scientists think humankind can somehow buy the weather by throwing billions of dollars at it.

Can  you tell us which scientists have said such a thing and where and when?

At one time, only a few years ago, the opinion was that by spending enough money warming temperatures could be reversed.

Again, in which scientific report did you read this?

[Zorba]

moonshadow conveniently left out the following, and I even directly quote these from the article in his favourite newspaper The Daily Mail:

"Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions."

and

"...However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two."

Here's the real graph of world temperatures, rather than the hodge-podge the daily mail made out of it:



The green area represents the uncertainty margin.

But ah_clem already tackled this with his very clear example and explanation of what cherry picking in data sets lead to. I guess moonshadow missed that post.

[NIHILIST]

Good Lord, what do you think is the purpose of spending billions of dollars on climate research ? We know the sun warms things and the wind blows, and we learned that for free.

But if you want specific examples, I offer this..........

An international panel of scientists presented the United Nations with a sweeping, detailed plan on Tuesday to combat climate change — a challenge, it said, "to which civilization must rise."

After a two-year study, the 18-member group, representing 11 nations, offered scores of recommendations: from pouring billions more dollars into research and development of cleaner energy sources, to mobilizing U.N. and other agencies to help affected people,( do you think this might mean evacuation and relocation ? ) to winning political agreement on a global temperature "ceiling."

Tuesday's report said such research budgets worldwide are badly underfunded, and require a tripling or quadrupling, to $45 billion or $60 billion a year.

The end goal of all this is, of course, to change the climate, or, as I put it, to BUY THE CLIMATE.

This from UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the Recent Doha climate summit:

"Climate change is happening much, much faster than one would understand," he added. "The science has plainly made it clear: it is the human beings' behavior which caused climate change, therefore the solution must come from us."

Therefore, a global transfer of wealth is vital.  He stopped short of explicitly demanding a de-industrialization of the West, though.

Jesus, that was damned nice of him !

Dangerous climate effects could include flooding of coastal cities and island nations, ( still no evacuation plans ? ) disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species, according to the United Nations.

What's interesting about Ban's comment is that he doesn't talk about spending all those billions on additional climate research and solutions, he talks of a GLOBAL TRANSFER OF WEALTH. Who will this wealth be transferred to and for what purposes ?

What is it intended to accomplish ? Are there better climate scientists in Somalia than in Britain ? Better research facilities in Chad than in the USA ?

The deeper one digs, the more apparent the fraud becomes.

Bob

PS Zorba, with your advanced degrees in science and climatology the time seems ripe for you to file a grant application with the UN. You could do a massive report on how global warming will affect backgammon in the Netherlands.