backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Oct 25 at 11:50 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Droughts are also accused of being the work of evil old global warming

After a decade of flat temperatures and missed predictions by global warming's shrillest speculators, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is still ringing the alarm bell for all who care to listen.  While she lacks the evidence to prove it, in a recent interview she expressed that she was "sure" warming was to blame for a laundry list of recent natural disasters, including, but not limited to wildfires and droughts.

I. UN Chief Believes Warming is to Sure Warming Causes Wildfires

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of Time Warner Inc.'s (TWXCNN news agency, Ms. Figueres also expressed indignation at the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Abbot has referred to more extreme global warming predictions as "total crap" and pushed to repeal Australia's carbon tax, having disbanded the nation's climate change board in September.

Australia has recently suffered from raging wildfires, and Ms. Figueres was quick to seize on this point, stating:

We are really already paying the price of carbon.  We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with droughts.


She admitted, though:

The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet.  But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that there these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.

Australia wildfire
A wildfire rages in Australia. [Image Source: EPA]

It's worth noting that Mr. Figueres holds no degree in climate science (nor do most UN officials tasked with setting warming policy), having achieved a Master's Degree in social anthropology.  While this career politician may be unversed in climatology from a technical standpoint, she's not afraid of making bold and emotional claims.

II. Climate Chief was "Born Impatient"

In another recent interview -- this time with BBC News -- Ms. Figueres appeared to admit that she lacks the patience to wait for a thorough scientific study on the impact and extent of warming before taking action.  She is quoted as saying:

I am always frustrated by the pace of the negotiations, I was born impatient.  We are moving way, way too slowly, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what gives me courage and hope.
...
I'm committed to climate change because of future generations, it is not about us, right? We're out of here.  I just feel that it is so completely unfair and immoral what we are doing to future generations, we are condemning them before they are even born.  
We have a choice about it, that's the point, we have a choice.  If it were inevitable then so be it, but we have a choice to change the future we are going to give our children.

Christiana Figueres
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC executive secretary [Image Source: Getty Images]

Ms. Figueres -- who assumed her post at the UN in 2010 is currently working on drafting a global climate treaty, as per the decision reached at a 2011 summit in Durban, South Africa.  The treaty could look to implement carbon taxes, or other wealth redistribution measures supposedly aimed at "fighting warming", but it will have a tough road ahead, if temperatures remain flat over the next decade.

Sources: CNN, BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Trash Article
By Tony Swash on 10/23/2013 1:02:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
they throw a fit and use words like alarmism as their reason for why climate change doesn't exist. The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings. Climate change is real, it has already been proven by science.


Nobody claims that climate change is not happening. The two main issues are:

a) How much was the recent warm period at the end of the 20th century caused by human CO2 emissions and how much was it caused by natural climate fluctuation.

b) Are the risks of ongoing warming so great so as to justify the costs associated with significantly reducing CO2 emissions.

There is an ancillary controversy about how accurate the global land surface temperature is in the period prior to satellite measurements and thus how much warming there really was in the last 150 years but that is a much less important issue and usually revolves around arguments about a fraction of one degree C.

On point (a). The whole argument to support the theory that the bulk of the warming at the end of the 20th century was caused by human CO2 emissions is based upon climate models. The actual amount or rate of warming during the 20th century is not unusual by recent climate history standards and so the argument that it requires something other than natural factors (called forcings in climatologist speak) in order to be explained rests upon the various climate computer models that climatologists have built. These models claim to show that no known natural forcing agent could have caused the late 20th century warming and as it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which was increasing in the period in question the conclusion was reached by some that CO2 was the culprit.

What's important to bear in mind is that climate models are not evidence. Climate models are just theories written in the form of equations and algorithms and like all theories climate models require confirmation by comparison to actual real world data. Here the models have run into difficulty as the models confidently predicted a number of things, including an ongoing warming trend and a reduction in sea ice around Antarctica, which did not happen. Global temperatures have now not shown any warming trend for over 15 years even though CO2 has continued to rise and sea ice around Antarctica has not only grown but just recently reached a new all time record. So perfectly reasonable people are wondering just how good the climate models are and if they contain significant flaws then the foundation of the position that CO2 is the main driver of warming becomes very shaky indeed.

On point (b) even if CO2 is a major driver of warming the issue of the costs/benefits of decarbonisation is one that should be debated. If as looks likely the climate CO2 sensitivity is not as high as was feared then we have ample time to literally power ahead with global economic growth so that when we have to adapt to a significantly warmer world later in the century we will be doing so from a much stronger economic position. I think that anyone who looks at the statistics of global poverty must agree that global poverty, which is killing tens of millions right now every year, is the major issue facing humanity and an issue that can only be addressed by more growth, more energy and a greater exploitation of all energy sources including fossil fuels.


RE: Trash Article
By foxalopex on 10/23/2013 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that poverty isn't helping the situation at all. People who are poor have no choice but to destroy the environment to survive. When it comes down to the planet or their immediate ability to live, it's understandable that they would pick the latter.

BUT at the same time realize that exploiting all available resources will NOT help either. Due to the way our civilization is built, even if you exploited all the resources, there will always be the elite with an uneven share of the resources. They will simply take more at the top and leave the same mess to the folks at the bottom. I know a lot of folks would like to believe we left nature and the survival of the fittest law to nature but in many ways we still sadly live out that rule in our daily modern lives.


RE: Trash Article
By Dorkyman on 10/25/2013 11:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, Tony.

There's another factor: I think it was a study released in the UK a week or two ago that concluded that an increase in global temps would be a net GAIN for humanity, not a calamity. I haven't seen the study itself, only heard about it, but apparently it was very objectively written.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki