BEER will be short supply, more expensive and may taste different as climate change affects barley production, a scientist says.
2) If greenhouse gasses produced by mankind are behind the roughly one degree increase in temperature over the last century, then why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975 even though mankind’s production of greenhouse gasses was skyrocketing during that same time period?It’s a good read. I would recommend Mike Rann read it but I shouldn’t distract him from his current Poll problem
AS it is, the temperature projections (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does come up with in its fourth and latest report range from a rise in the global average temperature by the year 2100 of 1.8C for its lowest emissions scenario to one of 4C for its highest emissions scenario, with a mean increase of slightly under 3C. The average annual temperature in Helsinki is less than 5C. That in Singapore is in excess of 27C, a difference of more than 22C. If man can cope with that, it is not immediately apparent why he should not be able to adapt to a change of 3C when he is given 100 years in which to do so. Let us look at the gloomiest of the IPCC’s economic development scenarios, according to which living standards … would rise, in the absence of global warming, by 1 per cent a year in the developed world and by 2.3 per cent a year in the developing world. It can readily be calculated – using, to repeat, a cost of global warming (based on the gloomiest IPCC warning) of 3 per cent of GDP in the developed world and as much as 10 per cent in the developing world – that the disaster facing the planet is that our great-grandchildren in the developed world would, in 100 years, be only 2.6 times as well off as we are today, instead of 2.7 times; and that their contemporaries in the developing world would be only 8.5 times as well off as people in the developing world are today, instead of 9.5 times as well off. And this, remember, is the IPCC’s very worst case. The major cause of ill-health, and the deaths it brings, in the developing world is poverty. Faster economic growth means less poverty but – according to the man-made CO2 warming theory, incorporated in the IPCC’s scenarios – a warmer world. Warmer but richer is in fact healthier than colder but poorer. The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.I don’t think it’s a new age of unreason; I think unreason has been forced upon society several times by a number of new “We’ll all be doomed” religions over the last century; Climate Change is just the latest manifestation of certain zealots need to change us to their idea of a clever caring society I see no problems with society changing the way it treats the environment and there are lots of good reasons to pursue cleaner fuel but scaremongering and over reaction will not help at all.
The ABC announced this week that it would screen in July The Great Global Warming Swindle, which argues the main cause of warming is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun.So bring it on. I have yet to see conclusive proof that we humans are totally responsible for weather change and look forward to some balance in the arguement.
ABC science journalist and broadcaster Robyn Williams, who advised the TV division not to buy the program, yesterday accused the broadcaster of “verging on the irresponsible” over its decision to air something that was “demonstrably wrong”.Robyn Williams has obviously made up his mind after studying points for and against so is it OK if we plebs get the chance to see both sides of the arguement as well as we look to make up our mind. What is Robyn afraid of? If the show is “demonstrably wrong” then the vewers will see it and he will be proven right.
I worry about targets being plucked out of thin air without any analysis of the consequences for Australia’s economy. I worry about policies whose main target is a preference deal with Bob Brown and some cheap applause at a Labor Party conference.Spot on
A climate change business risk analyst, Karl Mallon, yesterday told a Sydney forum the cash value of a home would be cut by up to 80 per cent if it were deemed uninsurable for a severe weather event caused by global warming.There, that should do it. A climate change business risk analyst! Another industry has been spawned to mop up the otherwise unemployable naive and gullible. Maybe Rudd should get onto this. I can just see it now. If you re-elect Howard the value of your property will fall by 80%
“The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem.’ “Some more rational responses from Best of the Web Today. Reader Scott Jacobson questions Gore’s premise:
Overreacting is common among parents. I remember one morning when my first child was still an infant. Imagine my horror when I discovered that her temperature had risen to 99.5 degrees, almost a whole degree in just under 12 hours. Naturally, I immediately sat down and built a computer model, which clearly projected that by age 30, her temperature was going to be a staggering 19,710 degrees!And Kelly Murphy puts things in perspective nicely:
So let me see if I have this right. According to Al Gore, I would have to be an idiot to decide, after reading “a science-fiction novel” (he must be referring to “State of Fear”) that it’s OK to go about living my life in a normal fashion. Instead, I should see one science-fiction movie (his) and run screaming out of the theater prepared to change every aspect of my life to avoid certain destruction.Gore’s a fool but it’s amazing how many swallow the panic. I meant to say, you know, it’s true – I saw it on Channel 10.
Australians simply aren’t panicking enough. After Al Gore’s piece of theatre, Nicholas Stern’s “Pay out 9 trillion or your all dead” and Tim Flannery being appointed Aussie of the Year you’d think we’d get the message.
But no. More obviously needs to be done. Lets see…tell the Aussies that their beloved Great Barrier Reef will cease to exist in 20 years. Now that should bring them to the pews of the Church of Global Warming and Latter Day Alarmists on Sunday
From the Age
THE Great Barrier Reef will become functionally extinct in less than 20 years if global warming continues at its current pace, a draft international report warns.
A confidential draft of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), obtained by Melbourne’s The Age newspaper, says that global warming will cause billions of dollars of damage to coastal areas, key ecosystems and the farming sector without massive greenhouse gas emission cuts.
Not enough? Try this then. Kakadu and the Murray Darling basin will dry up and the alpine snow field will melt. Snow fields…mmm…that should panic the yuppies.
The fact that the rise in temperature over the past century has been in the order of 0.6C (plus or minus 0.2C) then we are looking at maybe 5 centuries before we have a problem; and that presumes that in all that time the human race couldn’t come up with an answer. They may even come up with a computer model that us sceptics can believe. Even if we double the rise in temperature rate then in 20 years the temperature in the Great Barrier Reef might rise as much as .12C.
The report quoted by the Age is to be released soon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In looking through the website I can’t see any mention of the Australia-specific disasters and think it may be Liz Minchin’s interpretation in an attempt to convert the public.
Sorry, not panicking or converted yet.