Slashdot Mirror
UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming
iONiUM (530420) writes "'The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.' A document was released by the IPCC outlining the current affects on climate change, and they are not good. For specific effects on humans: 'Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.'"
How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?
As often as it takes until people like you listen?
We are waiting for these anti-science people to listen to the evidence of evolution first.
I have found one non-scientific observation about climate change conferences, which I am quoting in full: "I just Googled 'climate change conferences 2014': New York - Sep. Beijing - May. Peru - Dec Brazil - May. Iceland - Jun. Bonn - Mar. Las Vegas - Jul. Queensland - Sep/Oct. Venezuela - Nov. By then I got bored. It would appear that the best way to see the world on expenses and rack up plenty of air-miles is to become a 'Climate Change Expert'.
How can we be living in a geologic ice age and be worried about global warming? And I watched a show on science channel the other night that said trees were becoming less dominant (giving way to grasses like bamboo) because the co2 level were so low. It makes little sense to me, it's either one or the other.
"I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS..."
But it isn't. That's a pretty blatant failure to get your facts straight.
It's a report written by politicians for other politicians. That's what the Summary for Policy Makers IS. If you knew anything at all about the IPCC reports, you would know this.
And why do you think they release the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM... it's in the very name of the linked file) before they release the actual report? Because their SPM is deliberately alarmist in nature, and people pay attention to that before looking at the actual science... if they ever do.
Your post is mostly logically fallacious.
The good news is that the parts that aren't logically biased are factually wrong.
I know you are stupid and small mined, byt many people aren't. We need to focus on practical solutions. The longer we wait the more expensive it gets.
China is working towards cleaner energies and have started implementing them.
Many other 3rd world countries are also working on clean energies.
Try think in number bigger then 2.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
25% reduction in corn yields. 30% increase in amount of no-longer-frozen land. Seems obvious to me: grow the corn in other places.
But hey, I'm all for it. My country gets huge benefits from global warming -- not that we saw any this winter. So I'm rooting for it. Improved economy, improved agriculture, improved tourism, improved fitness, reduced road costs, improved health, reduced traffic accidents, increased real-estate, vast amounts of new land. . .the list goes on and on.
So either way, I don't care about this analysis. Bring on global warming, a good 500 million of us are looking forward to it, and have been waiting for centuries.
"Really, the sky is falling! Really truly, we mean it this time. Don't pay attention to the previous reports that predicted the end of glaciers, an ice-free arctic, etc by around now, we were slightly off. But this time, we're absolutely positive the sky is falling.
Really.
Seriously."
-Styopa