Slashdot Mirror
Global Investment Firm Warns 7.8 Degrees of Global Warming Is Possible (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A leading British global investment firm has a warning for its clients: If we keep consuming oil and gas at current rates, our planet is on course to experience a rise in global average temperatures of nearly 8 Celsius (14 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. This would make Earth basically uninhabitable for humans. Although this is the darkest scenario we've seen so far, there's reason for cautious optimism: the new projections point out that it's unlikely investors will simply ignore this risk, meaning that our present level of fossil fuel consumption could decrease. Still, by current climate research standards, this is a pretty wild number. It is four times as high as the "safe limit" for increasing temperatures caused by climate change, internationally recognized to be around 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Schroders, the British investment firm which controls assets worth $542 billion, released this forecast as part of a range of potential scenarios in its "Climate Progress Dashboard" in late July.
What do they know about climate change? If they are so concerned about it, how about invest in projects to combat it.
Investment firms are neither notable climate experts nor are they noted for their devotion to selfless ethics. Follow the money. I'll bet that they have huge positions in "green" companies and/or renewable energy, and they are hoping to drive those markets higher.
Alternatively (or maybe additionally), they may think that this will get them more publicity than standard advertising, and hence a lot of new clients who believe that your investment strategy can save you from an uninhabitable planet.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
That's an interesting point, good catch.
Yep! And it pretty much makes those headlines screaming about "hottest year ever!" seem rather suspicious, doesn't it? It's hotter not because the days are getting hotter, but we're not getting as cold. That's the hard, straight-ahead fact.
At the same time, that's a figure for the lower 48 states... I know Americans are full of themselves, but you understand that global warming is a planetary thing, right?
Can you point to a climate record where that of the US lower 48 doesn't match the trends of other similar sized areas? In terms of temperature, typically what happens across the US (basically all the temperate region of the North American Continent) also happens across the world...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
1. Notice that lots of people are making decisions based on the Global Warming hype, and that it's still believed by many but out of the news cycle for a few months.
2. Put together investment vehicles based on its expected effects. Sell a few to establish a low current price.
3. Publish a new global warming warning, bringing people's attention to the issue, spurring interest in the investment vehicles, and raising their price.
4. Point out that their price is rising, getting more people to buy them. Sell a few more but not enough to bring the price back down.
5. Profit!
6. Get a bubble going, with the price ramping up exponentially.
7. Once the bubble is inflated, sell off a bunch more, dumping the inflated paper and taking the money off the table. (Maybe buy some puts while you're at it. Do that through a different organization to avoid raising claims of securities fraud.)
8. BIG PROFIT!
9. Once the bubble collapses, exercise (or sell) the puts.
10. STILL MORE PROFIT!
This kind of thing has been going on for centuries. See _Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_.
Using global warming as the driver has the advantage that governments are strongly bought-in to the idea and prosecuting a securities fraud based on it would also discredit the idea they're trying to push. So if the investment vehicles are not obviously fraudulent in some other way, things that could actually be expected to actually increase in value if catastrophic global warming did occur, the operators of the scheme would have more than just plausible deniability. They'd be doing exactly what financial service companies are supposed to do (identify or create investments that would pay off in an expected situation and sell them to those who expect that situation so THEY can profit if they're right) and expected to do (promote their product with publicity).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The more appropriate extinction event to compare with is the End-Permian Extinction. That was caused by essentially burning fossil fuels, because lava got in contact with much of the then-existing seams of coal.
Right now we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster pace than the volcanism did back then, and we are less likely to accidentally leave rich coal seams untouched.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
It's 12 fucking paragraphs until the article admits the real prediction from the source is only 4.1 degrees. Which, by the way, comes from an (unweighted!) average of 12 different scenarios which aren't even described meaningfully, let alone are the methods for arriving at the numbers explained. The entire point of this seems to be to give people a scary chart to include in their powerpoint presentations.
Just the fact that there is zero attempt to assign any probability to any of the 12 scenarios to actually come up with a meaningful prediction tells me this is garbage compiled by someone with no clue.
Not to mention all other plants and animals because this change is happening 1000x faster than previous ones.