Climate change may cause civilization to collapse
July 13th, 2009 - 12:05 pm ICT by ANI
- Washington, July 13 (ANI): The biggest single report to look at the future of the planet has said that due to climate change, “billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilization will collapse”.
The stark warning from the report has been obtained by The Independent, ahead of its official publication next month.
The impact of the global recession is a key theme in the report, with researchers warning that global clean energy, food availability, poverty and the growth of democracy around the world are at “risk of getting worse due to the recession”.
“Too many greedy and deceitful decisions led to a world recession and demonstrated the international interdependence of economics and ethics,” the report added.
Although the future has been looking better for most of the world over the past 20 years, the global recession has lowered the State of the Future Index for the next 10 years.
Half the world could face violence and unrest due to severe unemployment combined with scarce water, food and energy supplies and the cumulative effects of climate change, according to the report.
“The scope and scale of the future effects of climate change - ranging from changes in weather patterns to loss of livelihoods and disappearing states - has unprecedented implications for political and social stability,” it added.
The immediate problems are rising food and energy prices, shortages of water and increasing migrations due to political, environmental and economic conditions, which could plunge half the world into social instability and violence.
Organized crime is flourishing, with a global income estimated at 3 trillion dollars, which is twice the military budget of all countries in the world combined.
The effects of climate change are worsening, with predictions suggesting that by 2025, there could be three billion people without adequate water as the population rises still further.
Massive urbanization, increased encroachment on animal territory, and concentrated livestock production could trigger new pandemics.
Although government and business leaders are responding more seriously to the global environmental situation, it continues to get worse, according to the report.
It calls on governments to work to 10-year plans to tackle growing threats to human survival, targeting particularly the US and China, which need to apply the sort of effort and resources that put men on the Moon.
“This is not only important for the environment; it is also a strategy to increase the likelihood of international peace. Without some agreement, it will be difficult to get the kind of global coherence needed to address climate change seriously,” it concluded. (ANI)
Sphere: Related ContentRelated Stories
- Climate change to kill a quarter million children - Nov 04, 2009
- Obama puts climate on top of diplomatic agenda with India, China - Sep 22, 2009
- Climate change threatens Asia's farming, energy security - Oct 02, 2009
- World Bank releases report on development, climate change - Oct 11, 2009
- Progress too slow to meet 2015 development goals: UN - Jul 06, 2009
- Big impact of climate change on India's farm yields: World Bank - May 25, 2009
- Climate change can triggers wars, warns expert - Aug 22, 2008
- Climate change may reduce South Asia GDP 4-5 percent: World Bank - Sep 16, 2009
- "Green" and "blue" water to reduce future food crises - May 06, 2009
- Generate energy in greener ways, World Bank urges India - Sep 16, 2009
- adequate water- - cumulative effects
- - economics and ethics
- - effects of climate change
- - energy food
- - energy prices
- - energy supplies
- - food availability
- - global income
- - global recession
- - growth of democracy
- - half the world
- - massive urbanization
- - military budget
- - scarce water
- - social instability
- - social stability
- - water food
- - weather patterns
- - world recession
Posted in Health Science, |
July 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved. None of the computer models replicate this fact.
The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.