Quote:

THE World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by 4 degrees this century, leading to more extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and increased flooding, possibly as early as 2060. In a report released in the lead-up to the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says 4 degrees' warming would have devastating effects across the globe, and the poor would be most vulnerable. The bank tied the future wealth of the planet to immediate efforts to cut emissions from sources such as energy production. Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/catastrophic-warming-to-hit-poor-says-world-bank-20121119-29m9b.html#ixzz2CgoganXW

Yeah well the reef wont handle it either so thats bad news for everyone not just poor ppl.

SOB

4 degrees is unthinkable....  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

MOTR wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 3:13am:

Quote: THE World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by 4 degrees this century, leading to more extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and increased flooding, possibly as early as 2060. In a report released in the lead-up to the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says 4 degrees' warming would have devastating effects across the globe, and the poor would be most vulnerable. The bank tied the future wealth of the planet to immediate efforts to cut emissions from sources such as energy production. Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/catastrophic-warming-to-hit-poor-says-world-bank-20121119-29m9b.html#ixzz2CgoganXW

So the world bank has branched out into climate science now?????

I'd have suggested they stick to banking, at least  until they can do that right.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2j5mlj9.png

lol love it. the world bank now holds scientists in its vaults.

Dam..... :D the idiots that lap this stuff up.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 6:23pm:

lol love it. the world bank now holds scientists in its vaults. Dam..... :D the idiots that lap this stuff up.

Your naivety is breathtaking, progs. Professionals use the advice of experts. Armchair scientists outsource their thinking to shills and charlatans.

JC Denton wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 6:20pm:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2j5mlj9.png

::)

we'd be halfway to solving our energy problems if we could harvest the wind between your ears.

4 Deg is probably already locked in, what we are currently doing is trying to moderate the following increases.

... wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 6:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 3:13am: Quote: THE World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by 4 degrees this century, leading to more extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and increased flooding, possibly as early as 2060. In a report released in the lead-up to the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says 4 degrees' warming would have devastating effects across the globe, and the poor would be most vulnerable. The bank tied the future wealth of the planet to immediate efforts to cut emissions from sources such as energy production. Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/catastrophic-warming-to-hit-poor-says-world-bank-20121119-29m9b.html#ixzz2CgoganXW So the world bank has branched out into climate science now????? I'd have suggested they stick to banking, at least  until they can do that right.

Well, in recent years, the IMF's record on Economic "fixes" is batting about zero.

So perhaps, they are trying to improve their batting average , by going into something that they know even less about, like Climate Change?

Perhaps strangely or just coincidentally, they may boost their batting average, because Climate Change is certain to be one of the major Economic influences/drivers over the next 50-100 years.

That said, the leading edge of change is already here, now!

World Bank: Climate change could cause massive damage

"This report is non-science," says climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science. He says the 4-degree warming is an "implausible outlier."

David Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees. He also says the World Bank's recommendations, including redirecting money now spent on fossil-fuel subsidies toward solar and wind energy production, could ultimately do more harm than good for developing countries.

"Proposing energy killing climate policies for the emerging economies is like telling the emaciated to start their diet now because they may become overweight in 90 years," Kretuzer says.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 11:31pm:

World Bank: Climate change could cause massive damage "This report is non-science," says climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science. He says the 4-degree warming is an "implausible outlier." David Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees. He also says the World Bank's recommendations, including redirecting money now spent on fossil-fuel subsidies toward solar and wind energy production, could ultimately do more harm than good for developing countries. "Proposing energy killing climate policies for the emerging economies is like telling the emaciated to start their diet now because they may become overweight in 90 years," Kretuzer says. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/

Yet the World Bank's call to action echoes the urgency of other major studies. Earlier this month, at the request of the CIA, a report by the National Research Council warned that climate change is accelerating and could place unprecedented strains on U.S. military and intelligence agencies. Also this month, the International Energy Agency said the world has only about five years to make changes to avert climate change's most severe impacts.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/
=================================
Interesting & from the same article, Progs.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 11:31pm:

World Bank: Climate change could cause massive damage "This report is non-science," says climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science. He says the 4-degree warming is an "implausible outlier." David Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees. He also says the World Bank's recommendations, including redirecting money now spent on fossil-fuel subsidies toward solar and wind energy production, could ultimately do more harm than good for developing countries. "Proposing energy killing climate policies for the emerging economies is like telling the emaciated to start their diet now because they may become overweight in 90 years," Kretuzer says. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/

Quote:

According to a January 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled "Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: how ExxonMobil uses big tobacco to manufacture uncertainty on climate science," Michaels is connected to more than 11 think-tanks and associations that have received money from ExxonMobil, many of which have gone on to sow doubt about human-induced global warming. Michaels has also admitted that "40 percent" of his funding comes from the oil industry.

http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

Meet Patrick Michaels, climatologist and well known shill for the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc&sns=em

See how he fares against one of the world's pre-eminent climatologists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwPnz3AJ0qQ&sns=em

Michaels represents a minority view amongst climate scientists. He is one of the 3% of climate scientists who command 72% of the media coverage in the US.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/97_Climate_Experts_500.jpg

Don't be a mushroom.

http://changingminds.org/images/kubler_ross.gif


FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!
FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!


FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!
FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!


FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!
FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!


FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!
FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!

FOR BETTER OR WORSE I HEREBY ANNOUNCE MY SKEPTICISM/SHOCK/PROBABLE DISBELIEF AT A 4 DEGREES POSSIBLE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2100!



8-) 8-)

MOTR wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 1:31am:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/97_Climate_Experts_500.jpg Don't be a mushroom.

"I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite. 

"Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.

“This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

"In a world where politicians (UK) went to war in Iraq based on a ‘sexed’ up dodgy dossier plagiarised from a 12 year old PhD thesis. I wonder how confident they would be lecturing the public about the need for radical decarbonising economic climate polices, if they were aware that the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper cites?

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

"I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

"There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

You've copied and pasted this rubbish from Watts once before. I'm pretty sure I supplied a couple of other studies that support the 97%. I guess you weren't listening.

JC Denton wrote on Nov 21^st, 2012 at 6:20pm:

humongous image

What have 3rd worlders in australia got to do with it?

SOB

The 97% is utter BS

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 5:30am:

The 97% is utter BS

You're right. It's probably closer to 98%

warming is inevitable.
the yanks and the chinese and the indians are only interested in their economies.
they will not even consider doing anything to reduce carbon emissions or push up the price of energy.

only wankers like rudd and the greens cant see this.

it doesnt matter if the greens are right or not, this is not the point.

humans are selfish and they will never turn off their air conditioners in australia to help prevent flooding in bangladesh.
NEVER
forget it, it aint gunna happen

Air conditioning causes flooding in Bangladesh? well I'll be buggered! I'm going to turn mine up full blast  8-)

MOTR wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 3:13am:

Quote: the Bank says 4 degrees' warming would have devastating effects across the globe, and the poor would be most vulnerable. The bank tied the future wealth of the planet to immediate efforts to cut emissions from sources such as energy production. Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/catastrophic-warming-to-hit-poor-says-world-bank-20121119-29m9b.html#ixzz2CgoganXW

There is an alternative.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I couldn't agree more, old chap. A well-seasoned hindquarter of tinted meat is far more succulent than pork. Do you think we should round them into herds and farm them?

I do think that this would be a fine solution to world poverty, don't you?

Marvelous stuff.

MOTR wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 4:28am:

You've copied and pasted this rubbish from Watts once before. I'm pretty sure I supplied a couple of other studies that support the 97%. I guess you weren't listening.

Which part is "rubbish" exactly?

Are you saying this is all a lie:

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

"I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

"There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.”

Are you now ignoring what these scientists say?

Why is that?

You love to quote the 97% figure, yet you totally ignore what the scientists involved in the survey actually say?  Why is it all of a sudden "rubbish"?

aquascoot wrote on Nov 24^th, 2012 at 8:45am:

warming is inevitable. the yanks and the chinese and the indians are only interested in their economies. they will not even consider doing anything to reduce carbon emissions or push up the price of energy. only wankers like rudd and the greens cant see this. it doesnt matter if the greens are right or not, this is not the point. humans are selfish and they will never turn off their air conditioners in australia to help prevent flooding in bangladesh. NEVER forget it, it aint gunna happen

Why is abbott trying to cut emissions??

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

MOTR wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 3:13am: Quote: the Bank says 4 degrees' warming would have devastating effects across the globe, and the poor would be most vulnerable. The bank tied the future wealth of the planet to immediate efforts to cut emissions from sources such as energy production. Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/catastrophic-warming-to-hit-poor-says-world-bank-20121119-29m9b.html#ixzz2CgoganXW There is an alternative. I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

wtf??  :o

It's a recipe death.
You obviously don't read the Womans Weekly mag. :)