Greenhouse effect 'may benefit man' Climate change is 'a myth', sea levels are not rising and Britain's chief scientist is 'an embarrassment' for believing catastrophe is inevitable. These are the controversial views of a new London-based think-tank that will publish a report tomorrow attacking the apocalyptic view that man-made greenhouse gases will destroy the planet. The International Policy Network will publish its long-awaited study, claiming that the science warning of an environmental disaster caused by climate change is 'fatally flawed'. It will state that previous predictions of changes in sea level of a metre over the next 100 years were overestimates. Instead, the report will say that sea level rises will reach a maximum of just 20cms during the next century, adding that global warming could, in fact, benefit mankind by increasing fish stocks. The report's views closely mirror those held by many of President George Bush's senior advisers, who have been accused of derailing attempts to reach international agreement over how to prevent climate change. The report is set to cause controversy. The network, which has links with some of the President's advisers, has received cash donations from the US oil giant ExxonMobil, which has long lobbied against the climate change agenda. Exxon lists the donation as part of its 'climate change outreach' programme... Orwell? Only off by two decades.
I do agree with that. It is ridiculous to think that we will destroy the planet. we are definitely creating circumstances that will destroy mankind, but the planet will continue to go on after we are gone.
I think by "destroy the planet" they mean "destroy all life and ecosystems on the planet," but point taken.
No doubt the financing and motivation behind this report is slimy, but is the science necessarily wrong? I may be wrong, but I didn't think it was firmly established that climate change is a result of humanity, or that it can be stopped by humanity. And I have heard in other places the theory that a slight increase in temperatures might not matter or could actually be beneficial. I thought I had read that temperatures in Europe were significantly higher around the late middle ages and Renaissance and that this may have been a factor in having the necessary wealth to expand knowledge and trade. Again I'm not an expert, just saying what I have heard, feel free to prove this theory wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the majority of polar ice actually floating in (or on top of) the ocean? Quick 5 pt. trivia question: If you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts does the water level in the glass get higher or lower?
There is more than one pole, and the South Pole is ice on land. Furthermore, there's a little bit of ice in northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, etc.
The northern polar ice. The southern polar ice and all glaciers are atop land. But the dangers are not as much the potential rise in sea level as the potential for greater storm surges due to the changed energy system following a loss of the ice caps, which are actually more destructive than a nominal rise in sea level.
I'm with you on the ice, but wouldn't a 25 ft. rise in sea levels be more catastrophic than the occasional storm surge?
Well, I think the actual level of the rise is really an unknown, since with the increase of heat energy into the system (the melting of ice isn't just a by-product of the warming but help fuels the warming by removing the polar caps which presently reflect, rather than absorb, incredible amounts of energy which will now be sucked into the arctic ocean) we can also expect a higher amount of evaporation and rainfall, so while the melted ice and snow would increase the water level, the increase in atmosheric water and rainwater (which has to filter through the land-based water system before it ever gets back to the ocean) would decrease it. The problem is that we'd only be guessing at the actual results. The increase in violent storm surges, however, along with the increasingly violent hurricanes and typhoons, are a relative safe bet.
And Europe, above all UK, should control what the gulf stream does. If gulf stream weakens significantly or stops as it did already (for example - the well known younger dryas) western Europe would face much more cold winters. Probably not as cold as Canada (since the western part of any continent is warmer than the eastern part in northern emisphere) but very near. The danger is exactly the melting of ice in Greenland.
Nope, you'd guys will be flooded too soon and the Netherlands will turn out to be a big iceskating part. And we'll propably have dutch ppl here as refugees, Oh well... But if you bring your ice cream you can stay with me. Do you think you could bring some chockolate sauce, too? and I have a house at the Harz mountains, it will be safe there ;-)