Scientists say it (again)

Scientists say it (again)

Submitted by Umesh Perinpanayagam on Thu, 24/09/2009 - 08:03

While John Key was arriving at the UN climate change summit in New York, 40 of the world's leading scientists were signing a open letter reiterating the call for developed nations to commit to a 40% emissions reduction target on 1990 levels by 2020.

The scientists, from across the world, including Jim Salinger and a number of New Zealand's other leading climate scientists, have signed the joint statement:

"The latest scientific evidence clearly shows that [developed countries] must increase their ambition and reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 to maintain a credible ambition of avoiding dangerous climate change."

"Developed countries have so far committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 10-16% by 2020, a level dangerously inconsistent with their commitment to the 2°C target."

 

The ABC reports: "The scientists say this week's United Nations climate talks in New York must lay out a plan for an agreement to be delivered at the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland is part of the group and says it’s vital politicians heed the advice from the world's scientific community. "If you look at the commitment as we go towards Copenhagen they're falling woefully short of what we need to do in terms of avoiding dangerous climate change," he said.

"[We're] really saying, wake up, this is a lot more serious than we think. When you look at the science and you look at the potential impacts of runaway climate change, there isn't any room for this argy bargy. It's a really serious matter."

Full text of open letter can be read here.

Share:
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo

Comments

Submitted by Joseph Barnett on Thu, 24/09/2009 - 23:26.

Meanwhile, one of the head climate scientists working for the IPCC, Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute, admits that the climate has in fact been cooling -

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

Do we hear about this in the media? Of course not; they'd rather trot out the same old global warming lie. Why won't someone listen to the truth for once? New Zealand needs to be a world leader and take a stand against this trading scheme - just say NO. Maybe then other countries will follow suit.

Vaclav Klaus from the Czech Republic gave an excellent speech to the UN this week as well, warning of the dangers of implementing this scheme with such little evidence. He said (in part) -

1. Contrary to the artificially and unjustifiably created worldwide
perception, the increase in global temperatures has been – in the last years, decades and centuries – very small in historical comparisons and practically negligible in its actual impact upon human béings and their activities.
2. The hypothetical threat connected with future global warming depends exclusively upon very speculative forecasts, not upon undeniable past experience and upon its trends and tendencies. These forecasts are based on relatively short time series of relevant variables and on forecasting models that have not been proved very reliable when attempting to explain past developments.
3. Contrary to many selfassured and selfserving proclamations, there is no scientific consensus about the causes of recent climate changes. An impartial observer must accept the fact that both sides of the dispute – the believers in man's dominant role in recent climate changes, as well as the supporters of the hypothesis about their mostly natural origin – offer arguments strong enough to be listened to carefully by the nonscientific community. To prematurely proclaim the victory of one group over another would be a tragic mistake and I am afraid we are making it.

Well said!

pic
Submitted by verena maeder on Fri, 25/09/2009 - 10:11.

joseph, you're still here... bummer. i see you write your blogs late at night, haven't you got better things to do??? maybe you should get a hot girlfriend and get some satisfaction in life...
what are you afraid of? a society that consumes less, uses sustainable energy and eats locally grown food? even if there was no such problem as global warming, we have to change our ways, mate. by mid this century there probally will be nearly twice as many of us, and if we carried on in our wasteful ways, there would just not be enough for everybody. it's time to get a bit smarter and respect the planet, for it is all we have, all we base our lives on. you mentioned that acting on climate change would drive us into poverty and we'll all end up living in slums... well, we all here are wealthier, better off and more spoilt than ever. we will have a great life even if we consume a bit less and re-connect a bit more to what sustains us. you don't fool me with your data and statistics you pluck off the net or out of thin air. it is plain obvious that we cannot sustain the current way of living, there has to be a shift, and there will be. the question is if we are clever enough to be part of that shift by futureproofing ourselves or if we'll just be forced to go on a rough ride.
if you are older than 50, please don't talk about this subject anymore. i am struck by the fact that most vehement climate change deniers are old buggers, who won't have to deal with the problem anyhow. i look at younger generations, our kids, and think of our grandkids. there is always a way out of recessions, but there is nowhere to go, if the resources have been used up and the environment is polluted. and these problems are only the start... global warming is bigger than that, and if there is only a slim chance that it might be happening, we should understand it as a wakeup-call to start behaving a bit more responsibly in general. fullstop. go to bed, joseph. we are tired of your blogs here.

Home ›