London Times weighs in on man-made “global warming” conference

Loading

In my yesterday post on the AGW “skeptic” conference underway in NYC, I said I’d be on media watch.

Well, today the London Times weighs in on a conference… but it isn’t the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Instead they choose to highlight an upcoming conference this week in Copenhagen, totally ignoring the competing conference of skeptics.

There is a 50-50 chance of temperature rises reaching dangerous levels over the next century, climate scientists have warned.

Even with heavy cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 3 per cent a year from 2015, the chance of preventing the temperature rise from exceeding 2C by 2050 is no more than half. And every decade’s delay in reducing emissions will cause temperatures to go up by half a degree.

European leaders have made a commitment to limiting rises to 2C because anything above that is expected to damage people’s lives and the environment. A 2C increase would in itself cause more heat waves and droughts, many of which could be worse than the 2003 heat wave, which killed thousands of people across Europe.

The warning by researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, will be made this week at a conference in Copenhagen, which is being held in preparation for a United Nations summit in the city in December, when world leaders will try to agree how to cut gas emissions enough to control climate change.


Jason Lowe, of the Hadley Centre, will present findings showing that gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, should peak by 2015 and fall 3 per cent annually until 2050 if they are to be reduced to half of those in 1990.

The 50 per cent cut by 2050 is seen widely as the minimum necessary for the EU to have a reasonable expectation of limiting temperature rises to 2C. Legislation in Britain imposes a minimum cut in emissions of 80 per cent by 2050.

Dr Lowe is expected to say that if emissions peak in 2015 but are reduced at a rate of only 1 per cent annually, the temperature rise will be 2.9C. If emissions peak in 2035 the average temperature will rise by 4C above pre-industrial levels. Failure to cut emissions at all could leave temperatures to rise by 7.1C by the end of the century.

Scientists fear that temperature rises above 2C would lead to wars over key resources, including water supplies, falls in crop yields in southern Europe and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Almost a third of animal and plant species could become extinct. Warm-water corals are among the species most at risk; animals that will struggle to survive include polar bears and emperor penguins.

Before leaving for Copenhagen, Dr Lowe said: “If global warming continues unabated then the risks of even greater warming are increased, making climate change more dangerous.”

Meanwhile, Live Science’s senior writer, Andrea Thompson published an article today about how all that carbon dioxide we are emitting is thinning the shells of microscopic animals in the ocean. Again, not even a whisper of dissenting voices about CO2 levels.

The Guardian did, however, did put out an article covering the Czech President’s presence at the convention. However half of the article is devoted to the dissenting side…. those that say the skeptics are the largest problem facing the global warming movement.

Okay….

Chutzpah…. again, the media is intent on stifling debate by ignoring that debate.

If I’m missing some MSM coverage on the skeptic conference, do feel free to add the links in the comments. But you may have to dig furiously to find some…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Did Dr. Lowe make a prediction of how much temperature would increase over the last 10 years? If so, how did that work out? I don’t know about Dr, Lowe’s predictions, but the ones I have seen were totally wrong. Since the temperature predictions have not been accurate, how do the Europeans know how much they need to reduce CO2 emissions to keep the temperature increase to 2C? Based on what has happened over my lifetime (72 years) they don’t need to do anything with regards to CO2 emission, particularly since whatever effect atmospheric CO2 has on temperature, it is a logarithmatic function.

For the record: I am Pro Global Warming!