The costs of inaction on climate change will be “catastrophic”, according to US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the impacts of global warming as “severe, pervasive and irreversible”.
He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate.
Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the report says.
Climate change is here now and it could lead to global conflict
No reaction from the IPCC to counter the alarmist claims there.
However should you not adhere to the new religious orthodoxy and dare to voice concerns about such alarmism the IPCC will instantly spring into action to correct your mis-aprehensions…via Bishop Hill:
The IPCC has issued a statement disputing some of the claims about the sexing up of the Summary for Policymakers made in the Mail on Sunday yesterday. This is the guts of it:
The Mail on Sunday also quotes some passages from the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers on migration and refugees, wars and conflicts, famine, and extreme weather, which it claims are “sexed up” from statements in the underlying report. In doing so it misleads the reader by distorting the carefully balanced language of the document.
For instance, the Mail on Sunday quotes the Summary as saying climate change will ‘increase risks of violent conflicts’. In fact the Summary says that climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying factors such as poverty and economic shocks. The Mail on Sunday says the Summary warns of negative impacts on crop yields, with warming responsible for lower yields of wheat, maize, soya and rice. In fact the Summary says that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts, with wheat and maize yields negatively affected in many regions and effects on rice and soybean yields smaller in major production regions.
The references to the underlying report cited by the Mail on Sunday in contrast to the Summary for Policymakers also give a completely misleading and distorted impression of the report through selective quotation. For instance the reference to “environmental migrants” is a sentence describing just one paper assessed in a chapter that cites over 500 papers – one of five chapters on which the statement in the Summary for Policymakers is based. A quoted sentence on the lack of a strong connection between warming and armed conflict is again taken from the description of just one paper in a chapter that assesses over 600 papers. A simple keyword search shows many references to publications and statements in the report showing the opposite conclusion, and supporting the statement in the Summary that “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence…”.
And look…here’s the BBC’s very own Matt McGrath doing the same for the IPCC…earning his nickname ‘Fido’…..I might have made that up….but a conclusion based upon analysis of the facts….
Climate report: Creating a sense of urgency or alarm?
Don’t be fooled…this isn’t McGarth doing real journalism and looking at the real science…it’s raising the usual straw man only to burn him later.
The staw man being poor old Dr Tol who seems to keep McGrath tapping away at his keyboard relentlessly…..
So is this [report] an alarmist step? asks McGrath.
Don’t be silly….it merely ” adds to the urgency rather than the alarm.”
McGarth tells us ‘The issue of alarmism was raised before the meeting by Prof Richard Tol, an economist who has long been a firm favourite of those who question the scale of climate impacts.’
Note the inclusion of ‘economist’….hmm…like Stern then….so quite qualified to talk about outcomes and scenarios then just as Stern is? And a bit snide that ‘long been a firm favourite of those who question the scale of climate impacts.’
Tol specialises in energy economics and environmental economics, with a particular interest in climate change, such as the economics of global warming. Previously, Tol was a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute. Before that, Tol was the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change and director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and board member of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg. Tol was a board member of the International Max Planck Research Schools on Earth System Modeling and Maritime Affairs and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. From 1998-2008 he was an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University‘s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and from 2010-2011 an adjunct professor at Trinity College, Dublin‘s Department of Economics.
How do you reconcile the world of purple embers with the one of warming benefits?
According to Dr Chris Field “We can use approaches to managing climate change as a way to build a better world, a world that is more robust, more secure, more vibrant…..and one of the things we need to do is open our eyes to the balances.
“If we’re dumb, it’s a serious, serious problem, and if we are smart it a serious problem, but one that we can manage.”
‘If we’re dumb?’ So McGrath is quite happy to ‘report’ someone’s abusive remarks about sceptics as being ‘dumb’ then?
Just remember Stern (and Bob Ward) is the paid for by Jeremy Grantham….you know the one who although he campaigns for a green planet and spends millions to attack climate sceptics and to push the AGW message says:
“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”
Nicholas Stern is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change