Cutting greenhouse gases and switching to sustainable development are
unlikely to prevent disasters caused by climate change, one of the
world's respected environmentalists has warned.
Professor James Lovelock, an independent environmental scientist,
claims that even the most pessimistic outcomes predicted by the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fail to recognise the speed
with which global warming will progress.
In a speech he was due to give yesterday, Professor Lovelock describes
how he has arrived at an "apocalyptic view" of the future, in which 6
billion to 8 billion people face diminishing food and water supplies
in an increasingly intolerable climate.
The panel's final report on the extent of global warming concluded
that average global temperatures could rise by as much as 6.4C by the
end of the century if carbon emissions continue to increase. A rise of
four degrees was most likely, the panel said.
But Professor Lovelock said the panel's report "gives the impression
that global heating is serious but the worst consequences are
avoidable if we take appropriate action now. Sadly, even the most
pessimistic of the climate prophets of the IPCC panel do not appear to
have noticed how rapidly the climate is changing".
He believes computer models used by panel scientists underestimate the
magnitude of climate change by failing to consider the world as an
entity in which living organisms inextricably feed into the
Professor Lovelock refers to a study he published in Nature in 1994,
which attempted to model a "live Earth", where ocean and land
organisms have a strong bearing on climate.
The study revealed that if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached
500 parts per million (ppm), global temperatures would rise rapidly by
six degrees. The panel's calculations suggest about a two-degree rise
for the same CO2 levels. The atmospheric level of CO2 stands at
380ppm, rising 2ppm a year.
"We are at war with the Earth and as in a blitzkrieg, events proceed
faster than we can respond ... For this reason alone, it is probably too
late for sustainable development," he said.
Professor Lovelock is similarly gloomy over cuts in carbon dioxide
emissions, and "implementing Kyoto or some super-Kyoto is most
unlikely to succeed".
I really don't know how to respond to your posting, but I will try
my best, since my vocabulary is limited.
First we all know that UNITED NATION Organization is full crap
To start with, they can't agree with each other on smallest things
And we are thinking that they will agree on something major for better
of man kind, I think we would be asking too much!
Now if we are to ask from them to minimize or cut back on some things
"Like?" and let start in USA
Do we need car recess? I think not!
Do we need gas guzzler for show and rich? I think not!
D we need cell phones for people that are not in business? I think not!
Do we need Ipads, which generate microwave that heats atmosphere? I think
Do we need building extending into clouds? I think not!
Do we need whores having babes out of wedlock on tax payer expense? I think
Do we need individual swimming pools that require heating? I think not!
Do we need people in general having dozen kids that can't afford?
To clothe or feed one? I think not!
Do we need building/factories in middle of no way so that public
Is not obtainable? I think not!
Do we need for factories to be moving at taxpayer expense from on part of?
Country to the other? I think not!
Do we need a country that permitting families have dozen kids but yet?
They are unable to feed or clothe one? I think not!
Do we need going into space moving the earth out of its orbit?
Sorry I think not!
Do we need all those satellites in orbit and more going up? I think not!
Yes we can go on and on but that would be point less so let me close
My respond to you and those whom might read it, "a quote from old man"
MAN IS GOING TO OUT SMART HIMSELF TO DESTRUCTION
May not be now, might not be tomorrow but it is on
Tony? from me to all of you
<simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Just so you know where the real danger is.
AmeriKKKa's 9 trillion in RepubliKKKan created debt is no threat to me.
And neither is the 11 trillion projected debt by the time the Bush Failure
leaves office. And neither is the 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities the
U.S. has saddled itself with, or the failure of the U.S. poltiical system,
or the failure of the U.S. education system.
The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. is dead as a nation, is
hostage to it's own debt, has outsourced itself into irrelevance, and is now
hated on the world stage.
During the 90's the U.S. had positioned itself as a necessary parasite on
the other nations. But now even that economic niche is not available, and
parasites are always loathed.