Wednesday, June 6, 2012

"The end of the world" - Part MCXVII

Published today in Nature and expanded here by the Canadian connection:
Using scientific theories, toy ecosystem modeling and paleontological evidence as a crystal ball, 21 scientists, including one from Simon Fraser University, predict we’re on a much worse collision course with Mother Nature than currently thought. [Oooh! "scientific theories", "toy modeling", "evidence", "21 scientists". How can we doubt it?]

In 'Approaching a state-shift in Earth’s biosphere', a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise span a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet’s ecosystems are careering towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.
... says Mooers. “My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth’s history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified.”
Run for the hills!

These clowns never give up. The predictions of doom are sounding ever more panicky. 

I smell Rio + 20 coming on.


Alain said...

I agree with JR and I also smell another socialist scam to remove money from productive countries.

climatecriminal said...

and I'm sure none of these Einsteins use fossil fuels or fossil fuel products in their lives right?

JohnnyD said...

Fortunately, people are waking up to the lies and deceit. So where are the millions of "climate refugees"? Why isn't the Arctic melting? Where are the hurricanes? Why didn't the seas rise?

Anon1152 said...

The seas are rising. The arctic is melting. As for hurricanes, I have heard that models had predicted fewer hurricanes in general but more severe hurricanes. But I digress.

I'd like to read the actual article and see their data. Through the link you provide, it looks like that would cost 32 dollars. Too rich for my blood and bank account. I guess I'll have to visit the library...

I will say that I'm inclined to trust climate scientists when it comes to climate science. Policy is a different matter. In the other link you provide they say: "Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly" and "Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term."

I can't say I agree with that. But that's about the policy, not the science.

JR said...

Anon1152: ...I'm inclined to trust climate scientists when it comes to climate science.

Ordinarily I would be too, Anon, but many of the "scientists" controlling the AGW message via the UN IPCC (eg. Michael Mann, James Hansen, the East Anglia CRU crew, etc have proven to be more political than "scientist". They have gone out of their way to suppress those whose science contradicts the UN's "official" one-note story.

the end of the world 2012 said...

few disasters may happen but the whole world will not get destroyed.