The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings

This is the title of the latest article from Graham Readfearn at the Guardian. For me, I think an equally acceptable one would be…

25 years with our heads in the sand. Not even ostriches are stupid enough to do that.

Anyway, Graham writes…

The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago.

Entire island nations “rendered uninhabitable”, millions of people to be displaced by floods and rising seas, uncertainties over global food supplies and severe impacts on human health across the world.

The news from the United Nations on the likely impacts of climate change is dire, especially for the poorest people on the planet.

There will likely be more floods, more droughts and more intense heatwaves, says the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As human emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, natural ecosystems come under extreme stress with “significant” knock-on effects for societies….

Read the full article here.




About these ads


Filed under Climate Change

4 responses to “The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings

  1. Then commentaries on scientific reports are overwhelming as to climate heating, I have looked at blogs such as Autonomous Mind, who are as a readership and political ideology, completely against this possibility, how is it the well educated are adamant in refuting this possibility? why?

    • I don’t know enough about that blog to really have a say but in my experience, there are plenty of blogs ot there with supposedly intelligent people writing all sorts of stuff, but here’s the thing, climate science is science and there are far too many people without scientific training who, with a good gift of the gab, are able to fool laypeople into rejecting the overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and global warming. It’s the same with evolution, vaccination, fluoridation etc. These people with their usually rightwing ideological bent shove any bullshit they come across that supports their ideology onto unsuspecting, gullible people who may already have a general distrust of authority. They will try to sound scientific and usually do, to laypeople, but those of us who actually are scientists find ourselves facepalming constantly at the mistakes, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and mischief these apparently educated but manipulative people engage in. To accurately describe in this space the different types of denial and deniers is difficult, but I can roughly sort them into three groups. 1. People with a vested interest. These include some fringe scientists, polluters, politicians, who stand to benefit either monetarily or politically or both. 2. Ideologues. These are the politicians and their rusted on supporters who have to seemingly engage in monumental feats of wilful ignorance and confirmation bias to maintain their beliefs 3. Anti-establishment types. These people have a distrust of politicians, scientisits, anybody in authority. They will blindly accept anything that is marketed to them as anti establishment, do a bit of googling and become instant experts. There is a lot of overlap between these three basic categories and for all intents and purposes, many of these people are intelligent. It doesn’t mean they are right. Science as a process, is intrinsically sceptical and unbiased in that it isn’t affected by ideology or money (despite what deniers will tell you), is evidenced based, and isn’t interested in politics or opinion.

      • Thanks for your work and time applied to my question, it is illuminating that you have analysed this question and also making three areas of concern that you have identified, also the disturbing aspect I find is individuals who are reasonable educated can and will become adverse to scientific observation, research comes from a wide area of scientific research, and could not be colluding as one body of a deviant collective to fool the public, moreover, why would the motive of a collusive front be devisive, for what?