Jump to content
Green Blog
Chris Keenan
Chris Keenan

Newsflash: Global Warming Is Real

In a recent British report, it is claimed that hundreds of millions of people might find themselves trapped in bad environments due to the effects of global warming. The report was issued by the United Kingdom's government committee the Foresight Group, which is led by Sir John Bennington.

According to Bennington, “Millions will migrate into, rather than away from, areas of environmental vulnerability ... An even bigger policy challenge will be the millions who are trapped in dangerous conditions and unable to move to safety."

According to the report Migration and Global Environmental Change, between 114 million and 192 million people will have moved to urban areas of Asia and Africa by 2060. Despite the environmental changes the earth is going through, scientists explain that there isn't reason to panic just yet. “Migration can be a good option. It is a way of adapting to climate change,†explains Neil Adger, who works as a professor of environmental economics. “We should be planning for migration pro-actively, to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place for people.â€

The scientists in the Foresight Group have also said that developing countries should be helped now, while there is still time to support them before more drastic changes start taking place in the environment.

In related news, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study was recently released, which found that global warming is real. This study is somewhat different from others because it was independently conducted, non-profit (in fact, it had been funded by many skeptics), and open source. Also, the report includes a great amount of data and information results and records concerning the earth's temperature that were compiled from more than 39,000 weather stations around the world.

The Berkeley study’s findings corroborated with what other studies had previously found and showed: the earth’s temperatures are indeed getting warmer and warmer each year. Yet despite all of the statistics and facts, a number of people still insist that global warming is a myth, that information has been distorted and tampered with, and that all of this is part of an elaborate hoax.

Hopefully as the earth continues to increase in temperature and the environmental repercussions like the melting of the polar ice caps continue to make themselves evident, skeptics will realize that global warming is indeed real and that green living is one way to combat it on an individual level. Then again, some people will likely still be in denial, even when Alaska is hotter than a garage door in Guam.

What are your thoughts on the Berkeley and Foresight Group studies? Be sure to let us know, in the comments below!


User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Sure, move people away from those areas that will be the worst affected by global warming, but this isn’t going to solve the very real problem that we and our environment are facing. We need to start to consider ways of reversing the trend. We could try implementing a global environmental tax, which would see businesses everywhere investing in a global green agenda. We could also try rolling out the use of fusion power, which provides a near-limitless, pollution free and cheap source of energy. So far, fusion power is only being tested in the South of France, with the creation of the first fusion power generator (ITER). We could also try a number of “techno-fixesâ€, such as absorbing plankton and growing artificial trees in order to aid the environment. Inevitably, what’s already done cannot largely be undone, however we need to put more effort into doing what we can to halt global warming, rather than just burying our heads and hiding away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is happening? well no s$it Sherlock! ;) I think part of the issue here is a failure of the many deniers to understand a basic concept of scientific "uncertainty". There is never 100% certainty in any science. Gravity remember is still just a “theory†(and deniers who doubt this theory I’d advise to take a jump off something high and you’ll be pleasantly surprised to discover that much about what we know about gravity is accurate ;0 ). 100% certainty in anything is called “faith†which has nothing to do with science. So its normal for there to be some grey areas of doubt when it comes to any science nor indeed is there anything strange about there being 1 or 2 scientists in the wings who disagree with the mainstream view (problem is they’re usually wrong!). One or two data sets contradicting the mainstream is not unheard of, in fact its perfectly normal, but much be weighted up against the overwhelming evidence supporting that mainstream view. I discuss this further in this post: http://daryan.blog.co.uk/2011/02/11/anti-science-part-ii-science-under-attack-10567629/ Furthermore there is the precautionary principle to consider. That says that if you detect a reasonable high risk of a calamity occurring, then rather than waiting around for that risk to be proven correct (by a pile of dead bodies potentially) you act accordingly to offset that risk. I propose that the IPCC has provided more than ample evidence for us to invoke this principle. Again I discuss the precautionary principle here: http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/the-precautionary-principle/ So if the deniers are to be taken seriously then they have to not only conclusively prove the planet isn’t warming (which means coming up with many vast reams of data in support, not one or two badly drawn graphs full of school boy errors) and more importantly explain why all the present research supporting AGW is wrong (hint, that would pretty much involve overturning many centuries of research into climatology, geology and chemistry!). In short the onus is on the deniers to prove AGW wrong, its not the IPCC’s job to prove its 100% right (as that’s a physical impossibility). They have even come close to trying to do that, indeed I would argue they’ve often merely strengthen the case in favour of AGW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.C. I would just correct you on a factual point, ITER is more of a proof of concept device than an actually prototype fusion powerplant. It will only run for a maximum of 1,000 seconds at a time and its not actually planned that it will generate any electricity. Those objectives require a further wait for the follow on DEMO plant and the commercial protype PROTO, which probably won't be up and running till the 2060's by my reckoning.....if we're lucky! I think I discussed this further here: http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/11/a-critical-analysis-of-future-nuclear-reactors-designs/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. To find out more, please read our Privacy Policy. By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.