"We're doing a wonderful experiment in global warming at the moment but by the time it gets through peer review there may not be many humans left on the planet," says Professor Peter Cullen of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.
He says in such situations, a scientist has an obligation to make predictions on the basis of existing knowledge, as "an experienced, well-informed observer", to help society decide what to do.
...
Climate change scientist Professor Matthew England of the University of New South Wales says he feels quite "comfortable" advising policymakers on what cuts should be made to greenhouse emissions but does not stray into the area of which energy sources to use.
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #620
2 hours ago
Posts
2 comments:
The temps would have to drop at least 8C for us to have to worry about the number of humans. DNA studies have shown that 70,000 years ago, the population may have dwindled down to mere thousands. With today's technologies and dispersment, a huge drop like that would still likely see at least several hundred million people survive.
The way things are, with Melbourne's average rainfall having already dropped to about 480 millimetres as against 643 between 1885 and 1996, there is simply no evidence that we can engage in scientific debate without serious cost.
Some scientists have suggested that further slight increases in carbon dioxide will completely wipe out the southern winter rainfall over Australia. That would leave Perth, which between 1885 and 1966 averaged a reliable 900mm of rain, with probably no more than 100mm.
As I see it, there needs to be a move away from debate to action. Australia should - given its ecological fragility - have achieved zero emissions and done developments to cut carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels long before any other country did anything.
Post a Comment