Global Investment Firm Warns 7.8 Degrees of Global Warming Is Possible (vice.com) 292
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A leading British global investment firm has a warning for its clients: If we keep consuming oil and gas at current rates, our planet is on course to experience a rise in global average temperatures of nearly 8 Celsius (14 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. This would make Earth basically uninhabitable for humans. Although this is the darkest scenario we've seen so far, there's reason for cautious optimism: the new projections point out that it's unlikely investors will simply ignore this risk, meaning that our present level of fossil fuel consumption could decrease. Still, by current climate research standards, this is a pretty wild number. It is four times as high as the "safe limit" for increasing temperatures caused by climate change, internationally recognized to be around 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Schroders, the British investment firm which controls assets worth $542 billion, released this forecast as part of a range of potential scenarios in its "Climate Progress Dashboard" in late July.
Northern Greenland Inc. Stock Spikes (Score:5, Funny)
...Stock Spikes (Score:2)
Re:Northern Greenland Inc. Stock Spikes (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody disagrees the Earth will make it through this.
It's modern human society we're less confident of.
Re:Northern Greenland Inc. Stock Spikes (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention all other plants and animals because this change is happening 1000x faster than previous ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Aaah yes, I'd forgotten that a million years is faster than a couple hundred years. Thanks AC!
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK another name for that event is "the great dying". Can we please try to avoid a repeat of that? At least to me, it doesn't sound like a good time...
Lets assume TFA is correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Give us a solution which does not include a massive program of redistributing wealth to tyrants and dictators, from wealthier countries who do have a sense of altruism. The program must be globally agreed to and followed since countries like India, China, and Russia have been steadily increasing pollution and industrialization, not reducing it. The solution must be moral, meaning not cause undo harm to innocents.
I don't want to hear what China promised, because they are simply not good at keeping promises
Re: (Score:3)
That is a ridiculous statement. History shows exactly what are most dangerous things that humans can do to themselves.
First, nothing. The human population is so large, the peace is so stable (as never before) that any assumptions that currently existing trends will lead to human extermination are ridiculous.
The most dangerous is still a nuclear self-annihilation. But the past showed us that we have already a multilevel system of preventing it.
Caribbean incident, other incidents show exactly we are capable o
Re:Northern Greenland Inc. Stock Spikes (Score:5, Insightful)
If this biome map [blueplanetbiomes.org] is still accurate then a rise of 8C/14F is not going to mean the world is uninhabitable. The equatorial region might be too much but there's plenty of land with highest summer temperatures below 72F/22C so the increase won't make those areas too hot for humans.
Habitable land isn't the biggest problem. Arable and fertile land is. A drastic shift in global temperature would make a large portion of our fertile lands unable to grow crops. Existing unarable land would not magically become fertile. Billions of people would still die even though there may be plenty of habitable land left on the planet.
Bullshit! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. It pays off to alter your investments to avoid being negatively impacted by climate change, or to gain a positive impact (shipping in the far north), or to position yourself to build new infrastructure to avoid / compensate for climate change.
That doesn't mean you can't also invest in things that are bad for the climate. I.e. if you invest in coal - which makes it warmer, and also in companies building AC units - which makes it possible to live where one now have more extreme temperature highs,
An investment firm? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If they are so concerned about it, how about invest in projects to combat it.
They're in business to make money, so this could be their way of trying to do that. They need something in which to invest in order to act (or function) and someone has to be willing to pay for such a project before they can do that, because it has to be profitable.
Re: An investment firm? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about this particular investment firm, but investment and insurance firms are actually quite well equipped to think about risk, which is really what climate change is about from a financial perspective. They inherently need to be able to think rationally about climate predictions, assess the statistics/uncertainties behind them, and come to conclusions about where and how to invest in the long run. For example, what's the risk/reward for an investment firm to invest in an African company if there's an X% chance that company's location will be uninhabitable in 50 years? Or if climate change leads to social/political instability in the area?
For insurance companies, climate predictions tell them how much risk is involved in, for example, real estate purchases on the Florida coast as sea levels rise and extreme weather events increase in frequency.
For them it's all about probabilities - what is the probability that climate scientists are qualitatively right, and if they are, what are the chances of the particular predicted consequences being accurate (and how accurate). Actuaries crunch those numbers and advise their companies to make risk/reward decisions based off of them. One of the hardest parts about these predictions isn't the actual environmental impact, but the social consequences of it, which can have massive financial impacts.
In terms of what the companies know specifically about climate change, I'm guessing they have scientific consultant teams that provide the expertise they need.
Re: An investment firm? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't broken logic at all, they actually do think about all of those topics when it's appropriate. For example, a health insurance company does want to know what cancer research is going on, to assess what future treatments might cost, how likely those treatments are to result in permanent remission vs temporary, etc.
To be clear, they're not "running" anything. I'm not saying that they have in house climate scientists, or oncologists, or neuroscientists. I'm saying that they have the resources (e.g. through scientific consulting, literature studies, etc) to get informed about the current knowledge of topics that affect their investments, then make predictions based on that knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it's a much harder problem than most they've encountered. But there's a vast amount climate change research for them go to through, and now there's actually is a good bit of historical data for them sift through and compare to models. Albeit not as much as other datasets, but it is growing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Why are we listening to what random non-scientists say might happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's what people have been doing since the dawn of time?
Re: (Score:2)
What do they know about climate change? If they are so concerned about it, how about invest in projects to combat it.
... and then people will accuse them of having an ulterior motive, hyping climate change in order to boost their investments. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. They're in it for the cash, just like what happened in Ontario with all the companies who were "invested in it." Now of course that the bottom has fallen out of the market, and people are pissed off that their electricity prices are through the roof. They're fleeing as fast as they can, and taking the jobs with them.
Extrapolation Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're on our way to a lethal +8C world, that's bad news. But the world is a reflexive system. If we kill ourselves off at +4C, say, human greenhouse gas production ceases, and (after a long lag) the world finds a new stable point without us. So there's a tendency for the world to self-correct. On the other hand, there may be positive feedbacks (tipping points) that push us all the way to a Venus scenario. The moral is, it's a complex non-linear system, and straight line extrapolations are almost certainly wrong when they go far beyond historical experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>The ever-increasing output of our parent star says you're wrong.
The logical 'bet' is 100% on 'planet toasted to a crisp', though I think there's still some debate as to whether it will actually be absorbed by the Sun or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way if you actually look at the long term it will be very cold indeed, "toasted to a crisp" is pretty short term if looking at the whole of existence.
Re: (Score:2)
>Either way if you actually look at the long term it will be very cold indeed,
Good point... but temperature is more or less relative, right? So even if the eventual state of the universe is a near-0K homogeneous quantum foam everything should be 'lukewarm', because nothing will be relatively hot or relatively cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we get in to philosophy rather than science... if the temperature drops and nobody is around to feel it, is it still cold?
A venus scenario won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget, the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs essentially torched most of the plant life on earth dumping quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere + heat far greater than we could ever manage short of nuclear war. Yet the earth still recovered.
However that doesn't mean we can't cause temperatures to rise beyond which agriculture becomes impossible over a large proportion of the leading to mass famine and war.
Re:A venus scenario won't happen (Score:5, Interesting)
The more appropriate extinction event to compare with is the End-Permian Extinction [theatlantic.com]. That was caused by essentially burning fossil fuels, because lava got in contact with much of the then-existing seams of coal.
Right now we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster pace than the volcanism did back then, and we are less likely to accidentally leave rich coal seams untouched.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more appropriate extinction event to compare with is the End-Permian Extinction [theatlantic.com]. That was caused by essentially burning fossil fuels, because lava got in contact with much of the then-existing seams of coal.
Right now we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster pace than the volcanism did back then, and we are less likely to accidentally leave rich coal seams untouched.
Not even close buddy. Lol.
The world back then was mostly tropical before the traps started and the lava flows extended thousands upon thousands of kilometers. It burned through coal and forests at an almost Continental level. Scientists say not only did it warm over 14C but acid rain hit and killed as much plant and marine life as the temperate surge. While acid rain is prevalent in places like China today it is not nearly so bad it kills all plant life.
I would even argue (since this is slashdot a real scie
Re: (Score:2)
I would even argue (since this is slashdot a real scientist can please correct me if I am wrong), that the recent medieval warming period was hotter than today!
Or was it? [skepticalscience.com]
Records show farms in Greenland by the Vikings and wineries in Scotland
Even if this was true (I'm not quite sure of the current interpretation of the historical record), this is a very select part of the world. The global average includes more than just two or three places that bothered to take some records.
Maybe not 8C warmer for sure, but yes warmer than today's weather by far.
Hell, no.
Re: (Score:2)
It also didn't manage to kill all mammals which didn't have modern technology to help them survive inhospitable climates... Or even clean water.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs essentially torched most of the plant life on earth dumping quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere + heat far greater than we could ever manage short of nuclear war. Yet the earth still recovered.
...ahem... And the dinosaurs recovered quite well, did they?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, judging by all those droppings on my car.
Re: (Score:3)
If we're on our way to a lethal +8C world, that's bad news. But the world is a reflexive system. If we kill ourselves off at +4C, say, human greenhouse gas production ceases, and (after a long lag) the world finds a new stable point without us. So there's a tendency for the world to self-correct. On the other hand, there may be positive feedbacks (tipping points) that push us all the way to a Venus scenario. The moral is, it's a complex non-linear system, and straight line extrapolations are almost certainly wrong when they go far beyond historical experience.
We would survive fine. True the deserts of Africa are already close to inhabitable but most of the land in Russia, Canada, Alaska, Nordic countries, New Zealand, and maybe even Antartica once the glaciers melt away will go from Tunda/Tiagra to continental. There are large land masses today that are in the chilly boreal or tundra zones which are poor farming with anything besides berries which will soon be able to grow wheat and maybe even corn and other crops
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, more land on earth is uninhabitable because it is too cold than the area uninhabitable because it's too warm.
In fact, some of the hottest places on the earth are fairly densely populated (Las Vegas, Dubai) whereas the coldest places are very loosely populated with small contingents of crazy scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> If we kill ourselves off at +4C
Seriously?
We're not getting hotter (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: We're not getting hotter (Score:5, Informative)
What you're seeing there in the 20's/30's is the dust bowl that wreaked havoc on the central US during that time (high heat, vast drought). It is really interesting to see that. But it was a regional effect. Globally the story is different.
A related important point was well explained recently by NYT: extreme high temperature events are increasing in frequency.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
Re: We're not getting hotter (Score:5, Informative)
What you're seeing there in the 20's/30's is the dust bowl that wreaked havoc on the central US during that time (high heat, vast drought). It is really interesting to see that. But it was a regional effect. Globally the story is different.
Really? I'd love to see that, because, just like this graph from teh American Institute of Physics [aip.org] pretty much all 20th century tempurature records have a big warming throughout the 203s and 30s, then switched to cooling through the 40s to mid 70s.
A related important point was well explained recently by NYT: extreme high temperature events are increasing in frequency.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
That is the claim, but the report the NY Times uses states the exact opposite. Look at that "leaked" report, and check page 287. The number of extreme high temperature days has not increased; it's the average lows that have increased. That raises the average, but if anything it points to a lessening of the extremes of tempurature. Lows aren't as low, and highs are slightly less high.
Re: We're not getting hotter (Score:5, Informative)
The point of the NYT article is that the data clearly says that hot weather extremes have been increasing and cold weather extremes have been decreasing. That's not really debatable, it's hard numbers.
I'm currently looking for global daytime temperature trends and will update soon. The US data, while interesting isn't necessarily speaking to global trends, and the warming/cooling trends are highly inhomogeneous. In fact the graph you point to specifically says that the Southern Hemisphere didn't see that cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what you asked for - a detailed analysis of diurnal trends globally (and northern hemisphere, and US):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [wiley.com]
The important data (in my opinion) is in Figure 1(a). Note that the Tmax time derivative (K/decade) is positive globally and for all seasons in the NH. The Tmin time derivative is more positive than that of Tmax, which is saying that the nights have been warming more quickly than days. But both have been rising.
The second major point is shown in Table 1. The Tmax
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to be overly critical because honestly I'm not certain what your trying to argue but I'm not sure why you think there is a difference. I'm not exactly ringing the dooms bell but even I can see the faulty logic in this statement. If you take a window of time and have warmer lows during that window the average temperature for that window will be warmer than previous years. If over the course time this trend continues you will be demonstrating that additional energy (in the form of heat) has in
Re:We're not getting hotter (Score:4, Interesting)
That's an interesting point, good catch.
Yep! And it pretty much makes those headlines screaming about "hottest year ever!" seem rather suspicious, doesn't it? It's hotter not because the days are getting hotter, but we're not getting as cold. That's the hard, straight-ahead fact.
At the same time, that's a figure for the lower 48 states... I know Americans are full of themselves, but you understand that global warming is a planetary thing, right?
Can you point to a climate record where that of the US lower 48 doesn't match the trends of other similar sized areas? In terms of temperature, typically what happens across the US (basically all the temperate region of the North American Continent) also happens across the world...
Re: We're not getting hotter (Score:2)
That's simply not true. The climate behavior in the US is NOT representative of the rest of the world. Climate patterns are highly inhomogeneous across the planet. Look at any animated temperature map and its glaringly obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
That is like 1.8 degrees more than Kevin Bacon (Score:4, Funny)
As always, follow the money... (Score:5, Interesting)
Investment firms are neither notable climate experts nor are they noted for their devotion to selfless ethics. Follow the money. I'll bet that they have huge positions in "green" companies and/or renewable energy, and they are hoping to drive those markets higher.
Alternatively (or maybe additionally), they may think that this will get them more publicity than standard advertising, and hence a lot of new clients who believe that your investment strategy can save you from an uninhabitable planet.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's doubtful an investment firm p
Potential (Score:3)
Schroders, the British investment firm which controls assets worth $542 billion, released this forecast as part of a range of potential scenarios in its "Climate Progress Dashboard" in late July.
How to get rich off the panic. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Notice that lots of people are making decisions based on the Global Warming hype, and that it's still believed by many but out of the news cycle for a few months.
2. Put together investment vehicles based on its expected effects. Sell a few to establish a low current price.
3. Publish a new global warming warning, bringing people's attention to the issue, spurring interest in the investment vehicles, and raising their price.
4. Point out that their price is rising, getting more people to buy them. Sell a few more but not enough to bring the price back down.
5. Profit!
6. Get a bubble going, with the price ramping up exponentially.
7. Once the bubble is inflated, sell off a bunch more, dumping the inflated paper and taking the money off the table. (Maybe buy some puts while you're at it. Do that through a different organization to avoid raising claims of securities fraud.)
8. BIG PROFIT!
9. Once the bubble collapses, exercise (or sell) the puts.
10. STILL MORE PROFIT!
This kind of thing has been going on for centuries. See _Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_.
Using global warming as the driver has the advantage that governments are strongly bought-in to the idea and prosecuting a securities fraud based on it would also discredit the idea they're trying to push. So if the investment vehicles are not obviously fraudulent in some other way, things that could actually be expected to actually increase in value if catastrophic global warming did occur, the operators of the scheme would have more than just plausible deniability. They'd be doing exactly what financial service companies are supposed to do (identify or create investments that would pay off in an expected situation and sell them to those who expect that situation so THEY can profit if they're right) and expected to do (promote their product with publicity).
Really? (Score:2)
We're taking science advice from a firm that makes economic forecasts
We're taking sceicne advice from a company that doesn't even take responsibility for their predictions because the responsibility is on the consumer
Of course my investment firm likes to call me up with great economic forecasts... they just so happen to coincide with businesses they've been paid to promote or have their own interests in. With full disclosure, of cours
A good and necessary step (Score:4, Informative)
In the few comments here so far there's a lot of naysaying. I totally sympathize with that, given that big business a) is often talking out of its ass when it comes to science and b) is largely responsible for the situation we now find ourselves in. But I still think that what Schroders is doing has real value.
First, because the warnings are about disastrous financial losses, and are coming from a respected member of the club, the conservative business types, (who have a history of laughing at climate change and shrugging it off), are much more likely to take the matter seriously.
Second, when I did a quick Google search I didn't find any other meta-models like this that start at various end points, work backwards to today, and project various scenarios based on what we're doing at this moment in time, and what we could and might do between now and an X degree increase. I think this approach will lead to a better grasp of the problem, a more vivid imagining of the consequences, and a greater will to change, among the non-technical and non-scientific types who are currently making the decisions we'll all have to live with.
Third, it's a conservative voice pointing out that even if we cut greenhouse gas emissions deeply and swiftly, we're still in for a LOT of fallout from the long-tail effects of what we've already pumped into the atmosphere. That's an observation that IMHO tends to be under-represented in the media coverage of AGW.
The Vice article sensationalized this, 'cause that's what Vice does. But Schroders' admittedly self-serving blurb [schroders.com], is somewhat more matter-of-fact in tone. On balance, I feel that this 'dashboard' is a good thing.
The War Is Over (Score:4, Informative)
I notice Slashdot is the latest science/tech site to fall before the coordinated onslaught of relentless, right wing Global Warming deniers. Sensible people hardly ever bother commenting on Global Warming stories anymore. And increasingly, summaries getting posted are drawn from stories several iterations removed from original sources.
Oh, well. Technology marches on, and thanks to China, the cost of solar is now so low we're only a few storage innovations away from watching corporations that have been funding GW deniers either adapt or crash and burn.
Re: (Score:2)
> notice Slashdot is the latest science/tech site to fall before the coordinated onslaught of relentless, right wing Global Warming deniers.
Slashdot has always been more or less stable rational source of opinion due to unique balanced system of moderation that stood the test of time.
You are talking complete nonsense.
Do you want people to ignor Global warming? (Score:2)
Because thats how you get people to ignore global warming.
Meanwhile we had a 1.5C increase in the last 250 years: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ [berkeleyearth.org] (I like those guys because of Richard Muller who is not afraid to change sides if the data contradicts his theory)
This here only talks about the recent findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/berke... [berkeleyearth.org] (2014-2015ish)
They estimate that there could be another 1.5C increase within the next 50 years, so 7.8 is completely ridiculous as that would mean almost double that.
sourc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you can argue precisely and based on the collected data why such an event should only, and apparently suddenly, occur after more than 4C warming, I will stick to the assumptions and predictions of established climate science until new evidence becomes available.
Re:Do you want people to ignor Global warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may surprise you, but people actually managed to build rather well working thermometers for well over a century now. Not in the milli-degree area but certainly good enough to see a change that surpasses a whole degree Celsius.
And another surprise: Places on this planet were inhabited by civilized people well over 200 years ago. And they still are. And maybe yours will be, too, one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, all past temperature measurements have been "corrected" to account for their inaccuracy. Ignore the fact that every thermometer in the past was deemed to be measuring high and had to be lowered (and the further back, the more it had to be lowered) and that none of the inaccuracy happened to be on the high side. Also any descriptions of warm events anywhere in history are just "weather" and should not be used to contradict "climate"
Re: (Score:2)
Potential scenario does not mean possible (Score:2)
Just because they want to consider a hypothetical scenario does not mean there's a scientific basis for it. Of course 10 degree C increase is possible in the event of some dramatic natural events.
Such wild swing in temperature anywhere near +6 C, let alone more, within the next few centuries is extremely unlikely, however.
Uninhabitable? Really? (Score:2)
Thinking this through in unrealistic, amateur scientific method...
Labrador is so tough that that Bear guy was pulled out while filming an episode because the temperature swing melted the fiord's ice and the chopper had no safe place to be. So, if Labrador was to be 14 degrees warmer, well;
- Ice maybe from November to March?
- Summers around 90F? Hmm, interesting.
-Permafrost/tundra gone. Massive insect population growth. The midges and whatnot are already unbearable, so this would be salt in the wound that is
Don't get so worked up. (Score:2)
Uncaring bastards (Score:2)
Also, like any amount of money will matter if the prediction of 8 degrees is realized. Sorry, but currency will fold long before that point.
I wish I were that optimistic (Score:2)
I wish I were optimistic enough to agree with this, but I think history shows pretty clearly that investors tend to favor solid near-term monetary gains over avoiding ephemeral long-term loss.
LMAO! nope! (Score:2)
alarmism (Score:2)
is selectively posting only extreme results of computer modeling of the future/
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't matter much anymore, as people with a hint of sanity and/or intelligence left stopped believing anything they read online quite some time ago. Except for memes... those are obviously true.
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:5, Insightful)
And Cat videos.
Those are real.
Aren't they?
AREN'T THEY????!!!!!!
Please say they are!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Their really cute. Does that count ?
Re: (Score:3)
Their really cute. Does that count ?
Their really cute what? Come on! Don't keep us in suspense. WHAT DO THE CATS POSSESS THAT'S REALLY CUTE???!!!
Re: (Score:2)
They captured our hearts.
Which thinking about seems kind of cynical. Who would want to capture the organ that pumps delicious life force? With their beady eyes, blood stained claws, and sharp teeth stalking menacing waiting for the right time to pounce. ... ...
OMG. They're evil. I have seen hell and it is overseen by cats.
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's 12 fucking paragraphs until the article admits the real prediction from the source is only 4.1 degrees. Which, by the way, comes from an (unweighted!) average of 12 different scenarios which aren't even described meaningfully, let alone are the methods for arriving at the numbers explained. The entire point of this seems to be to give people a scary chart to include in their powerpoint presentations.
Just the fact that there is zero attempt to assign any probability to any of the 12 scenarios to actually come up with a meaningful prediction tells me this is garbage compiled by someone with no clue.
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to climate models and reports! I have no doubt in my mind that humans are causing climate change that is trending toward warming. I have every doubt in my mind that the catastrophic claims are even remotely likely.
Most people like warmer climate. See the population difference between Florida and Siberia...
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, that explains the population explosion and housing boom in Death Valley!
OH, Wait, nobody can live there long.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that much of the land area of Florida is uninhabitable because it's a swamp, not because it's too hot... Florida has also only been developing with settlement and cities since the 1500s as opposed to the island of Britain which has been developing since the Roman Empire. Also dreary drizzle is still quite warm as the UK has a rather temperate climate and rarely has very cold weather.
Re: (Score:3)
Britain was already well-developed when the Romans got there.
Keep in mind that most of the reports the Romans sent back from there are now known to have been complete lies designed to encourage the sending of supplies(!) by claiming to have fought lots of battles. Now when they dig up the sites, they find that the Romans mostly married locals and built farms.
If you go back 5000 years, you'll find much more advanced boat-building in Britain than in Greece.
Romans had good civic engineering, but they were not
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta get people emotional about a topic they care about before talking about money and investments.
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:4, Insightful)
Another prediction that won't come true. From Vice.com no less, the bastion of academic thought. They don't troll for clicks ever. I think we've reached peak bullshit. This will only discredit global warming further.
Bad science is still bad science, no matter which side of the coin you're on regarding climate change. This just exacerbates the argument for both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, there is no limit to bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
This report is from a hard headed investment firm, not a bunch of tree huggers.
This report will only discredit deniers further.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't happen pre-conclusion. Is that going to happen post-conclusion?
Re: (Score:3)
I'll sit here patiently waiting for you to care what investments this firm currently has before you decide on the veracity of their claims and their motives.
All of them. They're so big, they're involved in all the investments, in all the industries.
Didn't have to wait too long, I hope?
Re: (Score:2)
Another prediction that won't come true. From Vice.com no less, the bastion of academic thought.
The link did not work for me, But I wanted to know why a financial investment company is supposed to be an authority on global warming.
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Fail.
The AC is correct. Doomsday predictions do seem to be a one upsmanship game, as evidenced by this article and Algore.
The surest way to undermine your position is to make outrageous claims that can't be substantiated.
Re:Yay, another prediction! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, a claim with no evidence, no source, and only one sentence long gets a +5 Insightful? The mod groupthink is strong with this post.
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump stays in, Bullshit will continue to rise, regardless of the climate.
I would steak money on it.
Re: (Score:2)
> I would steak money on it.
Extra well done money?
Re: (Score:3)
What you need to do is look at the source of claims. Were they from someone who should know what they were talking about? Is the claim quoted accurately? What was the confidence level of the claim (and if there is none, either it's not scientific or it's not fully reported)? If a scientist says "It's conceivable that X", the media will want to report it as "X" to attract more eyeballs.
So, under the above restrictions, can you come up with a legitimate claim from a scientist that the Arctic ice cap wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to be of service.
Pass the soda.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, why is Slashdot posting random commentary?
Obviously the answer is so they can troll us with alarming climate numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Get someone emotional before investment. Old trick new story.
[ infomercial ]
Are you concerned about climate change? If so I have the perfect investment solution for you that can survive every climate catastrophe we can think of! Scared of rising tides? You won't be in a Yacht. Tired of that eye sore backyard filled with dead grass? Soon, it will be beach front property and soon you'll be the talk of the town! Turn that winter hovel into a summer dream. Call to get a customized portfolio to make global warmi
Re: (Score:2)
The finer points of string theory?
If string theory makes predictions that will affect the values of their investments, then sure. For example, if advances in string theory lead to a dirt-cheap energy source that's likely to hit the market in 10-20 years, this would make it a good idea to start divesting stocks in more expensive energy production methods. This is exactly the kind of thing that you'd expect to find in a report from an investment form.
Devote your time to investment and leave climate science to climate scientists.
That's exactly what they are doing: surveying research and providing a risk assessment.