Study revisits global economical impact of climate change
Uncovering the true costs of climate change is a complicated challenge, but using historical data to predict future impacts offers an empirically grounded model to approaching the task

The dire warnings issued by climate change scientists over the years on global warming are now coming true. No one in his right mind can deny the truth which is staring us in the face that April 2016 broke all records as the hottest April ever. Climate change scientists’ claims that global temperatures are heating up have been corroborated by NASA which  released figures showing that the global temperature of land and sea was 1.11C warmer in April than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980. Clearly, we are witnessing a climate emergency.

However, climate change naysayers continue to passionately slam climate change experts for their alleged scaremongering. Their denials are ironical considering that they too will ultimately suffer the consequences of climate change.

Recently, following an exhaustive study of seven sources containing over 11,000 abstracts and several approaches used by thousands of scientists, the journal Environment Research Letters published a “consensus on consensus” report which reaffirmed that 97% of climate scientists concur that climate change is being driven by humans.  It is significant that scientific expertise in the field of climate change is the primary factor which led the experts to arrive at this consensus, a requirement which is sorely lacking in the naysayers lack who are thus unable to back their claims with any scientific evidence whatsoever.

The report also gives lie to the claims of the naysayers who include some ignorant members of the public, lobbyists for big oil companies, Republican governors, congressmen and presidential candidates — Sarah Palin called climate change a “con-job” in 2014 — that there is a lack of consensus on climate change among the scientific community.

It is frightening and unacceptable that the opinions of individuals severely lacking in scientific expertise can be allowed to override the opinions of highly qualified scientists whose conclusions on climate change are driven by years of exhaustive studies.  Debates are always welcome but they should be restricted within the confines of the scientific community.

Significantly, Sarah Green, one of the authors of the consensus-on-consensus report  pointed out that the skewed view of the public on climate change is not an  accidental perspective, on the contrary it is a deliberate creation, supported by corporate and political gains. Of course, this has always been an open secret that the naysayers are mostly populated by vested interests.

  • cardigan

    “the truth which is staring us in the face that April 2016 broke all records as the hottest April ever.”

    Ever? That’s a pretty broad statement.

    “the global temperature of land and sea was 1.11C warmer in April than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980.”

    So, we are looking at anomalies between now and 1951-80. That period just happened to have some of the coldest years for decades, and in the 60’s and 70’s the scares were about global cooling. (Oh, yes, they were).

    It stands to reason that if you compare a warm period against a cold period you can keep getting “warmest ever”, except that it is smoke and mirrors.

    “Clearly, we are witnessing a climate emergency.”

    We are? We are on the tail end of an El Nino event and soon La Nina will come onto the scene.

    Consensus on consensus? Scientific nonsense from Cook, Oreskes and their ilk, refuted so many times, they just have to keep trying on their fallacious 97%.