Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries


**The nations of the world agreed years ago to try to limit global warming to a level they hoped would prove somewhat tolerable. But leading climate scientists warned on Tuesday that permitting a warming of that magnitude would actually be quite dangerous.

The likely consequences would include killer storms stronger than any in modern times, the disintegration of large parts of the polar ice sheets and a rise of the sea sufficient to begin drowning the world’s coastal cities before the end of this century, the scientists declared.**

This article, which is from March 22nd, continues at the link.


I realize that Americans have been conditioned to respond to this sort of news with contempt and disbelief, but in my estimation this article is actually worth reading. The same thing goes for the links - they’re worth following up on.


Here we go again. Must be grant renewal time




See. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Either you guys are extremely, extremely fast readers, or else you just responded automatically.

As Americans we’ve been deeply conditioned to respond this way.


Climate science is the only discipline were being wrong proves you’re right!




I found this link extremely helpful


Seems fairly typical of the genre. WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW OR THIS PARADE OF HORRIBLES WILL HAPPEN. Of course, they do this every year and none of their predictions ever come true, but THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT.


This paper is from Hansen and was slammed hard when it was released in draft form, it speculates about potential worst case scenarios.

Newsflash, Greenland is not melting because of man made climate change so you can’t stop it by controlling CO2 levels. Greenland is melting because of geothermal heat, it’s melting from below (not above)


Why are some of us skeptical?

  • Radiosonde data shows no warming over the past 60 years.
  • Satellite temperatures show no warming over the past 20 years.
  • Warming shows up when the actual data is adjusted, or when northern stations are left in older sets and taken out of more recent sets. Ignore prior warming periods etc.
  • The way handling of it as a political issue vice scientific one including repression/prosecution/silencing of dissension.
  • Models based on AGW CO2 don’t match what has actually occurred. When the model doesn’t match reality, it’s not reality that’s wrong.

Then there’s the stated motivations of many of the folks pushing this-

"Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015."

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer."

"Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”




So Florida is going to sink for real this time? Or the ice caps will actually flood the Earth this time? Or are we going into an ice age again?


On the other hand, maybe it is you that is “conditioned to respond” in a certain way. (gee that is just a little insulting, isn’t it? See how that works?) From the very article itself:

“Some of the claims in this paper are indeed extraordinary,” said Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “They conflict with the mainstream understanding of climate change to the point where the standard of proof is quite high.” (emphasis added)

Take a breath.


The AGW computer models … there are now about one hundred of them … have provided a “consensus” of about one degree increase in temperature in ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

I mean … like … they change their minds ALL THE TIME.

But the consensus is that ALL of the models have failed utterly.

So, which is it?

The models versus the real (temperatures)

Dr. Howard Hayden has a newsletter … subscribe to it.


Also visit

And …


I’m sure higher taxes, more regulation, increased government control will solve all the catastrophes warned about in this article. How close is my guess?


It’s actually a very short article.


Kinda like predicting the End of the World !! Or the boy that cried WOLF. God Bless, Memaw


Even the former head of GP doesn’t buy we’re in for the end of our lives.


I finally figured out what was going on here.

The increasing confidence levels from the IPCC are that man is contributing to global warming, not that their models are accurate predictors.

This is actually in line with what skeptics believe, research shows we are warming at a modest rate in line with CO2 radiative forcing of ~1.2 C with doubling of CO2.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit