Flashback 2004: Antarctica will soon be the only livable place on Earth

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/fl...lace-on-earth/

FLASHBACK 2004: Antarctica Will Soon Be The Only Livable Place On Earth

A top U.K. government scientist warned in 2004 that mankind’s only option to survive a world ravaged by global warming would be to head south to Antarctica.

Sir David King, the government’s chief scientist at the time, warned that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were reaching levels not seen in 60 million years, making this the “first hot period” since then.

King warned that if levels went higher there would be no permanent ice sheets left on Earth, much the way the planet was millions of years ago. The scientist added that all this could happen by the end of the century.

“No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life,” King said, adding that CO2 levels reached 1,000 parts per million and caused a “massive reduction of life,” according to the UK Independent.

Oddly enough, King’s comments were made as satellite records showed global temperatures showing no warming trend since 1998 – a period of six years. Fast forward to 2015 and there has still been no warming trend, according to Remote Sensing Systems satellite data, for the last 18 years.

More interestingly, in the time since King claimed Antarctica would be free of ice by the end of the century, the continent has added hundreds of thousands of square miles of sea ice. Even right now, during the south pole’s summer, sea ice extent is well above the 1981 to 2010 average.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Antarctic sea ice extent in February has been growing at a rate of about 5 percent per decade. If trends keep up, it may prove difficult to even reach the south pole during the summertime.

There have been news reports, however, that Antarctica is in trouble because of receding ice sheets on the western part of the continent. Some scientists have blamed this on global warming. But others say it’s not exactly clear if global warming is to blame for glaciers collapsing.

A 2013 British Antarctic Survey study found that the current melt in the western Antarctic is within the “natural range of climate variability” of the last 300 years.

“The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica,” said a BAS study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last year, “however, this warming trend is not unique.”

“More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries, suggesting that at present the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years,” the study said.

Hahahahahahaha *gasps for air* hahahahaha ha ha ha.

I am no fan of the former Prime Minister the Earl of Stockton (Harold MacMillan) but boy was he right when he stated that we didn't overthrow the divine right of kings to have it replaced by the divine right of experts. The world keeps turning, and the weather is all over the place as its always been.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

Dan do you believe in man caused climate change? Yes or no answer

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan do you believe in man caused climate change? Yes or no answer

No I do not.

And if we do, then the best and only realistic policy is to adapt to any changes that may come.

[Chippiewill]

I can't hear you over the weight of scientific evidence

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can't hear you over the weight of scientific evidence

You haven't addressed what I said.

Assuming it is true, is it better to prevent or adapt? That's the Q.

[Chippiewill]

Assuming it is true, is it better to prevent or adapt? That's the Q.

Well we currently do both and that seems like the best course of action. Of course there's only so much we can adapt to.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan just wants to live in the film Waterworld ok don't ruin his dreams

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well we currently do both and that seems like the best course of action. Of course there's only so much we can adapt to.

No it isn't the best course of action.

The slower India, China and other developing economies develop as a result of stupid carbon targets then the longer they are condemned to poverty. In the same way, the more regulations and money we throw at making the weather change the more and more we burden our own economy. The reality is that China and India are going to keep burning even bigger amounts than they currently are, as will other nations when they come on to develop (African states) and it'll dwarf anything that the world is burning now.

So you are either in favour of them developing and dragging themselves up to first world standards or you are not. I am, and it is going to happen regardless.

Dan just wants to live in the film Waterworld ok don't ruin his dreams

Do you seriously believe the seas are going to rise by 7ft in your lifetime and we'll experience the Day After Tomorrow?

I'll admit I once believed in AGW but that was when I was a kid who was obsessed with end of days type scenarios. Then I grew up.

[FlyingJesus]

What no lol it was a joke, I thought going by your posts that that's what we were doing in this thread

[Chippiewill]

The slower India, China and other developing economies develop as a result of stupid carbon targets then the longer they are condemned to poverty. In the same way, the more regulations and money we throw at making the weather change the more and more we burden our own economy. The reality is that China and India are going to keep burning even bigger amounts than they currently are, as will other nations when they come on to develop (African states) and it'll dwarf anything that the world is burning now.

Dan, the cost of adapting far outweighs the cost of prevention. We are on course for 1m sea rises in the next century, the cost of sea defences, flood defences etc. will far exceed any cost of switching to renewable energy.