SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (12) down (12)
World Bank study warns of lethal global temperature rise

World Bank study warns of lethal global temperature rise

(19:40) Shocking new report commissioned by the World Bank is warning temperatures could rise by 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, causing devastating food shortages, rising sea levels, hurricanes, droughts and heat waves like we've never experienced before.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2849 days ago)
In other news, Climate Scientists authoritatively state that money is the root of all evil.
ReplyVote up (1619)down (219)
Original comment
In other news, Climate Scientists authoritatively state that money is the root of all evil.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2850 days ago)
oh god here we go again. THE WORLDS ENDING, THE WORLDS ENDING AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGG GGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. (of course the key words "could rise" is kind of an opt out clause actually means very probably wont) DISCLAIMER this video was brought to you some eco fascists trying to wring some more money out of gullible politicians. if this video causes worry, pain and mass panic please take two aspirin and come back in 20 years if and only if the tempatures get above the average temps of the medievel and roman warm periods
ReplyVote up (324)down (227)
Original comment
oh god here we go again. THE WORLDS ENDING, THE WORLDS ENDING AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGG GGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. (of course the key words "could rise" is kind of an opt out clause actually means very probably wont) DISCLAIMER this video was brought to you some eco fascists trying to wring some more money out of gullible politicians. if this video causes worry, pain and mass panic please take two aspirin and come back in 20 years if and only if the tempatures get above the average temps of the medievel and roman warm periods
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2849 days ago)
You should hope that climate scientists are right in claiming that human activity is significant in climate change, because if we caused it, then maybe we can fix it. The ozone layer is coming back after CFC use was banned in 1987. Of course, CFCs don't (and never did) drive the world as fossil fuels do, but the consequences of a warming world are much more serious than a spot of skin cancer.
ReplyVote up (151)down (163)
Original comment
You should hope that climate scientists are right in claiming that human activity is significant in climate change, because if we caused it, then maybe we can fix it. The ozone layer is coming back after CFC use was banned in 1987. Of course, CFCs don't (and never did) drive the world as fossil fuels do, but the consequences of a warming world are much more serious than a spot of skin cancer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2849 days ago)
actually walter the ozone layer has failed to recover since banning cfc use 25 years ago, belive me if it had every enviromentalist would be pointing to the results as evidence they are always right. As you can imagine this has left the scientists just a litlle perplexed.
ReplyVote up (146)down (148)
Original comment
actually walter the ozone layer has failed to recover since banning cfc use 25 years ago, belive me if it had every enviromentalist would be pointing to the results as evidence they are always right. As you can imagine this has left the scientists just a litlle perplexed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2849 days ago)
According to a UN report in 2010, the ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073. LINK
ReplyVote up (145)down (144)
Original comment
According to a UN report in 2010, the ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2849 days ago)
No words can describe what I am thinking right now.
ReplyVote up (154)down (121)
Original comment
No words can describe what I am thinking right now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2849 days ago)
that sounds like a good old soviet 5 year, sorry 10 year, sorry 20 year, sorry 85 years (why are these peasants so stupid and corrupt ! Our logic is so pure amd correct it must be the fault of the peasants lets raise their morale by sending some to siberia) type projection. Wonderful spurious accuracy. oh and walter why do you keep changing the subject.
ReplyVote up (155)down (147)
Original comment
that sounds like a good old soviet 5 year, sorry 10 year, sorry 20 year, sorry 85 years (why are these peasants so stupid and corrupt ! Our logic is so pure amd correct it must be the fault of the peasants lets raise their morale by sending some to siberia) type projection. Wonderful spurious accuracy. oh and walter why do you keep changing the subject.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2848 days ago)
I wasn't trying to change the subject, I was merely pointing out that we have had a man-made global problem before - depletion of the ozone layer - and by imposing regulation, it has been averted. So maybe climate change, which admittedly is a much bigger global problem, can also be averted by imposing regulation. But since you don't even think we have a problem, I suggest you invest in a ground floor property in New York.
ReplyVote up (148)down (159)
Original comment
I wasn't trying to change the subject, I was merely pointing out that we have had a man-made global problem before - depletion of the ozone layer - and by imposing regulation, it has been averted. So maybe climate change, which admittedly is a much bigger global problem, can also be averted by imposing regulation. But since you don't even think we have a problem, I suggest you invest in a ground floor property in New York.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2847 days ago)
walter you do change the subject and unnecessarily so. i didn't mention the ozone layer, neither did the video, so why bring it up. couldn't you come up with a relevant response to my first comment. Also walter i know climate change happens, after all its been happening for a good few billion years,and it will keep on happening until the earth is swallowed by the sun, and all without our intervention. Its only idiots like you that think that the earth should remain static and unchanged and that change is automatically wrong, we dont need regulation we just need to roll with it. btw if you dont want your ground floor property to become waterlogged its a good idea not to build it in a delta or on a flood plain, as you know they are actually quite historically prone to flooding, after all thats why its called a flood plain because it floods you idiots. maybe the owners of these properties should petition the mayor to build adequate flood defenses ,or move to an area where it doesnt historically flood. if you invest in such a property in a flood prone area you have to accept the risk, and insurance premiums
ReplyVote up (137)down (149)
Original comment
walter you do change the subject and unnecessarily so. i didn't mention the ozone layer, neither did the video, so why bring it up. couldn't you come up with a relevant response to my first comment. Also walter i know climate change happens, after all its been happening for a good few billion years,and it will keep on happening until the earth is swallowed by the sun, and all without our intervention. Its only idiots like you that think that the earth should remain static and unchanged and that change is automatically wrong, we dont need regulation we just need to roll with it. btw if you dont want your ground floor property to become waterlogged its a good idea not to build it in a delta or on a flood plain, as you know they are actually quite historically prone to flooding, after all thats why its called a flood plain because it floods you idiots. maybe the owners of these properties should petition the mayor to build adequate flood defenses ,or move to an area where it doesnt historically flood. if you invest in such a property in a flood prone area you have to accept the risk, and insurance premiums
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2847 days ago)
Also having gone and checked the hadcrut tempatures have noted NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR LAST 16 YEARS and it looks like we are going into a cooling phase, and i have to say walter, this is the warmists own data series ie the one used by the ipcc, so where they get this 4 degree extrapolation from i do not know, thin air perhaps ?.me thinks this study is a pile of shit aimed at useful idiots like you.
ReplyVote up (159)down (158)
Original comment
Also having gone and checked the hadcrut tempatures have noted NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR LAST 16 YEARS and it looks like we are going into a cooling phase, and i have to say walter, this is the warmists own data series ie the one used by the ipcc, so where they get this 4 degree extrapolation from i do not know, thin air perhaps ?.me thinks this study is a pile of shit aimed at useful idiots like you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2847 days ago)
So, you believe the climate is changing but it is not human induced - it's a part of nature's cycles, so we should just roll with it. Is that because you think the problem is too big for us to have any useful effect, or that climate scientists are wrong/exaggerating the effect of a warming world?
ReplyVote up (160)down (165)
Original comment
So, you believe the climate is changing but it is not human induced - it's a part of nature's cycles, so we should just roll with it. Is that because you think the problem is too big for us to have any useful effect, or that climate scientists are wrong/exaggerating the effect of a warming world?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2847 days ago)
walter the theory of atmospheric co2 (enhanced by water vapour) being the major driver of the climate appears to be dying, disproved by the very tempature data the Warmist scientists have produced. its time for the people especially the politicians to move on and stop running around shouting we are all going to die unless we shut down everthing. this doesnt however mean that we shouldnt be looking at finding alternative green energy solutions for the future, we should. however these solutions need to rooted in reality, ie they need to practical and be shown to work in the real world (ie not like germany and its variable wind turbines which appear to have the ability to burn out the grid) and not implemented as a desperate gesture in a state of complete panic
ReplyVote up (152)down (165)
Original comment
walter the theory of atmospheric co2 (enhanced by water vapour) being the major driver of the climate appears to be dying, disproved by the very tempature data the Warmist scientists have produced. its time for the people especially the politicians to move on and stop running around shouting we are all going to die unless we shut down everthing. this doesnt however mean that we shouldnt be looking at finding alternative green energy solutions for the future, we should. however these solutions need to rooted in reality, ie they need to practical and be shown to work in the real world (ie not like germany and its variable wind turbines which appear to have the ability to burn out the grid) and not implemented as a desperate gesture in a state of complete panic
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2847 days ago)
I don't want to talk about the science, I just want to be clear on where you stand. It sounds like you think the climate is always changing, and there's nothing to worry about, but we should go green anyway providing we do it properly. Does that describe your position?
ReplyVote up (186)down (146)
Original comment
I don't want to talk about the science, I just want to be clear on where you stand. It sounds like you think the climate is always changing, and there's nothing to worry about, but we should go green anyway providing we do it properly. Does that describe your position?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2846 days ago)
walter pretty much, you have to remember that there are other products of burning fossel fuels with are not co2 some of which are not good for the enviroment carcenogenic for example, and fossel fuels aren't going to last for ever but we have a longer time scale to do this in than the alamists would have us belive.
ReplyVote up (165)down (161)
Original comment
walter pretty much, you have to remember that there are other products of burning fossel fuels with are not co2 some of which are not good for the enviroment carcenogenic for example, and fossel fuels aren't going to last for ever but we have a longer time scale to do this in than the alamists would have us belive.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2846 days ago)
At least we agree that we should go green as long as it is done properly. On the other point (that we have nothing to worry about) since I'm no climate expert, I have to weigh the odds between your point of view, and 97% of the most peer reviewed climate scientists, who say we have a very lot to worry about. Please don't take it personally, but I'm siding with the scientists.
ReplyVote up (143)down (139)
Original comment
At least we agree that we should go green as long as it is done properly. On the other point (that we have nothing to worry about) since I'm no climate expert, I have to weigh the odds between your point of view, and 97% of the most peer reviewed climate scientists, who say we have a very lot to worry about. Please don't take it personally, but I'm siding with the scientists.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2846 days ago)
Don't you get it? Unless you are an expert, you don't have a choice in what you think. Your view should be dictated by the experts, simply because the odds are they know better than you.
ReplyVote up (135)down (163)
Original comment
Don't you get it? Unless you are an expert, you don't have a choice in what you think. Your view should be dictated by the experts, simply because the odds are they know better than you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2845 days ago)
walter, i get the feeling you would be quite happy if we all boiled to death as long as you are right, Do yourself a favour and look up the history of advances in science, (generally against the peer reviewed expert consensus, quantum mechanics vs classical physics for example).Look up lord raleigh (great scientist famous for making predictions that were falsified) Look up dr egas moniz (nobel prize winner 1949(quite consensus i would say at the time), look up dr trofim lysenko and dr josef mengele (heroes of government sponsored very consensus science (at the time). science is full of failed theories, blind alleys and questionable research (and peoples adherence to such theories long after they have been buried). Well i have to go BYE
ReplyVote up (139)down (145)
Original comment
walter, i get the feeling you would be quite happy if we all boiled to death as long as you are right, Do yourself a favour and look up the history of advances in science, (generally against the peer reviewed expert consensus, quantum mechanics vs classical physics for example).Look up lord raleigh (great scientist famous for making predictions that were falsified) Look up dr egas moniz (nobel prize winner 1949(quite consensus i would say at the time), look up dr trofim lysenko and dr josef mengele (heroes of government sponsored very consensus science (at the time). science is full of failed theories, blind alleys and questionable research (and peoples adherence to such theories long after they have been buried). Well i have to go BYE
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2845 days ago)
Latest comment: Of course I like to be right (most people would) but in this case, I'd prefer the scientists to be wrong. If 97% of the world's top cardiologists said I had a heart problem, I'd have to have a pretty good reason to think I knew better. Same goes for the climate - I just cannot see a good enough reason to doubt the scientists. At my level of physics, what scientists are saying makes complete sense, and matches what we are experiencing globally (drought, Sandy, flooding, heat waves, forest fires, crop failures etc). And when the 'expert' dissenters are a tiny minority, many who are directly or indirectly connected to the fossil fuel industry, I'm tempted to invoke a conspiracy. BYE.
ReplyVote up (166)down (145)
Original comment
Latest comment: Of course I like to be right (most people would) but in this case, I'd prefer the scientists to be wrong. If 97% of the world's top cardiologists said I had a heart problem, I'd have to have a pretty good reason to think I knew better. Same goes for the climate - I just cannot see a good enough reason to doubt the scientists. At my level of physics, what scientists are saying makes complete sense, and matches what we are experiencing globally (drought, Sandy, flooding, heat waves, forest fires, crop failures etc). And when the 'expert' dissenters are a tiny minority, many who are directly or indirectly connected to the fossil fuel industry, I'm tempted to invoke a conspiracy. BYE.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (2845 days ago)
oh one last thing, if you dont check those names out you wont be able to tell me which one was a deliberate mistake
ReplyVote up (138)down (157)
Original comment
oh one last thing, if you dont check those names out you wont be able to tell me which one was a deliberate mistake
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Walter_Wall (2845 days ago)
Was it "Walter"?
ReplyVote up (146)down (172)
Original comment
Was it "Walter"?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
NASA projects megadroughts for American West
NASA projects megadroughts for American West
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
First snowfall ever in Philippines post ice age
First snowfall ever in Philippines post ice age
Bill Nye: We can still save the planet
Bill Nye: We can still save the planet
Climate change in blunt, plain terms
Climate change in blunt, plain terms