And not just roasted, but also “toasted, fried and grilled”, which are apparently the new scientific terms (via The Hockey Schtick)
(Globe and Mail) But the most startling statements came from the heads of those bastions of economic orthodoxy: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF and a former finance minister in the conservative government of Nicolas Sarkozy, pointed to critical pivot points for the economic future.
Her final pivot: “Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption: This is the real wild card in the pack.†She went on to call climate change “the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century.†This from the head of the IMF.
Ms. Lagarde concluded with a call for a new kind of economic growth. “So we need growth, but we also need green growth that respects environmental sustainability. Good ecology is good economics. This is one reason why getting carbon pricing right and removing fossil fuel subsidies are so important.â€
Which is interesting, considering that the “carbon” pricing is right. The market has dictated that carbon offsets are virtually valueless. Many of the markets have dropped to negligible values. Second, the fossil fuels statement is silly, considering the amount of fossil fuels used to get all these big wigs to and from Davos, as well as traveling around Davos.
In response to a question from the audience, she said: “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.â€
And then she took a fossil fueled flight home from cold and snowy Davos. The Hockey Schtick goes on to cite this press release from the Friends Of Science
Responding to hyperbolic rhetoric on climate change by Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, Friends of Science point out that her comments are not supported by the recent IPCC report, the exaggerated climate models’ failed predictions or the evidence of no global warming in 16+ years. Unrestrained terrifying statements are damaging the mental health of children and youth; in fact Friends of Science recent report on the alleged 97% consensus shows only 1-3% of scientists in 3 of 4 “consensus” surveys explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming, and no agreement with a catastrophic view.
What should scare future generations is the pathetic state of world economies under these hardcore Progressives (nice fascists). Job prospects are poor, earnings are poor, unemployment is high, upward mobility is terrible. The future generations should also note the potential loss of individualism, growth of Government, and loss of freedom caused by the “climate change” movement.
wow even the conservatives are worried
I smell climate astrologer desperation.
Climate change? What, me worry?
Consult our most trusted messengers, not the $billion Koch denial factory, which is complicit in the deaths of millions (WHO) as was Big Tobacco spreading false hope.
They inhabit the blogosphere by the thousands. They croon, “if you like your wishful thinking, you can keep it”. Trying to crush a pivot to alternatives, they have no shame.
Our most trusted messengers tell us AGW is real – with no dissent in the science community. Hundreds of scientific bodies, messengers such as the National Academy of Sciences (convened by Abraham Lincoln, and Einstein was a member), the Royal Society of UK (Sir Isaac Newton, was its President), the American Academy of Pediatrics (you don’t trust pediatricians?), NOAA, NASA (placing a lab on Mars using their “models’), 97% of published scientists (no, not Lindzen, Monckton, Singer, Pielke or
Judy Curry; scientists don’t take them very seriously),the Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Interior, the UN, many Nobel
Laureates, the World Bank, the IMF, the AMA…..the list goes on…
So, Jan, you think we should restrict the scientific opinions to only those who agree, eh? How very Authoritarian of you.
Should we listen to Gore? How about Obama? The head of the IPCC? How about the head of the Legarde? None of them are climate scientists.
How about Michael Mann? He has no degreein climate ascience. Nor do many others.
Consensus is not science. The fact that you want limit those allowed opinions shows that this is a political issue, not a scientific one.
jan,
I am a published scientist and I don’t agree with the science and can actually tear apart the CO2 model, as I have with Jeff. What I really don’t care for is the solution which is world government and CO2 exchanges.
….97% of published scientists….
Nope.
Not even close.
Pirate,
jan did not propose to suppress the skeptics, but that we should listen to the climate realists. I listen to skeptics and deniers and have not been persuaded.
Dr. Mann’s PhD dissertation was “A Study of Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction and Low-Frequency Variability of the Climate System” – seems like climate science to me.
A scientific consensus just means that experts interpreting the data have reached similar conclusions. Consensus IS science, since it is based on the interpretation of thousands of experiments and hundreds of journal articles by experts. Consensus does NOT mean they are necessarily correct, just that they most likely are.