Scientists “too frightened” to tell truth on climate impacts

“Professor Wadhams told Climate News Network that colleagues “were too frightened of their jobs or losing their grants to spell out what was really happening”. He said it makes him very angry that they are failing in their duty through timidity.” Scientists Too Frightened To Tell The Truth

They know it is happening, but they do not want to frighten the horses [alarm people]. It is bordering on the dishonest, he says.”

“Sooner or later, there will be an unbridgeable gulf between global food needs and our capacity to grow food in an unstable climate. Inevitably, starvation will reduce the world’s population”

I’ve created a Food category which list many (but not all) the articles on this blog dealing with the coming food crisis.


admin at survivalacres dot com

7 thoughts on “Scientists “too frightened” to tell truth on climate impacts

  • December 16, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    I used to think (20 years ago) that it was just a matter of presenting scientific evidence. Then I discovered western societies are utterly corrupt and run by banks and corporations (plus a few opportunists), and that there is only one agenda: business-as-usual.

    Any scientific evidence that challenges business-as-usual is ignored, and a phony narrative is presented to the masses to keep them believing the system has a future.

    It was in 1988 that Jim Hansen sounded the alarm on global warming. Almost 30 years later nothing whatsoever has been done to prevent it, and almost everything possible has being done to exacerbate it.

    Whilst there are several reasons to not accept Guy McPherson’s ‘extinction in less that a decade’ narrative, we will surely be in deep shit in less than a decade, and so-called planning based on current business models still operating 15 years from now is clearly absurd.

    • December 17, 2016 at 12:37 am

      It’s an ecocidical policy and practice, that’s for sure. Modern age humans seem to be very short-sighted. Probably because we are so disconnected from life itself. Our relationship to the environment, animals, weather and even other people is entirely sanitized into easy-to-digest ‘experiences’. Too many humans stare at screens and consider this experience ‘reality’.

      We will never do anything sufficient to prevent our demise. That is a myth. We’ve already blown every opportunity we had, so that is the record (ie., fact) of how we will behave. The myth is that we will ‘finally wake up and respond’. Absolutely not.

      Here’s a current news article – do you suppose that building will stop on the coast? Or that anything of any substance at all will be done to prepare for this? Of course not. It will be another study filed away that conveys no urgency or relevance to human activity.

      I did watch a very recent McPherson episode yesterday. He does not look well or even speak well. There are some alarming signs.

  • December 17, 2016 at 4:11 am

    Early in 2016 I had a debate with Nicole Foss, of Automatic Earth, on a different website, about abrupt climate change. At the time she refused to accept that climate change was accelerating and that we were doomed -a word I first used in this context over 15 years ago.

    Well, now it seems that Nicole Foss is starting to get it.

  • December 18, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    “People who are nearing the end of their life are incapable of bullshit” ~Kathleen Taylor. Oh! If this was only true of so-called ‘civilizations! What would clearly be diagnosed as insanity if limited to an individual becomes seen as normative when shared by a group or population – i.e. witness religion. Which reminds me of one of Sam Harris’ best lines. “If you wake up tomorrow and think that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes turns them into the body of Elvis Presley, then you’ve lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same think about some crackers and the body of Jesus, then you’re just a Catholic.”

  • December 18, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Further to my previous comment about the relative warming effect of methane not being what the Guardian journalist indicated, I see that Sam Carana has used 130 for the 10-year factor in his most recent posting. He also mentions the hydroxyl depletion ‘problem’ I have highlighted over the years.

    Attempting to fit polynomial curves to data and make projections is an interesting exercise but probably has no strong predictive value. I am all in favour of keeping a close eye on all trends and making general forecasts based on sound scientific principles and trends. It is therefore somewhat frustrating when data does is not updated for long periods, as is the case with daily CO2 at the moment, and the water level of Lake Mead )still showing the Sunday, December 11, 2016 value).

    Sam Carana suggests we are in the midst of a significant surge in the annual rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, which is something I noticed around a year ago.

    There are aspects of the ‘10.02oC potential global temperature rise by 2026’ I have serious doubts about but am convinced we will witness very serious repercussions from overheating by 2026, especially in the Arctic region and regions significantly influenced by Arctic conditions.

Leave a Reply