Could anyone seriously believe climate change is as serious as nuclear war? Baroness Joyce Anelay thinks so or would have us believe that. From The Guardian, Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister
In foreword to Foreign Office report, Baroness Joyce Anelay highlights holistic risks of global warming, including food security, terrorism and lethal heat levels
The threat of climate change needs to be assessed in the same comprehensive way as nuclear weapons proliferation, according to a UK foreign minister.
Baroness Joyce Anelay, minister of state at the Commonwealth and Foreign Office, said the indirect impacts of global warming, such as deteriorating international security, could be far greater than the direct effects, such as flooding. She issued the warning in a foreword to a new report on the risks of climate change led by the UK’s climate change envoy, Prof Sir David King.
The report, commissioned by the Foreign Office, and written by experts from the UK, US, China and India, is stark in its assessment of the wide-ranging dangers posed by unchecked global warming, including:
- very large risks to global food security, including a tripling of food prices
- unprecedented migration overwhelming international assistance
- increased risk of terrorism as states fail
- lethal heat even for people resting in shade
The world’s nations are preparing for a crunch UN summit in Paris in December, at which they must agree a deal to combat climate change.
Start with the grabber headline equating climate change to nuclear war, the back off a little by throwing every climate change terror against the proverbial wall to see if it sticks. Nuclear war should result in sudden, devastating destruction of people, infrastructure, governments, distribution system and so forth. Not to mention radiation poisoning. The mythical change of the climate (always warming) would be s slow alteration, allowing people time to adjust to the change. The climate change propaganda assumes that only the static world is viable and that all species, including humans cannot adapt to any change more than 2°C over a couple hundred years.
Which might be more damaging, the destruction of a major coastal city by sudden megatons of nuclear explosion with shockwave, radiation and heat or a 1-foot rise in sea level per hundred years and a slow increase in temperature? The answer is obvious except for the either the stupid or the alarmist who would have us believe the gloom and doom?
I’m just amazed that anyone would print this stuff with headlines like this. But we are getting closer to the Paris negotiations and we probably haven’t seen nuttin yet.