On the failure of alarmism!!!

[skookerasbil]

w0w........this is a good read............

A brilliant analysis as to why the strategy of climate alarmists has caused people to yawn!!! But they just cant help themselves.................

The Fluid Envelope: A Case Against Climate Alarmism | Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld


You wonder why nobody gives a shit about climate change anymore? LOL.....because the regular Joe out there thinks the doomsday shit is just...........old.

 

[ScienceRocks]

skook, would explaining the data and facts within a scienfitic manner be a better way to inform the public?

1# Point out the difference of tsi and global temperature
2# Ask what forcing is causing the warming because the sun is not causing it.
3# Explain that co2 is just part of the puzzle that is causing temperature change--There is negatives like sulfur, ect and there are postives like co2 that are pushing to warm the planet. The surplus of energy is what warms the planet.
4# What is causing the surplus?
5# If it is co2 then how much warming will occur.

Would this make public care?

 

[skookerasbil]

skook, would explaining the data and facts within a scienfitic manner be a better way to inform the public?

1# Point out the difference of tsi and global temperature
2# Ask what forcing is causing the warming because the sun is not causing it.
3# Explain that co2 is just part of the puzzle that is causing temperature change--There is negatives like sulfur, ect and there are postives like co2 that are pushing to warm the planet. The surplus of energy is what warms the planet.
4# What is causing the surplus?
5# If it is co2 then how much warming will occur.

Would this make public care?

Your question is essentially irrelevant. Sorry but it really is dude............

Even if a huge majority cared ( which they dont) then what?

Then what s0n?

76 trillion to go green ( not my #....the UN's #)

And lets say you could pull the world together and get that ( lol.....you couldnt get 1/10th of that ), not one person on the face of the planet can say with ANY level of certainty that it would make a shit worth of difference.

Your points are moot.........


It is this fact, and this fact alone that enables people to ascribe the term "k00ks" to alarmists. Its like a long bearded guy in the local psych ward sitting in front of the nurses station telling people he is in fact Jesus and is running the government from his room via morse code. You could try to reason with him I guess but I have a hunch the efforts just might be a wee bit fruitless.

 

[skookerasbil]

From Dr. Lindzen in link above............and most compelling..........


"The earth is never exactly in equilibrium"


To the alarmists however, it is...........fascinating, especially when you think about the fact that they are self-proclaimed genius's.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Lindzen testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco. He was well paid for his testimony. He was also well paid for his testimony concerning global warming.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lindzen's Iris Affect was falsified many years ago. As a climate scientist, he is considered to be a has been, an old man only interested in making money denying the obvious. He has prostituted his credentials for the energy corperations money. But he makes a lot more money than most Climatologist.

 

[gslack]

Dr. Lindzen testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco. He was well paid for his testimony. He was also well paid for his testimony concerning global warming.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

LOL oldsocks, you want to explain how if he is such a bad egg, why you had to go to a Greenpeace run website to get your evidence? Yes thats right its a greenpeace site. says so right on the left hand side. Way to go for the non-bias sources there fraud...LOL

Says " A Greenpeace project" right on the left-hand side with this link Greenpeace USA | Greenpeace USA

And BTW Can't seem to find the information in your claim that he testified on the harmlessness of tobacco anywhere in your linked site.... Oh and he is a professor of meteorology at MIT.. I am pretty sure the preeminent tech college in the country may have issue with a professor on the take for big oil don't you? If he were so inclined to let his science be dictated by outside money he would NOT be teaching at MIT.

But hey aren't you the one telling us to trust scientists? So trust all of them who agree with AGW theory just not any of the rest of them huh... LOL and you ask for science... HHAHAHAHAHAAAA

 

[gslack]

Lindzen's Iris Affect was falsified many years ago. As a climate scientist, he is considered to be a has been, an old man only interested in making money denying the obvious. He has prostituted his credentials for the energy corperations money. But he makes a lot more money than most Climatologist.

You're a Greenpeace nut aren't you tool...LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

There are 97 published climatologists in the world. 95 of the state that global warming is real, and caused by GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps. The other, Dr. Lindzen, is not senile, but publically soiled by his testimony concerning tobacco and denial of the observed effects of the warming.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

Now, G-string, you can flap yap all you care to, but without presenting any real facts and observations for your opinion, you simply portray yourself as a simpleton of a Know-Nothing.

 

[gslack]

There are 97 published climatologists in the world. 95 of the state that global warming is real, and caused by GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps. The other, Dr. Lindzen, is not senile, but publically soiled by his testimony concerning tobacco and denial of the observed effects of the warming.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

Now, G-string, you can flap yap all you care to, but without presenting any real facts and observations for your opinion, you simply portray yourself as a simpleton of a Know-Nothing.

HUSH GREENPEACE TOOL!

I bet you spike trees...

You seriously earlier tried to negate NASA claims with Wikkipedia, then you used a greenpeace website to attack a MIT Professor and expert. WOW, you really don't care about the science at all unless its science you agree with.

You have no ability to recognize science, you just recognize what you agree with. Thats not science so please spare me the nonsense.. When YOU start showing real evidence and facts that are NOT biased and self promoting, you can make the claim. Until then you haven't the credibility to get the benefit of the doubt on anything you post.

 

[skookerasbil]

Old Rocks ALWAYS uses links from uber-far left websites. I think every regular in here knows that by now!! ALways.......CommonDreams.com.........Alternet...............Greenpeace...........MoveOn.org.............TheNation..............

But dont take my word for it..........go google TOP 10 LIBERAL WEBSITES

 

[ScienceRocks]

Old Rocks ALWAYS uses links from uber-far left websites. I think every regular in here knows that by now!! ALways.......CommonDreams.com.........Alternet...............Greenpeace...........MoveOn.org.............TheNation..............

But dont take my word for it..........go google TOP 10 LIBERAL WEBSITES

I use the noaa, nws, nasa, uah, rss, hadley center, scienfitic edu and peer reviewed papers. Yes I do use skeptical science as most of that is based on the peer reviewed stuff and heavy math based. maybe a little real climate. Sure old rocks uses those sites, but what is that data based off of and what context? Is it based off some far off opinion of something they wish was true or a scientific journal that they report on?

I'm someone that respects the skeptical scientist within the science of climate. How much will more low clouds reflect back into space instead of warming the planet, or maybe where is the ohc that was rising during the 1990's. I believe of course that 1# I believe that it was a poorly set up system of buoy's in the 90s to comparing to a much better system, we use today starting in 2004 may of caused this. Never raised that fast any ways. 2# How about the grand minimum solar cycle=less energy into the oceans.

 

[gslack]

Old Rocks ALWAYS uses links from uber-far left websites. I think every regular in here knows that by now!! ALways.......CommonDreams.com.........Alternet...............Greenpeace...........MoveOn.org.............TheNation..............

But dont take my word for it..........go google TOP 10 LIBERAL WEBSITES

I use the noaa, nws, nasa, uah, rss, hadley center, scienfitic edu and peer reviewed papers. Yes I do use skeptical science as most of that is based on the peer reviewed stuff and heavy math based. maybe a little real climate. Sure old rocks uses those sites, but what is that data based off of and what context? Is it based off some far off opinion of something they wish was true or a scientific journal that they report on?

I'm someone that respects the skeptical scientist within the science of climate. How much will more low clouds reflect back into space instead of warming the planet, or maybe where is the ohc that was rising during the 1990's. I believe of course that 1# I believe that it was a poorly set up system of buoy's in the 90s to comparing to a much better system, we use today starting in 2004 may of caused this. Never raised that fast any ways. 2# How about the grand minimum solar cycle=less energy into the oceans.

NO what he (oldsocks) does is take the scary headlines he gets from Greenpeace or EarthFIrst! and uses the charts and crap they point to and parrot their claims without even checking. Just like most algorian gaia worshipers. They do not need to think, they have uber smart people to think for them and the uber smart people are all on their side... Sure ...

BTW, your attempt to use another small part of a bigger climate driver AGAIN is telling.. If you will not accept that one thing will not drive nor change climate on its own (barring some drastic change in the sun be it orbital, geomagnetic, or thermal) than why all the pretense? You wanted to point to solar cycles and the site and the data there should have shown you the complexities of the suns effect on our climate, but instead you just picked out another little part and said see there's my proof... No matt its not proof of anything on its own and that was the entire reason I gave you that link.

You claim to get it but you either don't or refuse to. You cannot point to one thing and call it a reason or excuse for or against climate change. Be it CO2 or the Sun. The Sun is the largest contributor, followed by the orbital relationships with us and other celestial bodies in our solar system and then galaxy. Not to forget the solar system and galaxies respective orbital relationships in our section of the universe. And our atmosphere make up, composition including cloud cover, geomagnetic strength and all other manners of factors both known and unknown.

Climate has one constant. And that is change. It changes, always has and always will. If a rise in a trace gas helps it, or if the sun gets hotter, closer or farther away, or if our poles flip, or the solar system moves closer to Andromeda or the cloud cover drops drastically, it will change and that is that. Blaming a trace gas alone or the suns low point in a grand minimum solar cycle alone are not sufficient enough (barring some major solar catastrophe) to point to and say its evidence on its own for either side of the debate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Old Rocks ALWAYS uses links from uber-far left websites. I think every regular in here knows that by now!! ALways.......CommonDreams.com.........Alternet...............Greenpeace...........MoveOn.org.............TheNation..............

But dont take my word for it..........go google TOP 10 LIBERAL WEBSITES

I use the noaa, nws, nasa, uah, rss, hadley center, scienfitic edu and peer reviewed papers. Yes I do use skeptical science as most of that is based on the peer reviewed stuff and heavy math based. maybe a little real climate. Sure old rocks uses those sites, but what is that data based off of and what context? Is it based off some far off opinion of something they wish was true or a scientific journal that they report on?

I'm someone that respects the skeptical scientist within the science of climate. How much will more low clouds reflect back into space instead of warming the planet, or maybe where is the ohc that was rising during the 1990's. I believe of course that 1# I believe that it was a poorly set up system of buoy's in the 90s to comparing to a much better system, we use today starting in 2004 may of caused this. Never raised that fast any ways. 2# How about the grand minimum solar cycle=less energy into the oceans.

NO what he (oldsocks) does is take the scary headlines he gets from Greenpeace or EarthFIrst! and uses the charts and crap they point to and parrot their claims without even checking. Just like most algorian gaia worshipers. They do not need to think, they have uber smart people to think for them and the uber smart people are all on their side... Sure ...

BTW, your attempt to use another small part of a bigger climate driver AGAIN is telling.. If you will not accept that one thing will not drive nor change climate on its own (barring some drastic change in the sun be it orbital, geomagnetic, or thermal) than why all the pretense? You wanted to point to solar cycles and the site and the data there should have shown you the complexities of the suns effect on our climate, but instead you just picked out another little part and said see there's my proof... No matt its not proof of anything on its own and that was the entire reason I gave you that link.

You claim to get it but you either don't or refuse to. You cannot point to one thing and call it a reason or excuse for or against climate change. Be it CO2 or the Sun. The Sun is the largest contributor, followed by the orbital relationships with us and other celestial bodies in our solar system and then galaxy. Not to forget the solar system and galaxies respective orbital relationships in our section of the universe. And our atmosphere make up, composition including cloud cover, geomagnetic strength and all other manners of factors both known and unknown.

Climate has one constant. And that is change. It changes, always has and always will. If a rise in a trace gas helps it, or if the sun gets hotter, closer or farther away, or if our poles flip, or the solar system moves closer to Andromeda or the cloud cover drops drastically, it will change and that is that. Blaming a trace gas alone or the suns low point in a grand minimum solar cycle alone are not sufficient enough (barring some major solar catastrophe) to point to and say its evidence on its own for either side of the debate.

Jesus, What I'm saying is we're within one of those grand minimums right now and that "co2" maybe the positive forcing that is stopping the cooling that we would have if it was just the natural cycles. Of course there is natural cycles. Why can't it be co2 causing the positive forcing that's stopping the natural cooling is what I'm asking you? We both agree on the cycles and how they warm and cool the planet.

I doubt you will ever accept that co2 may cause warming, but then you have to answer to why a grand minimum hasn't been able to cool our planet; while the ones in the past from your link has clearly been able to do so.

It can be both the SUN and C02 or some other effect of such. WE live in a complex system.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are 97 published climatologists in the world. 95 of the state that global warming is real, and caused by GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps. The other, Dr. Lindzen, is not senile, but publically soiled by his testimony concerning tobacco and denial of the observed effects of the warming.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

Now, G-string, you can flap yap all you care to, but without presenting any real facts and observations for your opinion, you simply portray yourself as a simpleton of a Know-Nothing.

HUSH GREENPEACE TOOL!

I bet you spike trees...

You seriously earlier tried to negate NASA claims with Wikkipedia, then you used a greenpeace website to attack a MIT Professor and expert. WOW, you really don't care about the science at all unless its science you agree with.

You have no ability to recognize science, you just recognize what you agree with. Thats not science so please spare me the nonsense.. When YOU start showing real evidence and facts that are NOT biased and self promoting, you can make the claim. Until then you haven't the credibility to get the benefit of the doubt on anything you post.

Actually, I like to use MIT papers. Here is just one.

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Reprint07-9.pdf

NET EMISSIONS OF CH4 AND CO2 IN ALASKA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
REGION’S GREENHOUSE GAS BUDGET
Q. ZHUANG,1,4 J. M. MELILLO,1 A. D. MCGUIRE,2 D. W. KICKLIGHTER,1 R. G. PRINN,3 P. A. STEUDLER,1
B. S. FELZER,1
AND S. HU
1
1The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 USA
2U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA
3Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT E40-271, 77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA

Abstract.

We used a biogeochemistry model, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM), to study the net methane (CH4) fluxes between Alaskan ecosystems and the atmosphere. We estimated that the current net emissions of CH4 (emissions minus consumption) from Alaskan soils are ;3 Tg CH4/yr. Wet tundra ecosystems are responsible for 75% of the region’s net emissions, while dry tundra and upland boreal forests are responsible for 50% and 45% of total consumption over the region, respectively. In response to climate change over the 21st century, our simulations indicated that CH4 emissions from wet soils would be enhanced more than consumption by dry soils of tundra and boreal forests. As a consequence, we projected that net CH4 emissions will almost double by the end of the century in response to high-latitude warming and associated climate changes. When we placed these CH4 emissions in the context of the projected carbon budget (carbon dioxide [CO2] and CH4) for Alaska at the end of the 21st century, we estimated that Alaska will be a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere of 69 Tg CO2 equivalents/yr, that is, a balance between net methane emissions of 131 Tg CO2 equivalents/yr and carbon sequestration of 17 Tg C/yr (62 Tg CO2 equivalents/

 

[Old Rocks]

The most detailed report into the financial consequences of global warming was the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, this was compiled in 2006 by Lord Stern for the UK Treasury.

Here are the key findings in respect of costs...

• The present losses due to global warming are $600 billion a year

• If global warming continues at the present rate then it will cost $1.1 trillion a year by 2100

• The rate of warming is accelerating and if the scientist's forecasts for the future are correct then it will cost between $1.2 and $3.0 trillion a year by the end of the century [1]

• In the worst case scenario the cost could be up to $12 trillion a year by 2100

• The cost to stabilise emissions is $600 billion a year

There's an executive summary here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executiv…

The cost of doing nothing

[1] At the time the report was written the forecast was that temperatures could increase between 2°C and 5°C by the end of the century. Improved modelling now suggests that the figure is more likely to be between 2.5°C and 4°C and so the cost would be between $1.5 trillion and $2.4 trillion a year.

Note: The Stern Review does not quote costs in terms of actual currency but in terms of GDP. The global GDP is $61.1 trillion and thus a 1% drop in GDP represents a ~$600 billion cost.

 

[Old Rocks]

Something more from MIT. Talk about scary stuff from Greenpeace.

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C | ThinkProgress

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C
By Joe Romm on Feb 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, “Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path” and below).

The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in January, “Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters,” by over a dozen leading experts. They reanalyzed their model’s 2003 projections model using the latest data, and concluded:

The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet more from MIT

MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Report 169
Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Reprint 2009-12

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Something more from MIT. Talk about scary stuff from Greenpeace.

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C | ThinkProgress

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C
By Joe Romm on Feb 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, “Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path” and below).

The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in January, “Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters,” by over a dozen leading experts. They reanalyzed their model’s 2003 projections model using the latest data, and concluded:

The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.

This is from MIT, holy shit. The current trends don't support it, but if the negative forcing is strong enough they could be covering up the positive forcing for such. We will just have to see. I wish my friends on the skeptical side would give it 10 more years to see if the coast is clear.

It is a wait and see.

 

[Old Rocks]

And more from MIT

MIT TechTV – Research Scientist Erwan Monier examines uncertainty in climate change

After running numerous model scenarios and analyzing the data for significant changes in temperature, his preliminary results demonstrate the drastic emissions reductions needed to achieve the 2 degree Celsius target for global warming discussed by policymakers around the world. “Unless we implement really stringent policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the [2 degree Celsius] target will be very difficult to achieve. The aim is to figure out what we need to do to reach those goals and the challenge is how to translate this information into meaningful action.” His research also shows that even if the 2 degree target in global warming was reached, many regions of the world would experience much higher warming than 2 degree Celsius and thus suffer serious environmental consequences.

Seems that MIT is a hotbed of Global Warming Alarmism. Except for one old tenured professor that takes money on the side from the energy companies.