WORLD, BOSTON DOOMED

If The Guardian actually believes this end-of-the-world story, they’re surely obliged to close down their resource-consuming newspaper. The planet-raping bitches. On the other hand, according to Professor Paul Kirshen, we may as well all live it up:

There is “nothing really we can do to stop climatic change in the next centuries, even if we stop [greenhouse emissions] now,” Kirshen said.

Kirshen – he’s got lots of happy news – also predicts the destruction of Boston.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/30/2005 at 11:09 AM
    1. Two-thirds of world’s resources ‘used up’

      Jumpin’ Jeebus on a pogo stick! They’re recycling crap “science” articles from the 1970s! They must figure they have a whole new generation of rubes to scare silly.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 03 30 at 12:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. Allah is going to give the US the chop in 2007, anyway. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2005 03 30 at 12:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. >recycling crap “science�? articles from the 1970s!

      No, in the 70’ies the world were doomed because of global cooling.

      Posted by jorgen on 2005 03 30 at 12:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. A degree of uncertainty is always present in climatic change predictions, Kirshen said, using a projected change in the Mid-Atlantic region as an example.

      A degree of uncertainty? That has to qualify for the Understatement of the Year Award.  Nice work, if you can get it.  Unfortunately, most of us have to be right a far greater percentage of the time in order to continue drawing paychecks.

      Posted by scott crawford on 2005 03 30 at 12:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. “The temperature tomorrow will be the same as today, with some degree of uncertainty.’’ That sounds like something has been said.  It’s surprising that degree of uncertainty wasn’t discovered centuries ago.  It would have allowed predictions of everything.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 03 30 at 01:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. The 12.5% decrease to 37.5% increase in stream flow is expected to kill between 8,000 and 192,000 Iraqis.

      I particularly liked the bit about “ice which land has been resting on”.

      Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2005 03 30 at 01:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. A degree of uncertainty is always present in climatic change predictions

      That sounds very much like a BBC1 weather broadcast during the late ‘70s.  When I was there it went something like this:

      Looks like rain tonight for the Northern half of the U.K. and Prestwick, Scotland.  Then again, it might not…

      Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 03 30 at 01:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Reminds me of the apocryphal NYT headline: “WORLD TO END TOMORROW – WOMEN, MINORITIES HARDEST HIT”

      Posted by ErnieG on 2005 03 30 at 03:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. Personally, I can’t wait for us to get to other planets and start using up their resources.

      As for Boston… eh.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 03 30 at 04:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. We used to have these weather reports … ‘air quality tomorrow will be good to unhealthy.’ Thus covering, one supposes, everything but fantastic and lethal.

      Posted by Achillea on 2005 03 30 at 05:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. People are such egotists. Somehow I think that if the earth could survive ice ages, global warming in the pasts, asteroid hits, continental drift and all the other myriad changes it has endured through the eons that it can survive man.

      Besides do you seriously see these foks doing anything to change their own lifelstyles? They might think it is cool for the poor folks to cook over dung fires but I don’t see them doing it. Although I suppose one could draw a connection between the Guardian and dung.

      Posted by terryelee on 2005 03 30 at 06:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. This otherwise insignificant story has been something of a tipping point: when I saw the Melbourne Age’s banner – “THE END IS NIGH – DOOMSDAY REPORT”, it sank in.  If you really believed it, you wouldn’t report it in that flip, arch way.  It’s that moment when you catch the emperor’s eye, and he winks, meaning “Yeah, I know I’ve got no clothes on, but it can be our little secret”.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2005 03 30 at 06:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. The ABC was pumping it for all its worth on AM and the morning news.

      Their calendars aren’t out by a few days?

      Posted by amortiser on 2005 03 30 at 08:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. amor:

      Well maybe they could volunteer to take themselves off the air a day a week so as to save the resources.

      Posted by terryelee on 2005 03 30 at 08:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Terryelee — Maybe they could take themselves off air, period, one day a week.  That should make a quick improvement.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 30 at 09:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. richard:

      fat chance

      Posted by terryelee on 2005 03 30 at 09:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yeah, I have to echo RebeccaH’s “…. eh” regarding Boston.  It’d be no great loss. There’s a reason long distance truck drivers refer to the upper East Coast of the U.S. as the “dirty side”.

      Posted by JustaGoober on 2005 03 30 at 10:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. The biggest danger for Boston is that it might collapse into the Big Dig…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 31 at 12:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve always said that Boston was a perfect argument for developing the Neutron Bomb, e.g. kill the people, leave the buildings standing. Beautiful, historic architecture.

      The residents are notoriously cold & aloof (they’re not called ‘Mass-holes’ for nothing).

      Still, I think Chris, who comments here frequently, is cool so GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN, DUDE! and leave John Kerry and Noam Chomsky behind.

      Posted by JDB on 2005 03 31 at 01:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. On the Boston thing: Yankees fans will be pleased to hear that. However, if South Boston gets wiped out where will the IRA get their funds from?

      Residents of Boston are no less unfriendly than New Yorkers…

      Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2005 03 31 at 07:37 AM • permalink

 

  1. That report, the MEA, was actually a hell of a lot better than anyone seems to think. Start reading at page 154 and your eyes will pop out. Their recommendations to solve the problems are, more private property rights, markets, cap and trade for pollution, abolition of tariffs, the end of farm subsidies, free trade….not what you expect from your average UN report on the environment.
    They are also not talking about resources as such, like oil, steel etc, but ecosystem resources, and all the problems revolve around the Tragedy of the Commons, which we know how to solve as above.
    So far I seem to be the only writer who has actually read that far into the report which is sad, as the plans for action will enrage every leftist and ecologist on the planet, a good thing of course, and also bring some economic rationality to the debate, something even better.

    Posted by timworstall on 2005 04 02 at 07:15 AM • permalink