tisdag 17 maj 2011

What Does a Nobel Laurate Understand about CO2? 1

Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1969 for the Standard Model of elementary particles, is one of the Nobel Laurates to decide about the future of humanity at the Nobel Laurate Symposium on Global Sustainability at The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, May 16-19,

  • Evidence that the Earth is warming by human emissions of greenhouse gases is unequivocal
  • fossil fuel raising CO2 above the limits of the Holocene
  • exit door from the Holocene had been opened
  • Great Acceleration: human population tripled, consumption in the global economy grew many times faster
  • Great Acceleration has not been an environmentally benign phenomenon
  • eroding the Earth’s resilience, ocean acidification.
The agenda for the meeting is presented by The German Advisory Council on Global Change, chaired by Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, as a Summary for Policy Makers: World in Transition, A Social Contract for Sustainability:
  • carbon-based model unsustainable
  • low-carbon society is a Great Transformation
  • global energy system decarbonised
  • greenhouse gas emissions absolute minimum
  • low-carbon societies
  • quantum leap for civilisation
  • universal consensus
  • Global Enlightenment
  • new social contract
  • science subservient role
  • sustainability is a question of imagination.
The purpose of the meeting is to get Nobel Laurates of Physics and Chemistry to confirm on scientific grounds that CO2 emission is the big threat to human civilization.

The Nobel Laurates will form the jury of a Tribunal facing Humanity with charges of destroying the Earth (by CO2 emission).

We ask the questions:
  • Do Nobel Laurates understand the role of CO2 for global climate?
  • Do Nobel Laurates say that society will have to be decarbonized by 2050?
and will report on answers..stay tuned...

PS Johan Rockström (organizer) and Andreas Carlgren (minister) write in DN Debate to prepare the Swedish opinion:
  • To avoid catastrophical climate change, many scientists believe that CO2 emisssion from fossil fuels must stop by 2050.
  • This requires resources to renewable energy of unprecedented size.
Note the term many scientists, not as before all scientists... This seems to be an acknowledgement that there are also many scientists who consider CO2 emission to not be harmful at all.

What if the jury was changed to the latter group of scientists? What would then the charges be? Who would then sit on the accused bench?

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar