When the Doomsday Clock time is set to three minutes to midnight in 2015, the prevailing message seems to be that the politics of climate change is worse of a threat than the possibility of nuclear weapons being used during World War III.
In a related report by the Inquisitr, one of our predictions for 2015 claims it’s possible Vladimir Putin’s claim over Arctic oil could be a trigger for disaster. The reason a coming confrontation is predicted is due to the large amount of oil found near the North Pole, with some estimates putting it close to a third of all oil left on the Earth.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) has run the Doomsday Clock since 1947 as a visual reminder of pending global catastrophe. The board set the time at 17 minutes to midnight when the first Cold War ended, but in recent years has held steady at five minutes to midnight. In 2012, the clock ticked closer to the end of the world because the board was concerned about the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, and was also concerned about the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and the outbreak of H5N1 flu.
In this case, the leading reason for the 2015 Doomsday Clock time being adjusted so drastically is due to global warming fears.
“In 2015, unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity. World leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth.”
The last time the Doomsday Clock was at three minutes to midnight was 1983, when the Cold War was the greatest portent of the end of the world. The worst setting for the clock was when the Soviet Union began working on a hydrogen bomb in 1953. But when the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists released a statement ahead of the announcement they claimed that “Climate change and increasing concerns about nuclear weapons are the main factors influencing the decision about any additional adjustment that may be made to the Doomsday Clock.”
“Human influence on the climate system is clear,” said Richard Somerville during this morning’s briefing, “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than any preceding on record.”
Claims of a climate change hoax will likely dog this announcement considering the political nature of global warming predictions. John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, once called climate change the “greatest scam in history.” Senator Jim Inhofe once wrote a book about how climate change is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated.”
But the U.S. Senate recently voted 98 to 1 that climate change is not a hoax. Inhofe even voted in favor of it, although he clarified his position as follows.
“Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will,” Inhofe said in regards to anthropogenic global warming. “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”
Inhofe also says the real climate change hoax is President Obama’s plan to spend $479 billion in hope of affecting the global temperature by a small amount.
“While he markets these regulations as a means to save us from global warming, a recent NERA study predicts the President’s climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; it would only reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree; and it would only reduce the rise of sea levels by 1/100th of an inch – or the thickness of three sheets of paper.”
Critics of the anthropogenic climate change position have called the IPCC reports wrong in the past and how computer models failed to predict the “pause” in increased global warming. The data being reported can be quite confusing depending on how it’s charted. For example, NOAA reports that 2014 was the warmest year on record since 1880, but also shows a small cooling trend during the last 18 years in the United States.
Climate change computer models also do not agree with each other 100 percent. For example, while most of the models show increasing temperatures far into the future, others predict that global temperatures may eventually plateau or even reverse into a cooling trend over time.
The Wall Street Journal even ran an article asserting that NASA is propping up a myth when it declares that “ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
“Yet the assertion that 97 percent of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.”
What is the worst threat: climate change or the recent fears over World War III sparking a nuclear war?
[Image via IOP]