Here’s the view of the future in a new science museum according to the Telegraph. No mention if NYC’s West Side Highway will be underwater or not. They call it the “Day after tomorrow map”.
The article by Louise Gray says:
The apocalyptic map was launched by Government ministers at the opening of a new exhibition at the Science Museum.
‘Prove it – everything you need to know to believe in climate change’ is aimed at educating the public about the dangers of uncontrollable global warming.
The ‘Day After Tomorrow’ map shows what the world will look like if temperatures rise beyond four degrees C (7 degrees F). It was produced by the Met Office, that predicts temperature rises may reach the dangerous tipping point by 2060 unless more is done to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The map is designed to get the public behind a global deal on climate change to be agreed in Copenhagen this December. It will also be used by the Foreign Office to persuade other countries to sign up to a deal that will see all major economies forced to cut their emissions.
It shows the threat of global warming around the world. In the UK temperatures could rise above 40 degrees C (104 degrees F) in the summer, droughts will threaten crops in the South East, sea levels rises will affect coastal areas and floods will be commonplace in the winter.
The Government has recently been criticised for “scaremongering” the public in a £6 million advertising campaign that warns man-made climate change will risk the future of our children unless action is taken.
Read the complete article here
Readers are welcome to submit their own names for this map.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I already sent my comment in:
Anderson et al 2003 states that:
“unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach.”
In other words, the modelers have picked the forward calculation results (and observations) that match the inverse method results (which consist of circular reasoning, deducing the aerosol values from the variance of the co2 driven model from reality) and omitted those that don’t.
This known in the trade as cherry picking, and egregious examples of it can be found all over the AGW peer reviewed literature.
Example: Paleodendroclimatology.
Michael Mann and Keith Briffa selectively use tree ring core series which confirm their bias, claiming their ‘treemometers’ are ‘teleconnected’ to world climate even when the local temperature series negate their findings. Briffa then refuses to reveal the original data even to his colleagues for nearly ten years. They nevertheless re-use the series in further peer reviewed studies, and the journals refuse to force the release of the data because the papers under review are not the originators of the data.
When the original author is finally forced to reveal the data by the British Royal Society, he prevaricates for another year, then it turns out Briffa bases the modern part of his temperature reconstruction on only eleven trees selected for their good match to global temperature. This goes against his own stated methodology for sample size using the RCS normalization technique he has developed.
In Mann’s case, contradictory results from the same tree location found by PHD student Abebnah get swept under the carpet, and Mann persists in promoting his hockey stick graph even after the NAS tell him it’s rubbish.
Briffa goes on to use his hockey stick paper in the IPCC chapter he is the lead author of, effectively blocking all criticism and being his own peer reviewer.
This is not how science should be done, and it leads to incorrect information being fed to public and policy makers.
Good luck with your return to sanity
It is mind boggling that this type of propaganda can continue with soooooooooo many FACTS disputing the AGW disaster bogy monster !!
YIKES !!!
A suggest they put another map up along side of it that says that this was the world 20,000 years ago and show the extent of the glaciers.
When you get politicians (Milliband) and Propagandists (the UK Met Office) in cahoots you get this sort of scare tactic, obviously targetted at raising the stakes in the run up to Copenhagen. I would have hoped that the Science Museum, with its distinguished pedigree, would insist on a more balanced presentation of the science – all of it – but they are obviously in the racket too…
“droughts will threaten crops in the South East, sea levels rises will affect coastal”
I wonder, if we create massive desalinization plants around the world would that relieve both problems?
The map is correct: uncontrollable warming would be a disaster. I don’t know why you can’t all see this.
See also http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx. Amusingly it has a “count me out” button. (Don’t click it unless you know what it does. Whatever it does do, I bet it doesn’t count your dissenting vote!)
I already complained to the advertising standards agency about the Action on CO2 TV ad that gave activist parents permission to abuse their children with apocalyptic bedtime stories, now I have to write another one, but to whom this time? My MP?
Explaining this era to my great-grandkids is going to be difficult. Possibly as embarrassing as having them find old pictures of me from the 70’s with my long hair and polyester suit, or old pictures of their parents – who will be middle-aged by then – with their pants half-down all the time. 🙂
Day after tomorrow they’ll be learning about this era in their history & sociology classes, which they’ll have to squeeze in between their Chinese, Russian, and Brazilian Portuguese language classes if they want to find a job in the world’s dominant economies.
Robinson (08:58:49) :-))
How on Earth can that map be correct. 1) It’s based on computer models at best, or Milliband with his new set of multi-shade of brown crayons at worst,
2) It hasn’t happened yet, so it’s a prediction, not proof. Crystal ball gazing again.
3) Name me one disaster predicted in the past to happen causing the end of the world that actually happened in the past! We err… are still here. So is this definitely the one then? Last time I heard the end of the world was due it was written fore & aft on a sandwich board in December 1999!
Dan, just point them towards your archived posts on Watts using the wayback machine.
Robinson (08:58:49) :
The map is correct: uncontrollable warming would be a disaster. I don’t know why you can’t all see this.
While uncontrollable warming would be a disaster, there has not to date been any credible evidence that it is either possible or imminent.
Computer models that are predicated on false assumptions that do not equate with evidence. They are called scenarios for a reason and are an artifact of the assumptions that are used in their construction.
There are real problems that humanity faces that are demonstrated by observable facts. The global warming industry is based entirely upon conjecture and half truths being passed off as settled science and facts.
Oh I forgot to add, I note on the map (Mercator has a lot to answer for) that London will have temperatures of up to 40°C in summer months! I presume that this is all down to Dr Vicki Pope UHI effects, the thing Prof John Brignell notes were not significant enough to affect the “proof” of global warming, but conveniently are significant to cause thousands to die as a result of global warming! HYCAEI.
So. I noticed we’ve now progressed from Global Warming, thru Climate Change, and now to “Climate Destabilization”. Since when has the climate ever been “stable”? Pretty colors tho.
This 6 million quid of taxpayer’s wedge was spent to convince whom exactly? Do I get to vote in Copenhagen?
Anyway, the average British punter is pretty cynical and the more hysterical the claims, the less impressed the people become.
UGH. even with all this supposed AGW already going on, the Southeast US (and I think a few other places around the world) is actually cooler over the last 100 years. Yet they are so sure that over the next however long this map is supposed to represent that no place in the world will have lower tempuratures? What a joke. Fearmongering at it’s worst.
@Dan Lee (09:09:44)
You’re a hoot! But . . I hope you’re correct that your great grandchildren will be reading about this insanity years from now. That’s assuming that the inmates will no longer be running the asylum. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.
Hey Gordon Brown, phone for ya, the Economy is calling.
Anybody paying attention over there???
“LONDON — British gross domestic product unexpectedly shrank by 0.4% in the third quarter, according to data from the Office for National Statistics. It was the sixth straight contraction for the U.K. economy.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/uk-quarter-gdp-declined/
Robinson (08:58:49) :
The map is correct: uncontrollable warming would be a disaster. I don’t know why you can’t all see this
Oh, I can see the effect of uncontrollable warming. But the empirical data says it’s not happening and won’t.
We see in the museum Briffa’s tree next to Piltdown mann, but the question is if congress continues to buy into AGW we will be required to say what a truly correct map it is. Your food and carbon credits will depend on your admiration.
Did they also run the commerical, as they had planned, of the dad reading to his little girl, the one showing the puppy drowning?
Any one considering running a piece like that on national TV is truly disturbed and borders on the macabre. The movies come with a rating, and you’re not supposed to take little children to see stuff that will trouble thier childhood.
Wonderful “ifs”
Text with my caps follows:
The ‘Day After Tomorrow’ map shows what the world will look like if [IF] temperatures rise beyond four degrees C (7 degrees F). It was produced by the Met Office, that predicts temperature rises may [MAY] reach the dangerous tipping point by 2060 unless more is done to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Except for the “unless” phrase their statement is defendable, even if off the wall.
IanM
Article says:
” Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum, said the museum has a duty to inform the public.
“Climate change is real, driven by humans and potentially threatening – to our food and water supplies, to our health and to world security.” ”
What’s to stop the politicians when the museum director (and professor) is so entusiastically supporting it. This is a sad, sad, sad time for ‘Science’.
Good job Tallbloke. And it is the first post. Good summary.
To continue on my Destabilization comment: Looked up the definition of “stability” in Merriam Webster, one of the definitions is: 2 : residence for life in one monastery . Seems fitting doesn’t it? 🙂
So sea level will rise dramatically which will lead to water shortage and drought. Pass me those drugs, I like the sound of that reality distortion!