Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Former NASA GISS Chairman James Hansen has suggested that Switzerland is safest place to be, if you want to maximise your chances of surviving climate change.
According to The Atlantic;
Scientists warn that extreme weather will get worse and huge swaths of coastal cities will be submerged by ever-more-acidic oceans. All of which raises a question: If climate change continues at this pace, is anywhere going to be safe?
“Switzerland would be a good guess,” said James Hansen, the director of climate science at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Hansen’s latest climate study warns that climate change is actually happening faster than computer models previously predicted. He and more than a dozen co-authors found that sea levels could rise at least 10 feet in the next 50 years. Slate points out that although the study isn’t yet peer-reviewed, Hansen is “known for being alarmist and also right.”
Okay, so. Switzerland might be a desirable place to live—certainly in general, but also as a way to avoid the effects of climate change—for a few reasons: It’s landlocked, which means it’s buffered from rising sea levels. And officials in Switzerland appear to be taking climate-related threats seriously—which is not the case in much of the rest of the world. …
Switzerland of course has other potential advantages for the world’s climate elite. The famously impenetrable Swiss banking system, and their protective attitude towards wealthy foreigners residing within their borders, should maximise the difficulties for anyone who ever comes looking for a refund, for all that climate cash some leading alarmists have accumulated over the years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Switzerland is a beautiful country with well educated and friendly citizens.
A perfect retreat for the climate scientist lavishly bankrolled by US taxpayer dollars, as most everything will cost double the price you would expect in the US.
Well… YES and NO.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/
http://unnamedharald.hubpages.com/hub/Fortress-Switzerland
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592313/Now-neutral-Switzerland-tanks-Britain-not-fought-war-150-years.html
The question is will they let James Hansen in. I mean think about it, if he couldn’t stop AGW what use is he? He can’t make Cuckoo clocks, or farm, so why take in a washed out climate scientist?
Now the rest of Europe is a different story.
While their (Switzerland’s) military looks impressive, they are weak in air power. And history has shown that fortification just don’t cut it.
Oh and Brits,,, built some more da*n tanks!
michael
Please keep Mr Hansen where he is! and lock him well!
If he would come to my country he would persuade us that the Rhône valley would soon be filled with water coming from Antarctica. Then we would have to migrate to the Caucasus, where the Noah Arch once landed, why not twice?
We suffer enough dumb stereotypes and it’s not necessary to add the climate-heaven one.
Sorry Michel, everyone has to take their turn… 🙂
You had better get started on that navy.
Given the penchant for numbers that the readership of this site have I was wondering if a numerical classification of the level of people’s beliefs in GW theory has been tried. In a lot of areas of business and opinion surveying the 5 point scale is used and can give some insights when statistically analysed. A possible scale for GW theory could be follows:
Level ECS Estimate Summary Belief Label
1 0C No AGW Nadaists
2 2C Possible CAGW Alarmists
5 >4C Definite CAGW Gorists
I’m a hedger at level 2. Can’t imagine many here are above level 3 but it would be interesting to know how people here are distributed in level 1-3. Any chance of doing some kind of a poll? Results may surprise us as many CAGW believers think that all sceptics are at level 1 and deny everything to do with GW theory including the greenhouse effect.
Sorry table didn’t come out right (here we go again):
Level___ECS Estimate___Summary Belief____Label
1__________0C_________ No AGW_______ Nadaists
2______less than 1C ____Possible AGW____Hedgers
3________1 to 1.5C______Benign AGW____Lukewarmers
4__________2+C________Possible CAGW__Alarmists
5__________4 to 8C_____Definite CAGW___Gorists
Switzerland is nice. Not that I wish ill on anyone, but James Hansen better hadn’t be lactose intolerant with all that cheese and fondue the Swiss are renowned for. He could wind up being one danged-rumbly-uncomfortable climate refugee and it could get dicey if he tried to toot an alpenhorn; the toot may backfire.
BTW, does anyone know if he can yodel?I don’t think I really want to know the answer.I am sure his climate science skill ar greatly exceeded by his talent for yodelling. In fact, should we not get Frank Ifield out of retirement and have a career change as a climate scientist, as I am sure he would be better qualified.
@H.R., I guess it would depend on who is squeezing his b+lls
So he’s doing that well selling lies that he needs a tax haven now?
The graph in Hansen et al. “Global Mean Sea Level Change” uses Mann’s old trick of stitching different data sets together to give the impression of sea level rise acceleration:
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/images3/global_mean_sea_level_change_accelerating_church_white.jpg
If climate change continues at this pace, is anywhere going to be safe?
At what pace are we talking about? 0°/100y? I think we will be fine where we are.
“Hansen’s latest climate study warns that climate change is actually happening faster than computer models previously predicted.”
In what way? Certainly not with global temperatures or sea level rise. What is Hansen talking about?
That is what the iceman thought.
Switzerland misses the most important survivalist features of access to seafood and access to heat. Cold and starvation are the world’s worst killers.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!! Hansen knows all the big name greens have secret Swiss bank accounts. He is merely suggesting that they follow their money.
A bad joke but I could not help myself.
Eugene WR Gallun
Now I am not a scientist but if the seas rise that far surely that means that fresh water has flowed in ( ice caps) would that not dilute the sea water and make it less acidic and even less salty .
This really is funny. With the prospect of long-term cooling Switzerland is the last place you want to be. The gletchers will begin growing again and wipe out everything in their path. Look at how Switzerland was in the 17th century: a basket case everywhere except in some of the low valleys.
When the next ice-age takes hold (“winter is coming”) the best place to be is northern Africa. The Sahara desert will yet again be transformed into lush lands with lakes and fertile planes. In a thousand years that’s where I would go.
Being a denier, I wear a tinfoil hat. That protects me from everything from mind control, global cooling, global warming, aliens, ghosts, … I wonder how long CAGW will wait in the fields looking for global warming to return (ye must believe) any day now.. just drink your cool aid, or maybe they are tilting at windmills. And they think I’m the crazy one.
One cat 3 hurricane hit the northeast US 3 years ago, that’s proof enough for me of climate change. See this extreme weather, I mean climate, I mean co2 or was it carbon, depends on what proof or lack to torture the truth to fit the mime . The poor polar bears, the Sierra Club told me so. The hue and cry goes out… WE DEMAND YOUR MONEY OR ELSE (it’s worse than we thought) It sure is.
“Hansen’s latest climate study warns that climate change is actually happening faster than computer models previously predicted.” But, has he thought to have a look outside!
“Former NASA GISS Chairman James Hansen has suggested that Switzerland is safest place to be, if you want to maximise your chances of surviving climate change.”
His mates at the IPCC.ch or WMO.ch sorted him a des res retirement pad on the lake edge, the rest is spin.
Based on hansens track record Id assume switzerland is about to be covered under a mile of ice and residents should flee.