World Bank joins ever lengthening list of alarmists

Yes, the World Bank, that centre for excellence in climate research, has weighed in on the debate, claiming in a report that Andean glaciers will disappear in 20 years thanks to “global warming” (which hasn’t happened for the best part of a decade…):

According to the report, in the last 35 years Peru’s glaciers have shrunk by 22 percent, leading to a 12 percent loss in the amount of fresh water reaching the coast — home to most of the country’s citizens. [But I guess the report also considered in equal depth the multitude of other factors that could lead to such shrinking, such as deforestation, particulate pollution etc… no? It didn’t? There’s a surprise – Ed]

“It is highly probable that the earth’s surface will undergo an unprecedented temperature increase of nearly two degrees centigrade (four Fahrenheit) by 2050 and up to four degrees (eight Fahrenheit) by the end of the century,” said Pablo Fajnzylber, a senior World Bank economist.

Sounds worryingly like an economist spouting IPCC-speak.

Read it here.


  1. I’m curious where the glacial ice goes when it melts… If the glacier is melting, shouldn’t there be MORE water reaching the coast. Isn’t that why we’re all giving up every convenience gained in the last 200 years? Because *too much* water is going to flow from the glaciers to the coast?If only Peru had listened to the economists – Garnault, Pachauri and now the World Bank

  2. It’s because they have become really quite small, maybe 30% of what they were from memory. So the runoff is correspondingly reduced.And, yes, deforestation USED to be to blame until AGW reared its ugly head…ala Kilimanjaro.It’s actually a very serious problem for Lima. There is even talk the city isn’t viable without the glacial water supply.

  3. Simon from Sydney says:

    Actually, recent research shows that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are affected more by deforestation and sublimation than “global warming” – see here.

%d bloggers like this: