World Bank makes UN look like the Heartland Institute

Moon(-bat) or Morano?

For the headless chicken propaganda merchants at the World Bank, the IPCC seems like a bunch of filthy sceptics. So they commission a report from the hyper-hysterical Potsdam Institute (see here and here for example), which claims temperatures will rise by 4 degrees by 2100 – or even [let’s pluck a closer date out of thin air] 2060!

A new hero of climate alarmism has emerged, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim, who makes UN warmist Ban Ki Moon look like Marc Morano.

The Brisbane Times hyperventilates, complete with scary graphics:

The World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by four degrees Celsius this century – causing increasingly extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and rising sea levels – unless significant action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

In a major report released ahead of the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says changes associated with four degrees of warming would have dramatic and devastating effects on all parts of the world, including Australia, but that the poor would be most vulnerable.

Scientists say global warming must be kept within two degrees of pre-industrial temperatures to give the world the best chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

The report – a snapshot of the most recent climate science prepared for the bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics – says global mean warming is now about 0.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

It says that if current promises by nations to curb emissions are met then it is most likely there will be more than three degrees warming. However, under that scenario it warns there is also a 20 per cent likelihood that four degrees of warming will occur by 2100.

If current promises are not met, then the world is “plausibly” on a path to warm by four degrees this century, possibly as early as 2060, the bank says.

The report, titled Turn Down the Heat, says if the world experiences four degrees of warming it would:

* See a 150 per cent increase in ocean acidity, leading to the extinction of some sensitive coral reef ecosystems.

* Result in sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 metres by 2100, with more in following centuries, affecting low-lying islands and coastal communities.

* Lead to more extreme heatwaves, reduced run-off into major rivers and a significant decline in biodiversity, all risking the support systems of humans.

The report says the full impact on human development of a four-degree-hotter world is unknown, making it is unclear whether humanity would be able to adapt.

“A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally,” the report says.

“It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.”

World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim said: “A four-degree-warmer world can, and must be avoided – we need to hold warming below two degrees.”

“Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.” (source)

So the planet has warmed 0.8 degrees in the last 150 years or so. It would then have to warm by that same amount every decade for the next 50 years to reach 4 degrees further warming by 2060. Given that warming has all but ceased in the past decade, that’s some turn around.

You can read it, in all its gory detail, here.


  1. There is no need or use for a UN. What a waste of money and resources …

  2. Richard Abbott says:

    ABC news FB page ran this story yesterday and I could not help myself posting the following comment……

    “I have complete faith in what our PM is doing. We will be OK in Australasia as she has saved us with her carbon tax.”

  3. “warming has all but ceased in the past decade”

    All but? The latest from the UK Met office is that there has been a tiny bit of cooling in the last couple of years.

  4. But this is the World Bank, famous for sticking poor countries with pernicious economic policies that lead to exploitation by greedy foreign companies.

    The Big Money boys behind them will be licking their lips.

    JoNova quoted The Very Wonderful Julia Gillard on this:

    “In total around sixty per cent of the world’s GDP is either subject to a carbon price today, or has one legislated or planned for implementation in the two or three years ahead.

    International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share.”

    Yep. Let the banksters screw us even more.

  5. 150% increase in ocean acidity? Measured in what units? How can it be an increase in acidity when the oceans aren’t acidic in the first place?
    If that’s the standard of the science in this I can’t understand how even Fairfax papers could bother mentioning it.

    [REPLY – Indeed so. It’s a totally meaningless expression, about as unscientific as you can get – I meant to add a comment in to that effect and it slipped my mind until after I’d published. Thank you!]

  6. The same might be said of the World Bank. It’s just the capitalists protecting each others’ backs. Of course they’re now trying to save the global warming scam since they’ve got so much money invested in it.

  7. Ian Middleton via Facebook says:

    So that’s where I’ve been going wrong. Ok I’m off to the Bureau of Meteorology to see what interest rate I can get on my savings.

  8. People scurry off every summer to places ten degrees hotter than they get at home, yet “the bank says changes associated with four degrees of warming would have dramatic and devastating effects on all parts of the world”. Seems like a bonanza for tourism in many places ignored by seekers-after-sun at the moment.

    I most like the “on track” bit. Ignore the data, let’s get on with the politics and frighten the taxes out of everyone.

  9. A ‘bank’ interested in people’s welfare! So where’s the catch?
    Besides, it’s just what we need. Another unelected and unaccountable organisation saving us from ourselves!

  10. A bit O/T but
    One of the items which has passed by with little comment is that Pachauri and his IPCC compadres are NOT invited to the COP-18 in Doha.

    Another sign that the hoax is moving to irrelevance.

  11. Doug Proctor says:

    “So the planet has warmed 0.8 degrees in the last 150 years or so. It would then have to warm by that same amount every decade for the next 50 years to reach 4 degrees further warming by 2060.”

    In order for the sea-level have risen in 2100 by 1.0m relative to (let’s be generous) 1988, (current “3.1 mm/yr, or 74 mm since 1988), the sea-level will have to rise every from 2013 an average of 11.3 mm/yr, or 3.6X the rate of the last 24 years.

    These two simple numbers and the disconnect from reality seem to have flumoxed the world’s best liberal minds. Plus Gore. And even Hansen and Suzuki.

    You wouldn’t think that educated, smart people could be so easily mislead and manipulated. But maybe you would, if you think about our involvement in the stock market. With all our retirement funds ….

  12. Barking!

  13. International money making scheme.

  14. Nathan Phillip Thompson via Facebook says:

    lol at that. I dunno about that. 😛

  15. On the TV they stated with a graph since 1880 0.05 average of a degree c in the last 100 yrs , that is 1/20 th of a degree c . What on earth are these con artists on about ? Listen to behind the green mask on u tube , a great investigation on Agenda 21,the treaty Keating signed in 92 , the rest of that treaty is on the table called bio deversity that is to be put into our constitution and give the UN control over all our laws , land ,water and ocean via the law of the sea treaty as it states . It is a disaster .

%d bloggers like this: