Reuters: Global Warming Impact Like 'Nuclear War'

     Global warming might be a scary thing to some, but who would have thought on the level of a nuclear holocaust?


     “Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday,” Jeremy Lovell of Reuters wrote on September 12. Lovell didn’t include any expert skeptical about climate change or its near-nuclear impact on the globe.


     The report is from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a think tank that focuses on “better public policy in the fields of international relations and international security,” according to its Web site.


     “The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war,” the IISS report said according to Reuters.


     The IISS report warns of dire consequences for the continent of Africa. “We can all see that climate change is a threat to global security, and you can judge some of the more obvious causes and areas,” said IISS transnational threat specialist Nigel Inkster to Reuters. “What is much harder to do is see how to cope with them.”


     The global warming alarmists in the “scientific community” have made grim predictions, but nothing on the scale of worldwide destruction.


     One of the many experts Reuters could have consulted, just published a book taking issue with conventional climate change solutions. A more moderate voice, Bjørn Lomborg, author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” doesn’t think global warming is on the scale of nuclear holocaust and used the continent of Africa as an example.


     “I’m involved in something where we ask some of the world’s top economists who valued all the different proposals that are out there in the world on how we can help the world,” Lomborg said on the September 10 edition of NPR’s “Morning Call.” “They evaluate it according to bang for the buck – essentially where can you do the most good. What they tell us is if you invest for instance a dollar to prevent HIV/AIDS in Sub-Sahara Africa, you end up doing about $40 worth of social good. If you invest [a dollar] in malnutrition, you do about $30 worth of good in the world.”


     But, using money to fight global warming has less of an effect on helping Africa.


     “On the other hand, they say if you invest into things like the Kyoto Protocol, you end up doing about 30 cents worth on the dollar,” Lomborg added.