102 / Humankind has a 50% chance of survival
O.k. please, can you pass the catch-up? What was that? Humankind has only a 50% chance of surviving the next century.
Hmmm, he can't mean us, can he? That must be some other humankind, on some other planet, surely. But, on further reading (Creation and destruction, Paola Totaro talks to the president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, SMH) it turns out he's talking about our humankind - and he is talking with climate change foremost in his mind; I couldn't put the article down … do read it.
Here is a snippet, "it is unfortunate that there is a debate about climate change science (in Australia), and the reason that comes about is that many members of the public can't discriminate between genuine expertise and strong-held opinion that aren't based on expertise." Hmmm again. Plimer, anyone?
This comment ties in nicely with a previous blog where I write about long time climate change campaigner Tim Flannery, who last month urged scientist to talk to the 'confused Australian public' (are you listening, Tony 'climate-change-is-crap' Abbott - opposition leader extraordinaire?) and answer their questions about the science.
Furthermore, the Lord says: "In politics, the urgent always trumps the important, and one has to accept that climate change will be predominantly felt more than 50 years from now … it is hard to make people value the long-term future as much as the immediate future."
Which makes me think - how far beyond the tip of his nose do people like Tony Abbot think? But then, how can we possibly be expected to jeopardise our revenue from coal exports for the salvation of humanity? Let someone else figure that out.