Chu warned of water shortages plaguing the West and Upper Midwest and particularly dire consequences for California, his home state, the nation's leading agricultural producer.
In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.
"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," he said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either.
Can someone point me to a study suggesting that there will be no more agriculture or cities in California by 2100? What does the IPCC say? What is the consensus view?
No more agriculture, abandoned cities . . . not quite an Ehrlich (or a Hansen), but impressive just the same.
Although he is a Nobel prize winner (in Physics, 1997, for using lasers to trap and cool atoms), he is NOT a climate scientist. How interesting, in that we are often lectured by climate alarmists that only qualified climate scientists should be listened to on the subject of climate change.
For years we've heard complaints about how the Bush Administration waged a "war on science" by, among other things, distorting or misrepresenting scientific findings in order to support its policy positions.
Is this any different? Or is it "okay," because it's in line with what Obama believes?