Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)

[Canuck E Stan]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/02...586990-sun.html

He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be - it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."

So what was removed from the original 1995 IPCC report that was approved by ALL of the contributing scientists?

The following passage is just one example of what was deleted from the original scientists' report:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in green house gases."

Dr. Seitz continued: "IPCC reports are often called the 'consensus' view.'

"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

But the evidence doesn't say that and neither did the scientists. That's what the actual consensus said. That was changed. That's fraud.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...b0-e603133df866

Now, just as the attention paid to the release of the summary was unprecedented, so too is the practice of releasing a summary of a report without the report itself. There is, to my mind, no legitimate scientific reason why the IPCC couldn't have followed the usual practice of releasing the report and the summary simultaneously, so that interested parties could check the evidence against the IPCC's conclusions.

Why the IPCC is choosing to withhold the report remains a mystery. It's possible that the IPCC hopes that, by the time the report is released, governments and the public will have already absorbed the summary's unequivocal conclusions and hence the nuanced evidence upon which those conclusions are ostensibly based will receive less attention.

Or it's possible something even more nefarious is at work here. Stephen McIntyre of climateaudit.org notes that according to a document titled Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports, changes to the report "made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

In other words, the IPCC is prepared to change the report so that it conforms to the summary, rather than the other way around! McIntyre concludes that this potential need to alter the report to ensure consistency is the real reason that the release of the report is being delayed. Whether McIntyre is right or wrong, the IPCC's willingness to alter a scientific document to conform with a political one reveals a treacherous disregard for truth.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Bro...11/3586698.html

When I read or watch coverage of something like the release of the IPCC report, I want to know what the report says, what the proponents of it have to say and what it may mean for the world. But I also want to read what scientists with an opposing or different view have to say.

Now, I didn’t read every newspaper in Canada nor watch every TV network the weekend the report was released and maybe I missed something. But I consumed a considerable amount of mainstream media on the topic and I didn’t read or see a single interview with a scientists who challenged the findings.

I read a couple of opinion columns challenging the findings. But I’m not talking about op-ed pieces here. I’m talking about news stories.

More of the same.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ar...92-fc37d99cbac3

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ar...9c-f0f1c7ee4205

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...6a-5a286a5b374c

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...4d-eaa286afa9c7

So are the pro-man group hyping themselves and alarming the public in order to fulfill their agenda?

Why were the facts in the pro-man report not spelled out as the scientists wanted?

Why is the main stream media only one sided on the report, and not getting opinions from scientists on both sides?

[White Doors]

Biggest snowfall in decades in Great Britain this year.

Coldest winter in memory in the NE USA.

I guess it is CLIMATE CHAMGE and not global warming after-all. How neat!

[mtm]

I think we've established that no matter what is reported, there are still a lot of powerful interests that will refute whatever comes out about global warming/climate change/CO2.

It should come as a surprise to no one that there are still detractors. Cigarettes don't cause cancer you know. I smoked one and I don't have cancer.

I think its foolish to think that pumping all this junk into the air that wasn't there before and altering the composition of our atmosphere won't have some adverse effect. Its only common sense. But then again, common sense isn't so common.

[B. Max]

I think we've established that no matter what is reported, there are still a lot of powerful interests that will refute whatever comes out about global warming/climate change/CO2.

It should come as a surprise to no one that there are still detractors. Cigarettes don't cause cancer you know. I smoked one and I don't have cancer.

I think its foolish to think that pumping all this junk into the air that wasn't there before and altering the composition of our atmosphere won't have some adverse effect. Its only common sense. But then again, common sense isn't so common.

Common sense has nothing to do with science. Common sense would only ask to produce the science to back up the claims.

But then again, common sense isn't so common.

[mtm]

and yet it doesnt matter how many times science proves its point, its always detracted by powerful interests. Climate change is no myth. There is almost unanimous agreement in the scientific community of this.

Unfortunately no matter what is said, the positions of those on the big money side of the fence will never change.

And, like I said, common sense would tell us that putting black carcinogenic garbage into the atmosphere is bad for our health. The fact that my grandmother couldn't even breathe the Saint John air had nothing to do with the refinery and two pulp mills at all.

While were at it, cutting down rainforests is not proven to be damaging to water systems or wildlife ecosystems either. And New Brunswick Irving clearcutting has no effect on the river and brook fish.

Call me a tree-hugger (I'm not by the way) if you want to, but being an environmentally aware person only takes the ability to open your eyes.

[B. Max]

Climate change is no myth.

The climate has been changing for ever. The fact remains there is no proof man has, had, or will ever have anything to do with it.

[Canuck E Stan]

There is almost unanimous agreement in the scientific community of this.

Ah, but it isn't.

Have you ever questioned why it's not unanimous?

Wouldn't your common sense wonder why it isn't?

Have you even read what the arguements from leading scientists are from making it unanimous?

What are your arguements against those scientists who question this report?

With all the pollution you're talking about why wouldn't you support a Clean Air Act to get things moving?

[mtm]

There is almost unanimous agreement in the scientific community of this.

Ah, but it isn't.

Have you ever questioned why it's not unanimous?

Wouldn't your common sense wonder why it isn't?

Have you even read what the arguements from leading scientists are from making it unanimous?

What are your arguements against those scientists who question this report?

With all the pollution you're talking about why wouldn't you support a Clean Air Act to get things moving?

the Clean Air act is a step backwards. It is Orwellian speak along the lines of the "Patriot Act" or the "Cleaner Skies Act" south of the border.

And while you may contend its not unanimous, the consensus view is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that global warming is real and it is man made. There will never be pure unanimity on anything. But I can tell you that a vast, vast, vast majority are not refuting it. If equal time was given to every single dissenting view in a democratic society, nothing would ever get done. Imagine if we needed electoral unanimity for an election to stand? wow. That would be an effective system. Everyone in the country had to vote for the PM. That would be productive.

The accredited academic literature for and against global warming simply do not stack up. There are so many more academic studies and journals out supporting that GW is real, and so few that claim it is not, yet to see the mainstream media, and the political debate on this page and elsewhere, you would think it were the proponents that were in the minority. Its simply not the case.

Anyway, go suck on a school bus tailpipe for a while and tell me how you are feeling. The CO2 and CO are good for you, I swear. It will never hurt anyone. You can't get something for nothing, when it leaves that tailpipe it goes somewhere, it does not just disappear. It is accumulating in our atmosphere. Where else can it go?

I think you can debate me to the ends of the earth (and you probably will), but the bottom line is that you arent a GW scientist, and you probably have not seen any more studies on it than I have, and I have seen quite a few. You are going off a media-created whirlwind of information, and so am I. So you aren't going to change my view, and I certainly am not going to change yours.

I do happen to believe that the source of most proof for GW is more valid than the criticisms and as a result, I want a world that we as a race will all be able to exist and prosper in in 25 to 100 years. I'm not going to say that there won't be any short term pain, but the long term benefits are clear for all to see. I happen to be an optimist and believe change is possible. I know change seems daunting and scary to a lot of people, not least of which the oil corporations and other profit-generating polluters, their employees and their shareholders, and it is this underlying fear which makes people WANT to believe that GW is not happening, that its not real and their 'dubious' science behind it. I can respect that people have that fear. Its a scary thought to fathom.

But, I don't think people are just making doomsday prophecies to scare everyone. I think there is a serious problem with our behaviour and our treatment of the environment and I think it has to change. If you think otherwise, then I really do sympathize, and I understand that there is a lot of "information" out there that tells you what you want to hear, but I'm afraid the revolution will just leave you behind.

[B. Max]

But, I don't think people are just making doomsday prophecies to scare everyone.

Well you would be wrong. In fact it is nothing less than fraud.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/02...586990-sun.html

[Saturn]

Con Stan, have a drink man. The earth is flat and Adam and Eve walked it with the dinosaurs.

[mtm]

hahahahah yeah the edmonton sun is the bastion of all that is truthiness!

Oh, the edmonton sun said it!

EDMONTON....

SUN....

I cant think of two words that would be more likely to set off impartiality alarm bells. Do you even realize that the papers only report what their readers want to hear because it makes them sell more papers? Or did that just go right over your head?

[B. Max]

Con Stan, have a drink man. The earth is flat and Adam and Eve walked it with the dinosaurs.

Put up the proof of man made global warming. Where is it. Even the phony UN panel won't do it because it doesn't exist.

[Saturn]

But, I don't think people are just making doomsday prophecies to scare everyone.

Well you would be wrong. In fact it is nothing less than fraud.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/02...586990-sun.html

You're right. The whole thing was cooked up by the leaders of 3rd world countries, who also designed Kyoto as a socialist scheme to suck wealth from the first world and transfer it to the 3rd world. It's the greatest conspiracy of the new century perpetrated by a bunch African tribal chiefs.

[mtm]

no image posting allowed i take it.

[B. Max]

hahahahah yeah the edmonton sun is the bastion of all that is truthiness!

Oh, the edmonton sun said it!

EDMONTON....

SUN....

I cant think of two words that would be more likely to set off impartiality alarm bells. Do you even realize that the papers only report what their readers want to hear because it makes them sell more papers? Or did that just go right over your head?

So when they are beating the man made global warming drum it's only because they want to sell more papers.

[mtm]

exactly. You decide where the truth lies.

Some papers have a left slant, some have a right, and some do a little of both. But its you that makes the decision. Posting an article from some newspaper to prove your point, either way, is so laughable.

Where I come from, the paper is owned by Irving Oil. Grains of salt are taken far more seriously.

[Saturn]

hahahahah yeah the edmonton sun is the bastion of all that is truthiness!

I cant think of two words that would be more likely to set off impartiality alarm bells. Do you even realize that the papers only report what their readers want to hear because it makes them sell more papers? Or did that just go right over your head?

No way. The media is not in the business of selling papers. Media exists for the sole purpose of providing the best and most accurate information possible.

[Saturn]

Con Stan, have a drink man. The earth is flat and Adam and Eve walked it with the dinosaurs.

Put up the proof of man made global warming. Where is it. Even the phony UN panel won't do it because it doesn't exist.

You wouldn't see it even if it was sitting right in front of you. Have another drink.

[B. Max]

Where is the proof. Put up or shut up.

[Canuck E Stan]

the Clean Air act is a step backwards. It is Orwellian speak along the lines of the "Patriot Act" or the "Cleaner Skies Act" south of the border.

So it is better to do nothing,than to start at some point that would get the process moving. We have waited 13 years already, but you still want to wait somemore, yet you put some urgency to solving the problem. Explain.

And while you may contend its not unanimous, the consensus view is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that global warming is real and it is man made. There will never be pure unanimity on anything. But I can tell you that a vast, vast, vast majority are not refuting it.

First it was you that said it was not unanimous. All you are doing is generalizing, I want to know why you refute some of the findings from leaders in their scientific fields who are being ignored or who's findings are not being acknowleged by the committee.

The accredited academic literature for and against global warming simply do not stack up. There are so many more academic studies and journals out supporting that GW is real, and so few that claim it is not, yet to see the mainstream media, and the political debate on this page and elsewhere, you would think it were the proponents that were in the minority. Its simply not the case.

When a scientist is the world leader in his particular field and the committee does not insert his findings in the report, you have to question why?

Anyway, go suck on a school bus tailpipe for a while and tell me how you are feeling. The CO2 and CO are good for you, I swear. It will never hurt anyone. You can't get something for nothing, when it leaves that tailpipe it goes somewhere, it does not just disappear. It is accumulating in our atmosphere. Where else can it go?

Did I ever say we shouldn't do something about pollution? I totally agree Clean air and clean water are a necessity.

I think you can debate me to the ends of the earth (and you probably will), but the bottom line is that you arent a GW scientist, and you probably have not seen any more studies on it than I have, and I have seen quite a few.

Are you a GW scientist? So generalize about what I read and conclude you are the most read person on the subject. Give me a break.

You are going off a media-created whirlwind of information, and so am I. So you aren't going to change my view, and I certainly am not going to change yours.

I do happen to believe that the source of most proof for GW is more valid than the criticisms and as a result, I want a world that we as a race will all be able to exist and prosper in in 25 to 100 years. I'm not going to say that there won't be any short term pain, but the long term benefits are clear for all to see. I happen to be an optimist and believe change is possible. I know change seems daunting and scary to a lot of people, not least of which the oil corporations and other profit-generating polluters, their employees and their shareholders, and it is this underlying fear which makes people WANT to believe that GW is not happening, that its not real and their 'dubious' science behind it. I can respect that people have that fear. Its a scary thought to fathom.

But, I don't think people are just making doomsday prophecies to scare everyone. I think there is a serious problem with our behaviour and our treatment of the environment and I think it has to change. If you think otherwise, then I really do sympathize, and I understand that there is a lot of "information" out there that tells you what you want to hear, but I'm afraid the revolution will just leave you behind.

My concerns for the environment as as valid and justified as yours,you do not hold a monopoly on those concerns. My political views may differ from you,but my scepticism about how it is being approached by certain groups tell me they are not being truthful in their approach.

[mtm]

once again you completely miss my point. I said you arent a GW scientist, and NEITHER am I. Which makes your opinion no more valid, and which studies you believe no more convincing unless you've done research yourself. Its only what youve read and what others tell you that is formulating your opinion.

I tend to believe the body of information saying GW is real is much more credible and in higher volume. I'm not saying I'm an expert, that was exactly my point, neither of us are. But if you want to insist on putting words in my mouth so you can continue to be blind, thats fine. I have my opinion.

[Catchme]

Artic Mission a 5 disk documentary, is an excellent view into Global Warming and the effects it is having.

Canuck E Stan has read the USDavis evnvironmental report. Apparently, he does not believe all the data by the scients involved, even though, he was the one that initially posted it, and boasted about it, until it was pointed out that indeed the report was NOT supportive of his position.

[stevoh]

The climate has been changing for ever. The fact remains there is no proof man has, had, or will ever have anything to do with it.

Man has already changed the climate and there is proof.

In the early 1900's in London, smog was so bad that it left residue on all exterior surfaces and people choked to death. The combination of the coal fired industrial revolution and coal heating meant that my Grandmothers parents stuffed socks under the doors during smog to prevent the choking fumes and residue from entering the house. She distinctly remembers slimy grayish yellow socks being pulled from under the doors when the smog lifted. Up to 4000 people died during these smogs. It was only when the London Clean air act came into force that these deadly smogs were stopped once and for all.

http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/air/smog.htm

We have already changed the climate, proven, on a local level, to the point where it was deadly. How anyone could think that pumping the same gases on a much larger scale into the atmosphere would not have an effect on a global level is beyond me.

[B. Max]

The climate has been changing for ever. The fact remains there is no proof man has, had, or will ever have anything to do with it.

Man has already changed the climate and there is proof.

That is not proof of climate change.

[stevoh]

That is not proof of climate change.

Nah, relative humidity climbing, temperature increasing, almost null visibility, people choking on the air, what does that have to do with climate?

Its proof of man made climate change on a local level. Doesn't take much to realize that the vast amount of the same toxins being released on a global level will eventually have a similar effect.