IPCC Report

[jbg]

[

Nothing but Marxist propaganda. The best thing we can give future generations is a good economy. Not a mud hut and a life walking behind an ox pulling a plow.

That's a lot of Zionist, Bushist, Harperist, colonialist and xenophobic rubbish.

[Canuck E Stan]

The incredible ideology based upon moral self-delusion, an erroneous superiority complex and greed, is actually nailing the lid on the coffin of their progenity's future. Wonder if their the children and grandchildren will recognize they have no future because of the actions of those who were supposed to love them and protect their future?

Those who love their children can assure their future, and recognize it can be protected, simply by having a $500,000 piece of real-estate.

[Catchme]

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'

Ben Goldacre and David Adam

Sunday March 11, 2007

The Observer

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html

[dlkenny]

You guys are missing the point. In the small picture capitalism works because it allows freedom, the freedom to choose where you work, what kind of car you drive, what kind of steak you'll make for supper tonight. The trouble is that the capitalist system is indeed like a runaway freight train, it requires constant growth and constant increases in production to sustain it. I liken it to the yeast when you brew beer. The maximum amount of alcohol in beer is around 18% because yeast cannot survive in an environment with an alcohol content greater than 18%. The alcohol is actually the waste matter from the yeast and when you brew alcohol the yeast population grows exponentially (just like the human race is doing, but faster) and so the alcohol content increases exponentially over time until it reaches 18% and the yeast die. That's what capitalism does to the planet, we take more and more oil, more and more steel, more and more forest products, more and more of everything but the planet is finite and cannot sustain this growth forever. Furthermore the waste (read environmental impact) eventually will kill us, maybe not today, maybe not a hundred years from now but if we keep increasing our waste it will catch up to us. The example facing us today is with oil, it is reported that people have officially used 1/2 of the earths usable oil reserves and we've already had to deal with problems of smog, respiratory problems (mexico city for example), and greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue and use up the other half, how brown is our air going to be? How many people are going to die because of respiratory failure? We'll wind up switching over to nuclear power and that'll be wonderful until the nuclear fuel reserves start to run out and then people will start fighting over what's left...maybe it's war that'll end our society.

The socialist alternative that Corky Evans talks about is ideological communism. Ideological communism is a democracy with elected leaders. It's an enterprise free system where the state owns everything. It takes whatever it needs from one sector to support another sector and the whole thing interconnects; healthcare is free, education is free, people work in a chosen profession and help to support the country's needs and everyone gets a good quality of life in return. You'd finish work and go to a market owned and stocked by the state and you'd take what you need to support your family. The socialist system is a finite system and doesn't require constant growth to work. Environmentally it would work as well because without the pressures of capitalism, resources could be extracted in the most environmentally sensitive way possible. The trouble with ideological communism is that people are by nature greedy and this system gives the leaders absolute power over the people. It therefore becomes totalitarian and militaristic to insulate the leadership from coup. This is what happened in the Eastern Block countries, they were originally supposed to be ideological communist but became totalitarian communist countries and in a capitalist world they were unable to survive.

I'm unsure as to the answer, I think Canadians overall have it better than most countries. We are a centrist society, we work in a capitalism but we are kept in check by a socialist movement and I think that will slow the exhaustion of our society. I personally think this left-right struggle will someday end in a worldwide revolutionary war over resources and the world may eventually fall into ideological communism. Communism would only work on a worldwide scale (it would have to because how many bananas do you trade for a barrel of oil? In a communism you'd send only as much oil as was needed to grow and ship the bananas to you.). It's already starting to shift that way, the European Union and Globalization are leftward movements, the USA is running short on energy and resources, wars are happening in the middle east to topple totalitarianism and create partnerships for resource extraction and trade.

One last thing, I'm a Conservative supporter in our country. While I understand these philosophies, I also understand that we are currently living in capitalist society. I believe that if we are going to work in this way then we need to work with what we've got and make the best of it. In a capitalist society the markets are the driving force and we need to allow them to work...the more government we have the slower our economy will become. That's why the NDP in BC is credited with destroying the economy, they are a socialist party and bigger government means a slower economy.

This is my opinion.

[jbg]

I don't agree with "peak oil" or many of the other premises of your post. I do agree with the conclusion.

[dlkenny]

I don't agree with "peak oil" or many of the other premises of your post. I do agree with the conclusion.

That's okay, many of the points in my post are still being discussed and disputed...the peak oil and even the concept of climate change itself are still being debated. I was simply using these as a way to describe what I see happening in our world. It may not be climate change or oil, maybe it's fresh water, or depleted natural gas reserves or cement (for making concrete, this is becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain)...all of these things are there to be used but they are finite. Fresh water is renewable but is becoming scarce in some parts of the world (even Phoenix Arizona's elevation has dropped 16 feet in the past century because of groundwater consumption), the Colorado River sometimes doesn't reach the Ocean anymore because of consumption. Bangladesh suffers from chronic water shortages...clearly the answer here is to desalinate ocean water but that's too expensive for developing countries.

The point I was trying to make is that globalization, including entities like the EU and the forthcoming NAU (European Union and North American Union) are symptoms of a need for increased trade between global regions to sustain capitalism. I simply ask the question about what happens after capitalism collapses? All great civilizations collapse and we are in one of those...and history repeats itself. The pressures facing the world today, the volatile markets, the environment, wars, the depletion of resources and the increasing difficulty of resource extraction makes me think that we are facing drastic changes in the not so far off future. Maybe it's not ideological communism, I simply suggest that it could work. All I know is that it can't be both ways and something has to be done.

[jbg]

I simply ask the question about what happens after capitalism collapses? All great civilizations collapse and we are in one of those...and history repeats itself.

I don't assume it collapses. And my view is that very little changes in history. Mostly old concepts get new labels. Corporatism became fascism, which is now called socialism. The seafaring peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons and the closely related Scandinavians had relatively open economies and governments which are now labeled capitalist. Violence, whether pre-Islam or Islamic, is endemic to most desert tribes. The Hebrews have always been studious.

In other words, capitalism may get a new label somewhere along the way. I don't see it collapsing.

[Keepitsimple]

If you can grudgingly admit that perhaps the IPCC, A UN sponsored organization, might be a little biased - then you would be interested in looking at a parallel Independent Summary done by the Fraser Institute. My intent is not to trigger a whole bunch of "they are tied to the Oil industry posts" but simply to show that there are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in between. In any event, as usual, it's interesting reading for those who care.

Link: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?sNav=nr&id=783

Release Date: February 5, 2007

London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.

In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.

“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.

“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”

The Fraser Institute’s Independent Summary for Policymakers carefully connects summary paragraphs to the chapters and sections of the IPCC report from which they are drawn, allowing readers to refer directly to what is in the IPCC Report.

.....Snip - there's more in the article

Link: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?sNav=nr&id=783

[jdobbin]

If you can grudgingly admit that perhaps the IPCC, A UN sponsored organization, might be a little biased - then you would be interested in looking at a parallel Independent Summary done by the Fraser Institute. My intent is not to trigger a whole bunch of "they are tied to the Oil industry posts" but simply to show that there are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in between. In any event, as usual, it's interesting reading for those who care.

It would be interesting if more of these scientists that Fraser hires produced peer reviewed work. Quite a few of the scientists on their panel are retired.

[Keepitsimple]

If you can grudgingly admit that perhaps the IPCC, A UN sponsored organization, might be a little biased - then you would be interested in looking at a parallel Independent Summary done by the Fraser Institute. My intent is not to trigger a whole bunch of "they are tied to the Oil industry posts" but simply to show that there are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in between. In any event, as usual, it's interesting reading for those who care.

It would be interesting if more of these scientists that Fraser hires produced peer reviewed work. Quite a few of the scientists on their panel are retired.

I don't know if that is really relevant. While most of the IPCC "science" is indeed done by qualified people in their respective fields, the authors of the actual reports, along with their conclusions are difficult to pin down - and we know that the reports are subsequently "edited" by government bureacrats - whatever that means. If you can find the names of the people/qualifications who actually prepared the IPCC summary reports, that would be great - because I can't find them. At least the Fraser's summary tells you exactly who wrote them. The fact that many are retired is not a bad thing - probably a good thing - they are somewhat removed from the "emotion" of the moment and are not guided by IPCC and UN ideology.

[stevoh]

Isn't part of the reason for the alarmist nature of many climate change advocates due to humans simple reluctance to change? And isn't the reason for the recent hardline approach to climate science partially because any degree of doubt in the science is greatly amplified by those who oppose what actions the climate change implies?

I feel that the hard line on climate change has been partially brought about because those who see it happening are frustrated by the lack of action. I mean, how many people are inspired to change their buying habits if they are simply told that temperatures may rise one or two degrees in the next 100 years, or that the ocean is going to rise a few inches? To the majority of us, these changes don't seem all that bad, it might even be nice to have warmer summers and winters. But over time, say, a few hundred or even a thousand years, these effects start to become more devistating. So, in order to push us into action now, to make us change our purchasing and political choices, we are given "worse case scenarios", because anything less would not inspire action by the majority. Any group with a cause overplays the "bad" side of what they are trying to prevent. Because without overplaying that side, the majority will simply not care.

And, while it is the current hot topic up here, those in the US political system typically associated with the republicans have for years, been typically overplay the "doubt" surrounding certain areas of climate science in order to dismiss the necessity of any action at all. So, in order to counter this, climate scientists and others focussed on pushing change, are attempting to create an "iron clad case" for climate science. In an attempt to counter the unfortunately effective efforts of doubt creation.

So, while others are attempting to attribute these two approaches to climate change, "Alarmism" and "Hard line" climate science, to something more incideous, I simply attribute them to two things, attempting to inspire the majority into action, and attempting to rebuff the efforts of those amplifying every area of doubt to doubt in ALL climate science.

We do need to consider how we are effecting the environment and make changes. Overstating and countering doubt are simply attempts to push through that change.

[White Doors]

from keepitsimple's link:

• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.

• Temperature data collected at the surface exhibits an upward trend from 1900 to 1940, and again from 1979 to the present. Trends in the Southern Hemisphere are small compared to those in the Northern Hemisphere.

• There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions.

• There is no globally-consistent pattern in long-term precipitation trends, snow-covered area, or snow depth. Arctic sea ice thickness showed an abrupt loss prior to the 1990s, and the loss stopped shortly thereafter. There is insufficient data to conclude that there are any trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness.

• Current data suggest a global mean sea level rise of between two and three millimeters per year. Models project an increase of roughly 20 centimeters over the next 100 years, if accompanied by a warming of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.

• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.

• Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.

• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.

“There is no evidence provided by the IPCC report that the uncertainty around climate change can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises,” McKitrick said.

“What does this mean for the average person? It means that while scientific evidence shows the climate is naturally variable, we still don’t know the extent to which humans are contributing to future climate change and whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. People who are bewildered by the intense global warming alarmism of the past few years should read the Independent Summary for Policymakers to get a more accurate and balanced understanding of the real state of knowledge on this important subject.”

[dlkenny]

If you can grudgingly admit that perhaps the IPCC, A UN sponsored organization, might be a little biased - then you would be interested in looking at a parallel Independent Summary done by the Fraser Institute. My intent is not to trigger a whole bunch of "they are tied to the Oil industry posts" but simply to show that there are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in between. In any event, as usual, it's interesting reading for those who care.

I don't have to admit that the IPCC is biased, I agree that it is. It's a leftward leaning body, I try not to look at things either from the left or the right on any of these issues but try to understand the relevance of both sides and then form an opinion. My predictions aren't necessarily based on my personal bias, I'm a conservative supporter here because I don't feel that a capitalist society can work under socialist rule, I simply see the world moving in a leftward direction whether we like it or not. Furthermore, with a combination of environmental pressures due to capitalism and socialist rule the world may someday fall to an alternative to capitalism. Maybe it's not communism and a new wing has yet to be invented but something is going to change.

That said, I've read the Fraser Institute website and read their report on climate change. I think a more moderate approach to the issue is exactly what we need and the Fraser Institute definitely is that. I think a more moderate approach to many things is in order. We seem to get calls from the left and calls from the right and nobody can just get real scientific evidence in order, both sides are slated in bias. Keep it simple has it right that retired scientists maybe hold the most viable opinions because they're not biased. The truth is that the oceans aren't going to rise 26 feet in the next 50 years as Al Gore would like us to think...the polar bears aren't going extinct, they're migrating and the world isn't going to warm by 10 degrees in the next 100 years, it's going to warm between 2 and 3 degrees. You see, it's not the point that climate change is happening, it's the calls from the far left that changes are going to be swift and dramatic and the calls from the far right saying that climate change isn't happening or that it's not impacted by human activity. The truth is somewhere in the middle and from what some of these moderate scientists are telling us the climate is indeed changing and it's likely the culmination of many factors; these being increased solar activity, a changing geomagnetic field, and an increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The earth naturally goes through cycles of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (due to periods of greater volcanic activity) and plantlife is the system to remove the excess. We cannot argue however that humans have increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere; we know that, and we cannot argue that the world is warming up, we know that too. The question is to what extent are these facts related? What we may or may not know is the natural rate of warming versus the increased rate of warming due to human involvement in CO2 emissions. All we can conclude is that CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas and so we must be having some impact and perhaps accelerating what is already happening.

[jbg]

And, while it is the current hot topic up here, those in the US political system typically associated with the republicans have for years, been typically overplay the "doubt" surrounding certain areas of climate science in order to dismiss the necessity of any action at all. So, in order to counter this, climate scientists and others focussed on pushing change, are attempting to create an "iron clad case" for climate science. In an attempt to counter the unfortunately effective efforts of doubt creation.

Associated with the Republican Party? The Byrd-Hagel Resolution of the U.S. Senate (link) read, in relevant part, as follows:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';

*snip*

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;

*snip*

Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

( would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

This resolution, voted 95-0, seems like a pretty decisive, bi-partisan view. I suspect the Protocal and Treaty is pretty much dead. It is hardly a matter solely or primarily "associated with the Republican Party". In fact, Senator Byrd, while an Independent, has organized and caucused with the Democrats for perhaps 40 years - or more.

So, while others are attempting to attribute these two approaches to climate change, "Alarmism" and "Hard line" climate science, to something more incideous, I simply attribute them to two things, attempting to inspire the majority into action, and attempting to rebuff the efforts of those amplifying every area of doubt to doubt in ALL climate science.

We do need to consider how we are effecting the environment and make changes. Overstating and countering doubt are simply attempts to push through that change.

One makes a serious mistake using "worst-case scenarios", verging on downright fibs, "inspire the majority into action". A few cold winters in a row are all that is needed to make hash of this nonesense.

[jdobbin]

I don't know if that is really relevant. While most of the IPCC "science" is indeed done by qualified people in their respective fields, the authors of the actual reports, along with their conclusions are difficult to pin down - and we know that the reports are subsequently "edited" by government bureacrats - whatever that means. If you can find the names of the people/qualifications who actually prepared the IPCC summary reports, that would be great - because I can't find them. At least the Fraser's summary tells you exactly who wrote them. The fact that many are retired is not a bad thing - probably a good thing - they are somewhat removed from the "emotion" of the moment and are not guided by IPCC and UN ideology.

Some of the people listed in opposition to global warming have been listed as deceased. Not on this report but among the scientists who have been referenced in other links on this forum. How removed can you be?

As far as retired goes, retired means not doing research as far as I can tell.

[stevoh]

This resolution, voted 95-0, seems like a pretty decisive, bi-partisan view. I suspect the Protocal and Treaty is pretty much dead. It is hardly a matter solely or primarily "associated with the Republican Party". In fact, Senator Byrd, while an Independent, has organized and caucused with the Democrats for perhaps 40 years - or more.

I was referring to the deliberate enhancement of "doubt" within climate science, that, typically, has been associated with republicans. Even scientists who overall agree with the warming client model have done research that disputes a specific conclusion, just to then have that portion of research used as a way of disputing climate science overall.

One makes a serious mistake using "worst-case scenarios", verging on downright fibs, "inspire the majority into action". A few cold winters in a row are all that is needed to make hash of this nonesense.

It works. I don't agree with it, but it works. If you disagree with fur coats, you show the bloodiest cruelest way of trapping animals, if you are anti-abortion, you show, well, things I won't even discuss here. The worst case scenario. biggest shock value, is a tried and true tactic. I don't agree with it personally, but would you be inspired to change your consumtion habits if the threat was 2 degrees in 100 years? 2 inches of ocean level rising? Would the environment be on the top of the conservatives current platform if the "facts" were moderated? I don't think so.

We do know some things for sure, facts that are not disputed, even in the Fraser institute report. Those two facts are:

1. In the last 100 years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased 30% due to (from Fraser Institute Link):

The main causes of this accumulation are fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas

flaring, and, to a lesser extent, land-use changes such as deforestation.

2. There has not been this much carbon in the atmosphere for the last 400 000 years. (as far back as ice samples can show).

That, in itself, is cause for concern.

[White Doors]

That, in itself, is cause for concern.

Why?

Carbon is an inert gas that plants require to feed on. In fact, the link between CO2 levels and increasing temps is a dubious one at best. Has the planet been getting slightly warmer? probably. Will it continue to do so? No one knows, but Ice core samples say no.

The ice core samples also show that the CO2 increased AFTER warming trends in the past which makes sense as the tundra thaws and releases more Co2.

It really appears that Co2 is a symptom of global warming & NOT a cause.

I think it's a shame because it takes attention away from more pressing environmental concerns like clean air, water and soil. The only good thing is that some of the carbon reducing initiatives will also, inadvertently, help with cleaner air.

[stevoh]

Why?

Carbon is an inert gas that plants require to feed on. In fact, the link between CO2 levels and increasing temps is a dubious one at best. Has the planet been getting slightly warmer? probably. Will it continue to do so? No one knows, but Ice core samples say no.

Changing the concentrations of any elements in the air we breath is cause for concern. Just as oxygen is used by us in respiration, in great enough concentrations, it causes harm. I agree that the effects of carbon are not as immediate, as say, increasing the concentration of mercury in the atmosphere, but just saying "we don't know so don't worry about it" is foolish.

Why?

Simply because, by the time we do figure out precisely what the effects are (effects that some would argue we DO already know in sufficient detail) it may be too late to reverse it.

[Wilber]

I simply ask the question about what happens after capitalism collapses? All great civilizations collapse and we are in one of those...and history repeats itself.

Capitalism is not a civilization it is a system based on human nature. A system that has survived every civilization in history. It is thriving in China, supposedly a communist state. Why, because it is human nature. When everything else collapses, it may change its look but capitalism will still be there.

[jbg]

Capitalism is not a civilization it is a system based on human nature. A system that has survived every civilization in history. It is thriving in China, supposedly a communist state. Why, because it is human nature. When everything else collapses, it may change its look but capitalism will still be there.

I disagree. Robert Mugabe is a pure socialist, one who looks out for his people. And the rich there look out for the poor.

It's a socialist paradise.