Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

[jbg]

And you think the US New World Order is any different????

What US new world order.

Anything to US-bash.

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE(newbie @ Apr 14 2007, 10:42 PM)

QUOTE(PolyNewbie @ Apr 13 2007, 01:00 PM)

Scientist On Climate Change

-says man cannot affect climate, its mostly the sun according to past data.

He's a freaking Geologist for gawd's sake. Show me a consensus among Climatologists and you'll have something.

Consensus is not science.

Yeah, especially when most of the people opposed to the science also seem to be funded by oil and gas. As well the UN, and pretty well every developed country with the exception of the United States and Australia, are all wrong on the matter.

People you know who else is in the climate change denial crowd, guess...

Its an organization which believes the earth is only 10,000 years old, well its Focus on the Family, and pretty well the whole Christian right.

[Canuck E Stan]

People you know who else is in the climate change denial crowd, guess...

Its an organization which believes the earth is only 10,000 years old, well its Focus on the Family, and pretty well the whole Christian right.

Did you find any Muslim organisations in your search?

[Canadian Blue]

But really the whole Global Warming hoax plot makes for a really good book, I think.

Senate Environmental Committee chair James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously described global warming as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," turned to science fiction writer Michael Crichton for expert opinion during a set of hearings on climate change in late 2005.

Then, as the New York Times recently learned, President Bush invited Crichton to speak to a private audience at the White House last year about his techno-thriller State of Fear, in which a group of eco-terrorists undertake a phony global warming scheme to earn government grants. Someone who attended the event said President Bush and his guest "talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060410/farrell

Hold on though, we have even more credible proof that Michael Crichton is right.

If that wasn't enough to prove Crichton's science is sketchy at best, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists saw fit to give Crichton its 2006 Journalism Award, despite the book's appearance on the New York Times list of best fiction sellers.

But what about this article from Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

But once again, it must be part of the United Nations anti-Christian Marxist plot to form a one world government.

[ScottSA]

You people just don't get it.

Compare our emissions reduction targets under Kyoto to - say, a factory closure. Our target is to reduce our emissions by, picking a number out of thin air - 5. Five. That represents closing one factory. One factory will no longer be belching greenhouse gases into the air. We'll spend tens of billions over many years to close down this one factory.

Yaayy! It's closed.

Meanwhile, China will open up 127 new factories this year, 145 next year, and 180 the year after that.

India will open up a bunch, so will Russia.

Big victory for reducing emissions.

:lol:

That pretty much says it all.

[Canuck E Stan]

That pretty much says it all.

So does this.

water-bottle analogy

......So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% -- about 1 ml.

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml -- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

[B. Max]

Consensus is not science.

Yeah, especially when most of the people opposed to the science also seem to be funded by oil and gas. As well the UN, and pretty well every developed country with the exception of the United States and Australia, are all wrong on the matter.

People you know who else is in the climate change denial crowd, guess...

Its an organization which believes the earth is only 10,000 years old, well its Focus on the Family, and pretty well the whole Christian right.

Like I said in another thread. The left thinks science is about smear. Well I guess for them it is when that's all you have.

[B. Max]

Consensus is not science.

Yeah, especially when most of the people opposed to the science also seem to be funded by oil and gas. As well the UN, and pretty well every developed country with the exception of the United States and Australia, are all wrong on the matter.

People you know who else is in the climate change denial crowd, guess...

Its an organization which believes the earth is only 10,000 years old, well its Focus on the Family, and pretty well the whole Christian right.

Like I said in another thread. The left thinks science is about smear. Well I guess for them it is when that's all you have.

This was good title: Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

Unfortunately there has been nothing to back up the report.

[BubberMiley]

[speaker]

This was good title: Climate report shows 'highway to extinction': scientists

Unfortunately there has been nothing to back up the report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ please try and have a look... ??

BubberMiley, sorry my hookup and computer are too slow to watch videos, can you give an outline? thanks

[gc1765]

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

Let's pretend for one second that all 2,400 bottles are CO2 and that global warming is going to be the end of the world. Notice I said pretend. In this case, no one would argue against cutting CO2.

But then again, 2,400 bottles divided by 5 billion people is that "tip of one eyedropper". And changing a single bulb would be a fraction of that, and so would taking the bus once in a while. Therefore, why should anyone bother cutting emissions in this case either if it's only going to be a small fraction of a tip of an eyedropper in 2,400 bottles?

[B. Max]

http://www.ipcc.ch/ please try and have a look... ??

I looked but there is really nothing. A lot of assumptions and rhetoric and references to their bio diversity which includes agenda 21.

[speaker]

http://www.ipcc.ch/ please try and have a look... ??

I looked but there is really nothing. A lot of assumptions and rhetoric and references to their bio diversity which includes agenda 21.

didn't look far enough..

[B. Max]

didn't look far enough..

If you found it then show us.

[BubberMiley]

BubberMiley, sorry my hookup and computer are too slow to watch videos, can you give an outline? thanks

A Frank Kapra film from 1958 predicting global warming. Not everyone was on about global cooling in the 70s and those who were have moved on based on compelling evidence to the contrary.

[speaker]

:<}

[speaker]

If you found it then show us.

I expect that you are fairly tall now so you might just venture in there and freewheel around for a while, you are the only one that can determine what you would believe as evidence of what the IPCC presents.

However just to get started why don't you check this one out.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/produ...W_Report_v2.pdf

[speaker]

BubberMiley thanks, I wonder if some of this isn't confusion with the well justified hysteria concerning the prospects of nuclear winter, which perhaps saved the world from experiments like pre-emptive nuclear war during the sixties and seventies.

[B. Max]

If you found it then show us.

I expect that you are fairly tall now so you might just venture in there and freewheel around for a while, you are the only one that can determine what you would believe as evidence of what the IPCC presents.

However just to get started why don't you check this one out.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/produ...W_Report_v2.pdf

They must have used the word uncertainty a hundred times. Not surprising though. It's same old thing computer models and false data. The hockey stick graph looks like it is still in there, although it has been discredited over and over. Another gragh still shows todays temperature warmer than 1940 and no cooling period after that. Even though the only known reliable data of observed temperature clearly shows the twenties leading to the forties as being warmer that todays temperature. They have the same old assumption that co2 is a major temperature drive, yet the proxy records say otherwise. Climate can only be measured observed and proxy recorded over long periods of time after the fact, and that is the best way to try and predict future climate. Not computer models with wrong data put into them. You put in the wrong information and you will get the wrong answer. So no i'm not buying it.

[Moonlight Graham]

You people just don't get it.

Compare our emissions reduction targets under Kyoto to - say, a factory closure. Our target is to reduce our emissions by, picking a number out of thin air - 5. Five. That represents closing one factory. One factory will no longer be belching greenhouse gases into the air. We'll spend tens of billions over many years to close down this one factory.

Yaayy! It's closed.

Meanwhile, China will open up 127 new factories this year, 145 next year, and 180 the year after that.

India will open up a bunch, so will Russia.

Big victory for reducing emissions.

So therefore we should just give up & do nothing?

Obviously other major emmission countries who don't want anything to do with Kyoto or CO2 reduction are a massive problem, and i don't want to be paying for carbon credits to China & save their asses on my dollar while they do nothing. There needs to be some international pressure on these countries. If countries decided not to do as much business with China unless they lowered CO2 then we'd see some action. But most countries/businesses care more about money & cheap labour than the environment, so this probably won't happen.

I'll be doing all i can to help the environment & CO2, but we really won't start seeing major changes by countries until the earth is starting to go to crap & there's no other option.