Dire Warming Report

[White Doors]

says the guy who checks under his bed for terrorists

excuse me?

[Guthrie]

ok, you're excused

[ScottSA]

WD, excuse Woody. I've known him for years and have never known him to say anything that would indicate his IQ is over 100. That's being kind.

Assuming for the sake of argument that GW is actually happening, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that GW is actually a bad thing. Yeah yeah, I know all the hyperbole...NY will be 6 feet under by next week and giant earthquakes are acomin' and global inferno is going to incinerate Australia, but the fact is that 800 or so years ago life was a great deal easier in the northern hemisphere when it was warmer than it is today. Another fact is that no one with any credible geological knowledge has tried to link earthquakes and volcanoes to GW, and as for the great increase in hurricanes, I've heard that if indeed the climate was warming according to the current theory, hurricanes would actually decrease rather than increase in intensity and number. I don't know why they decreased to the point of nothing this year, but hey, what do I know?

Other than the unfortunates in the Bangladeshi floodplain, exactly who is going to suffer from a teensy increase in sea level and an extended growing season aided by CO2?

[Guthrie]

... I've known him for years and...

that is a LIE

[rover1]

We would do better to try to improve some of our other environmental problems such as smog and pollution.

They are all the same thing, how do you not get that?

Well, not really, although this is a widely held misconception. Sulfate aerosols or pollution in common parlance is what is nasty in smog, and actually protects from the greenhouse effect in that it reflects solar radiated heat, and prevents it from getting into the 'greenhouse' to the extent of about- .5 percent degrees of forcing. That is it reduces the amount of warming by about .5 percent or more. In Canada's case, since the total amount of emissions is insignificant on a world scale( around 2% of the world's total), we might as well go ahead and reduce these aerosols as much as we can and thereby relieve the respiratory distress which many, especially asthmatics, suffer. These aerosols are probably not good for the rest of us as well.

[speaker]

I think the point here is that the pollution comes from the consumption of fossil fuels at the same time as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, agricultural and industrial and municipal processes contribute the methanes along with other pollutants. The object would be to cut back on those carbon emmissions and the pollutant reductions would be a bonus.

[sunsettommy]

"A new global warming report issued Friday by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of Earth’s future: hundreds of millions of people short of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, a landscape ravaged by floods and millions of species sentenced to extinction.Despite its harsh vision, the report was quickly criticized by some scientists who said its findings were watered down at the last minute by governments seeking to deflect calls for action."

Yup drop the idea of the scientific method and make dire prediction of the future.

LOL

"An earlier draft, for example, specified that water would become increasingly scarce for up to a billion people in Asia if temperatures rose 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit - a point that previous studies have said is likely to be reached by 2100."

Really they can be that precise 93 years ahead of time!

LOLOLOL

"The report is the second of four scheduled to be issued this year by the U.N., which marshaled more than 2,500 scientists to give their best predictions of the consequences of a few degrees increase in temperature. The first report, released in February, said global warming was irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes."

"Best predictions" is all they have?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"Between 20% and 30% of the world’s species will disappear if temperatures rise 2.7 to 4.5 degrees, the report said."

Including stupid scientists (a species) for making untestable far into the future claims of a warming earths impact.

"Global warming is already underway, but it is not too late to slow it down and reduce its harmful effects,” she said. “We must base our actions on the moral imperative and the scientific record, free of political interference.”

Yes we must bring in the all knowing world government into the forefront.

“When you have it this black and white, it is very hard to deny the reality and continue to do nothing,” she said. “I don’t know how you do that if you have a moral bone in your body.”

When we read of such idiocy above.We have to wonder what ever happened to the idea of valid science research that can be TESTABLE!

[sunsettommy]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

Yes, that's the point of the article. The report is not too alarmist, quite the opposite, it is not sufficiently alarmist for the reality of the situation.

Spoken like the alarmist YOU are.

LOL

Valid science research simply does not operate this way.

It is sad when Scientists are compromised by politics.

[sunsettommy]

Yes, that's the point of the article. The report is not too alarmist, quite the opposite, it is not sufficiently alarmist for the reality of the situation.

That's my impression too. So what do they gain from this, are they trying to prevent panic? At a time when the scientists believe that action to prevent additional global warming is required, and in fact that we should be trying to adapt our civilization to live with the degree of changes that we can't prevent, some level of panic seems necessary.

The fact that they aren't trying to bring science forward showing that minimizing concern is more appropriate means that they accept the IPCC scientists conclusions. Perhaps it is only that the longer we can continue to milk the existing system the more toys we can get before we die. I guess.... depending on the toys, eh?

Oh really?

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

Filed under: Climate Science Op-Eds — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

EXCERPT:

The media is in error when it states that,

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)

Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

There is a summary of the final stages in writing the 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers in the February 18, 2007 edition of the Denver Post. The article is by Kevin Trenberth and is titled Climate report on deadline.

The article states that

“A full report that’s the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to about 900 pages.

As one of about 30 lead authors attending the meeting, I found the experience both exhilarating and grueling.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/09/...r-policymakers/

[Canadian Blue]

It is sad when Scientists are compromised by politics.

Are you talking about the "Marxist one world government" conspiracy I hear so much of these days?

[sunsettommy]

It is sad when Scientists are compromised by politics.

Are you talking about the "Marxist one world government" conspiracy I hear so much of these days?

No.

What about this?

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

Canadian Blue are you curious?

[Guthrie]

It is sad when Scientists are compromised by politics.

Are you talking about the "Marxist one world government" conspiracy I hear so much of these days?

No.

What about this?

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

Canadian Blue are you curious?

look on the document -- but, no, it doesn't matter

[ScottSA]

It is sad when Scientists are compromised by politics.

Are you talking about the "Marxist one world government" conspiracy I hear so much of these days?

No.

What about this?

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

Canadian Blue are you curious?

look on the document -- but, no, it doesn't matter

It doesn't matter?

[margrace]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo.

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie:

look on the document -- but, no, it doesn't matter

Well I think it is important to realize that only a few climate scientists actually write the report.

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

You are of course invited to rebute a climate scientist who was one of those FEW scientists on the previous 2001 IPCC report.

[Guthrie]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo.

there are right wingers posting on this very forum who like to use big words, even when they really don't know what they mean

aside from exposing them as not being as educated as they claim, it really kills a genuine debate when we are caught up in educating some moron about words he misuses and can't seem to understand, even when given clear explanations of his error

[sunsettommy]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo.

To me this is a classic example of politics running the science report.

[sunsettommy]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo.

there are right wingers posting on this very forum who like to use big words, even when they really don't know what they mean

aside from exposing them as not being as educated as they claim, it really kills a genuine debate when we are caught up in educating some moron about words he misuses and can't seem to understand, even when given clear explanations of his error

Exempting yours of course.

LOL

[Guthrie]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

yes this is interesting, you know I always thought the definition of Luddite was someone who was afraid of change. Isn't that what the argument is all about, we need to change our ways so exactly who are the luddites, the ones who want to keep the so called status quo.

there are right wingers posting on this very forum who like to use big words, even when they really don't know what they mean

aside from exposing them as not being as educated as they claim, it really kills a genuine debate when we are caught up in educating some moron about words he misuses and can't seem to understand, even when given clear explanations of his error

Exempting yours of course.

LOL

Exempting? -- sure, you right wing clowns have granted me lots of exemptions --- I just can't think of any, right now

perhaps you can pick up my slack on this

[M.Dancer]

.....kills a genuine debate when we are caught......

What? Like claims they were more American and Canadian Nazis than German? Or that Electric Cars that are cheaper than conventional are available now? Or that you can generate power without polution?

I take it you prefer Owl Farm where you are simply humoured rather than challenged?

[ScottSA]

Woody, as usual you are spinning your wheels in deeper. First you simply make up the positions of your opponents, and then you label them erroneously. The Luddites were a group of folks who trashed machinery because it promised to destroy their livelyhood. Modern day Luddites are still trying to destroy the machines of the industrial revolution, just for different reasons. I mean really...you have some silly notion in your head that all we need to do is prop up a few windmills and then get rid of fossil fuels, and it shows both an abyssmal ignorance and a Luddite tendency.