once every 100k years or so, the sun releases an invisible ray of stuff which is undetectable by todays most modern scientific equiptment. It also leaves no trace evidence in ice cores or it is undetectable with todays equiptment.
this is how 'germs' were first theorized. invisible things that make people sick. i dont know his name but, he was laughed out of his scientific community.
Except that accurate climate records have only been recorded by humans for a little over a hundred years...
Isotope levels in ice and sediment cores provide a very good representation of past global temperatures.
What global warming pseudo science does not tell you is that the rate at which those things change withiin Ice Cores is anything but constant, and any estimate that you get from them is going to be largely skewed...I suggest you look up HOW they go about finding out those things, it's quite enlightening.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Except that accurate climate records have only been recorded by humans for a little over a hundred years...
Isotope levels in ice and sediment cores provide a very good representation of past global temperatures.
What global warming pseudo science does not tell you is that the rate at which those things change withiin Ice Cores is anything but constant, and any estimate that you get from them is going to be largely skewed...I suggest you look up HOW they go about finding out those things, it's quite enlightening.
You mean like this:
This piece of information was cleverly hidden, by the pseudo scientists who do not want you to know about it, in the last IPCC report. In it you can see data about the amount of greenhouse gases and the average temperature. So no, the varition in average temperatures doesn't disprove anything but actually clearly indicates that there is very clear dependency between the average temperatures and the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.
From this graph you can clearly see how unsually fast the change in the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has been since the start of the industrial era:
This is the most meaningful data regarding global warming not some temperature charts because they are only showing the effect not the actual cause and I'm not saying greenhouse gases are necessarily the only cause but according to the IPCC the probablity that only natural causes are behind this process is less than 5%.
One final thing to take note of is even though on the 650kyr scale graph there is very clearly upward trend nearing present, the 2kyr scale graph it looks relatively even all the way till the latter half of the 18th century. After which the eg. Carbon Dioxide level have a jump of about 120-130 ppm during the 200+ years. In the first graph change this big has only few times over the last 650 000 years and has always taken at least thousands of years and usually lot longer.
Read this IPCC report even if you don't want to aknowledge it at least then you know what you are arguing against. Especially the FAQ part is very quick to read through and explains some very common misconceptions.
Edit: hopefully it actually shows the last word of my post now and edited some typos/sentences
I'm going to post one more thing since at this point there is usually attack against IPCC which is obviously communist conspiracy determined to steal jobs of the average Joe's.
The full conversation behind this comment can be found from the link "First" in my OP and I would stress the part where he says "Since the process requires word by word approval, the delegation from each government has the opportunity to prevent every sentence, every phrase, indeed every word, from making it into the summary, unless each word is consistent with the underlying science, as documented in the rest of the report."
So everything in the report has been also accepted by the delegation of the US goverment which isn't exactly huge on the global warming issue.
PS. english is actually my third language so please don't take the amount of typo's as indication my lack of intelligence.
"The IPCC plenary approval process for each Summary for Policymakers results in documents that are scientifically sound, thoroughly vetted, and exceedingly conservative in their assessment of the risks of climate change. Once one understands the process, it is clear why this needs to be the case.
I am a scientist who contributed to the AR4 of the IPCC. I am an author on the Working Group 2 Summary for Policymakers, and I participated in the plenary approval meetings. Here, I want to set the record straight on Mr. Morano’s misleading characterization of the IPCC plenary approval process. The essential nature of the plenary approval process is that every government sends a delegation of seasoned negotiators assigned to make the final document something that government can accept. Since the process requires word by word approval, the delegation from each government has the opportunity to prevent every sentence, every phrase, indeed every word, from making it into the summary, unless each word is consistent with the underlying science, as documented in the rest of the report.
Sure, there are many governments that are committed to action on climate change, but there are also several, including our own, that are openly skeptical. The skeptical governments come to the plenary approval meeting determined to insure that none of the statements in the Summary for Policymakers is unjustifiably confident or unjustifiably dire.
The requirement for word by word consensus by the government delegations insures that every phrase in the Summary for Policymakers has been accepted by the delegation from the most skeptical government at the meeting. If one delegation feels that a statement is not consistent with the scientific evidence, that statement does not make it into the Summary for Policymakers, even if 120 other delegations feel it should be there.
This process is an incredibly powerful way to insure that the final document is free from exaggeration or overstatement. Each Summary for Policymakers has been thoroughly scrubbed for every trace of overstatement, first because that is what the scientists were tasked to to but also because the skeptical governments all sent their “A” teams to make sure of that outcome.
In the IPCC process, plenary approval requires consensus. There are no committees making back room deals, no exceptions for majority votes on contentious issues, and no exceptions. Every delegation from every government has approved every word.
Regardless of why, I am fairly certain we all agree something has to be done to combat the warming. To find out how to do that though we need to know why. Man made or not it is not a good thing for most people on the planet. Until we have a why that is accurate it is probably wise to do something, how ever little effect we make by cutting our emissions or whatever it still has some influence. After all, we only have one place to live, gamble with it seems utterly stupid. In sweden a couple of degrees warmer would by all calcualtions make this paradise and have a HUGE beneficial effect on our economy. Not really sure I want to sacrifice a large portion of the human population to gain that though. Some would I am sure.
Not me mate. I think wasting valuable resources combating global warming is tantamount to criminal negligence.
There are other way bigger issues for the world today.
If we are to be gambling anything at all, let alone our global prosperity, I would like to see somekind of serious odds of success first.
As far as I'm concerned any use of resources on the scale required to give us a chance to counter global warming guarentee's the sacrifice of a large proportion of the human population.
The cure is worse than the disease.
P.S. to the IPCC guy, you are paid to think the way you do. I am not. Who's independant now?
Not me mate. I think wasting valuable resources combating global warming is tantamount to criminal negligence.
The are other way bigger issues for the world today. If we are to be gambling anything at all, let alone our global prosperity, I would like to see somekind of serious odds of success first. As far as I'm concerned any use of resources on the scale required to give us a chance to counter global warming guarentee's the sacrifice of a large proportion of the human population. The cure is worse than the disease.
P.S. to the IPCC guy, you are paid to think the way you do. I am not. Who's independant now?
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
Here is article by former World Bank's chief economist Nicholas Stern on how not doing anything would probably cost lot more than working to prevent global warming.
I'm not saying that is what is going to happen and that article certainly has people agreeing and disagreeing. But it is one example that even many economists don't think that it is definetely clear cut case of working to prevent agw = losing money especially on the long term.
...is a natural cyclical occurence and man has made little to no impact on the earth warming.
If that’s true then you should be able to identify the underlying natural phenomenon causing that “natural cyclical occurrence”. Make no mistake, any truly natural phenomenon can be explained by science. Science exists to explain natural phenomenon. Any phenomenon that *cannot* be explained by science is, by definition, supernatural.
The problem the denialist camp has is they can’t come up with a credible alternative explanation for current warming. It’s been proven it isn’t the Sun and that really only leaves atmospheric effects like greenhouse gasses, but everything we know about these say they should have a warming effect, and it’s the very phenomenon they are trying to argue against.
just because a theory has been put forth doesnt mean its better than a idea that has no theory until proven true, you just have to accept the fact that some things are beyond human understanding or beyond the understanding based on how we think
Not me mate. I think wasting valuable resources combating global warming is tantamount to criminal negligence.
The are other way bigger issues for the world today. If we are to be gambling anything at all, let alone our global prosperity, I would like to see somekind of serious odds of success first. As far as I'm concerned any use of resources on the scale required to give us a chance to counter global warming guarentee's the sacrifice of a large proportion of the human population. The cure is worse than the disease.
P.S. to the IPCC guy, you are paid to think the way you do. I am not. Who's independant now?
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money.
In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid.
Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Pathetic.
Why don't you ask the Chinese to show you what their chief economists think about the financial advantages in reducing carbon emissions are? Or the Indians. Economic growth? The world bank? Why not talk to the world leaders in economic growth. I guarentee you, you won't like what you will hear.
Those people haven't got to worry about what might happen in 40 or 50 years. Hundreds of millions of them are starving today.
We have a moral responsability to maximise the productivity of this planet. If we don't, hundreds of millions of people die. Not "maybe" sometime in the future. Actually. Today.
Get a grip mate, this is bullshit of the highest order.
Greens are swing voters, governments pander to their whims. They are also well off, middle class types from 1st world countries with no concept of danger.
The idiot squad.
Here is a gamble I am prepared to make. I will personally gamble the survival of mankind on these people being wrong. They've never been right yet, so it isn't really that much of a risk, now is it?
Meanwhile, if you want to get on board and start saving the world, there are serious and immediate problems that need addressing. Stop wasting your life on fancy, trendy claptrap and get your hands dirty. Turning off your lights when you are not using them isn't going to cut the mustard with me.
If you think emissions are so bad....... Why are you even using a computer? If you really beleive in all you say, why are you part of the problem?
Answer; either you are a willing butcher, keen to participate in the end of mankind, or when push comes to shove, when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, you don't believe in it enough either.
Actions speak louder than words. You can stop emitting carbon right now. All you have to do is turn off your PC, throw away your car keys, turn off your TV set, stop having children, stop playing video games. Go live in a cave or something with no central heating. I respect people with the courage of their convictions. I respect people who have the balls to lead.
Let us see, how much faith you put in this global warming theory. Let us see how big a threat to mankind you really believe this to be. If you want to drop out of modern civilisation to save the planet, be my guest. If you don't however, how about you stop trying to carc it up for the rest of us and get with the program.
I have the utmost scorn for you and all like you. You pay lipservice to the latest political fashion and no more. You haven't thought anything through for yourself but instead just re-gurgitate the party line. Send me links to other peoples ideas. You haven't done anything about it. You aren't ever going to. You just wish to feel a part of something. Bragging rights on sanctimony.
As I said earlier. Pathetic.
For myself, it makes very little difference to me whether the global warming theory is correct or incorrect. The correct course of action remains the same. I have other priorites.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Aedosen Originally posted by baff Not me mate. I think wasting valuable resources combating global warming is tantamount to criminal negligence.
The are other way bigger issues for the world today. If we are to be gambling anything at all, let alone our global prosperity, I would like to see somekind of serious odds of success first. As far as I'm concerned any use of resources on the scale required to give us a chance to counter global warming guarentee's the sacrifice of a large proportion of the human population. The cure is worse than the disease.
P.S. to the IPCC guy, you are paid to think the way you do. I am not. Who's independant now?
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change. IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report. It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US). Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money. In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid. Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
You state that these guys get paid to research Global Warming, well so does every other scientist or person who wants to keep researching something. I don't know if you trust people who never get paid more than people who do.
Should we mistrust every person who gets paid to do something just because he gets paid to do it?
Not me mate. I think wasting valuable resources combating global warming is tantamount to criminal negligence.
The are other way bigger issues for the world today.
If we are to be gambling anything at all, let alone our global prosperity, I would like to see somekind of serious odds of success first.
As far as I'm concerned any use of resources on the scale required to give us a chance to counter global warming guarentee's the sacrifice of a large proportion of the human population.
The cure is worse than the disease.
P.S. to the IPCC guy, you are paid to think the way you do. I am not. Who's independant now?
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money.
In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid.
Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
You state that these guys get paid to research Global Warming, well so does every other scientist or person who wants to keep researching something. I don't know if you trust people who never get paid more than people who do.
Should we mistrust every person who gets paid to do something just because he gets paid to do it?
The difference being that one group of scientists can benefit from NEVER finding any conclusive results, while other scientists will simply have their funding pulled. It's a sad product of the mantra that these men are out to save the world and ensure our very survival...Global warming has been a political agenda since the beginning though, google Margaret Thatcher and Global Warming...the results are interesting.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'll leave it up to the scientists to decide if we're responsible of global warming or not, but I do know that global warming itself isn't really the concern, so much as the sure to follow global cooling is.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
What global warming pseudo science does not tell you is that the rate at which those things change withiin Ice Cores is anything but constant, and any estimate that you get from them is going to be largely skewed...I suggest you look up HOW they go about finding out those things, it's quite enlightening.
Calling papers published major peer review journals like Science and Nature “pseudo-science” doesn’t give you any more credibility it just paints you as being against science in general.
This is a real simple issue, either you believe the real scientists publishing in real scientific journals or you believe unpublished unqualified people writing for political blogs. The former say global warming is happening and it’s caused by humans, the latter can’t stick to a single line of reasoning for more then 2 weeks.
I am still waiting for an answer on where the 1970's global cooling went to, and how did they get it so wrong.
One thing I would like to see from the global warming crowd is what is the temperature going to be next year? We will then have a feel for how accurate their predictions are.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money. In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid. Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
If you are going to claim there is money to be made by promoting global warming you really need to provide a source for that money. We *know* energy companies have $100 billion a year in profits on the line for opposing it and are not shy about paying money to anyone willing to oppose the real science on the issue.
I am still waiting for an answer on where the 1970's global cooling went to, and how did they get it so wrong.
Cooling was a popular issue in the mainstream press at that time, but there was no agreement in the scientific community that it was happening. Some people were a little rattled when it was discovered that interglacial warm periods usually only lasted 10 000 years and we are 10 000 years into the latest one. This got picked up in the media even though there was already considerable evidence that CO2 emissions would cause the earth to warm.
Originally posted by Vemoi
One thing I would like to see from the global warming crowd is what is the temperature going to be next year? We will then have a feel for how accurate their predictions are.
You’re asking for a weather prediction not a climate prediction. Climate predictions are predictions of trends, and trends can take a decade or more to confirm. The best you are going to get out of a 1 year prediction is that it will be within +/- 0.5 degrees of this year unless there is a strong el nino/la nina.
The world has been much hotter than it is today and everyone lived fine so bring in the warming I could do with some nice weather in England for a change.
The last time the earth was as warm as it is today there was no human civilization on it.
The last time the world was noticeably warmer then today was 125 000 years ago, and that only lasted for a few hundred years. Mostly modern humans may have existed but they certainly didn’t live in places like Europe or North America and they were a stone hunter gatherer age culture.
The last time the earth was “much warmer” then today there were no humans on it at all.
The middle ages was warmer than it is today......
You can buy into all this global warming BS if you want and give into what the goverment wants you to think cause it makes them billions and the companies that produce this stuff.... i see no proof of man made global warming lol.
Tbh i'll be dead within the next 40 years so it doesn't bother me.
Do you see cars on the road? There's proof right there.
Greenhouse gasses warm the planet, we produce greenhouse gasses. That's proof right there.
The polar caps are melting faster then scientists previously anticipated. That's proof right there.
Isn't the ozone layer over top of large cities depleting, and isn't that proof?
Warmer weather is very nice, but not drough, not desertization, not floods, not increased UV exposure. Warmer weather is nice, but not the cost we'll pay for it.
I do believe it's a cycle, but I also believe that we're making things worse then they should. It's not about should it or should it not happen, it's about to what extent it will happen and are we doing anything to make it worse, and I believe that we are.
people people settle down, here is the hard truth to rationalize as your taking your midday crap or whatever.
4.5 billion years old est. earth age.
it was a mere 100 years ago people were on horse and buggy. today we are flying through the air and sending people to the moon.(thanks to free societies, freedom inspires the best of us )
soon enough we will have real and practical 'clean' technology. anti gravity vehicles im hoping for.
if some people had their way, we would be looking backwards for answers such as windmills and the ilk.
realize you are being puppeteered and manipulated on all levels of political issues by egotistical, power hungry men and women. what kind of person aspires political power anyways? someone who truly wants to do good? no. not for the vast majority of political leaders. (JFK from the USA seemed like a genuine guy IMO)
don't worry and just remember we are merely a fleeting glimpse of time.
"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
And leave behind this place so
negative and blind and cynical
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable
Remember that before you label scientists as the political tools you are inferring. If history has proven anything, its that scientists dont bow to any political powers. Quite to oposite actually, and then we have a scientific theory becoming a part of our society, be it the model T ford, or the airbus A380.
Right , so when they detonated the 1st atomic bomb, why were the scientists betting on if it would burn out our atmosphere or not? ah yes they acted on, and took a chance that could have killed everyone ( and about 1/3 of them totally beleived this with all their scientific brains) on something they didnt know what the results would be ,for the better of mankind ... really., thats how it happened only to better mankind, no govt influence at all.
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
What global warming pseudo science does not tell you is that the rate at which those things change withiin Ice Cores is anything but constant, and any estimate that you get from them is going to be largely skewed...I suggest you look up HOW they go about finding out those things, it's quite enlightening.
Calling papers published major peer review journals like Science and Nature “pseudo-science” doesn’t give you any more credibility it just paints you as being against science in general.
This is a real simple issue, either you believe the real scientists publishing in real scientific journals or you believe unpublished unqualified people writing for political blogs. The former say global warming is happening and it’s caused by humans, the latter can’t stick to a single line of reasoning for more then 2 weeks.
"real scientifc journals" are wrong, and get disproven on a daily fucking basis...don't try to tell me that it's absolutely credible and true because it's in a fucking journal...GOD, LOOK at how agendized it all is, use some common freaking sense, and do the research on ice core dating like I asked you to, research the assumptions made, research the presuppositions upon which ice core dating is based...then come back to me. Until then, I'll just consider you another lock stepping global warming fanatic.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
Isotope levels in ice and sediment cores provide a very good representation of past global temperatures.
/me puts on his thinking cap
once every 100k years or so, the sun releases an invisible ray of stuff which is undetectable by todays most modern scientific equiptment. It also leaves no trace evidence in ice cores or it is undetectable with todays equiptment.
this is how 'germs' were first theorized. invisible things that make people sick. i dont know his name but, he was laughed out of his scientific community.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Isotope levels in ice and sediment cores provide a very good representation of past global temperatures.
What global warming pseudo science does not tell you is that the rate at which those things change withiin Ice Cores is anything but constant, and any estimate that you get from them is going to be largely skewed...I suggest you look up HOW they go about finding out those things, it's quite enlightening.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Isotope levels in ice and sediment cores provide a very good representation of past global temperatures.
What global warming pseudo science does not tell you is that the rate at which those things change withiin Ice Cores is anything but constant, and any estimate that you get from them is going to be largely skewed...I suggest you look up HOW they go about finding out those things, it's quite enlightening.
You mean like this:
This piece of information was cleverly hidden, by the pseudo scientists who do not want you to know about it, in the last IPCC report. In it you can see data about the amount of greenhouse gases and the average temperature. So no, the varition in average temperatures doesn't disprove anything but actually clearly indicates that there is very clear dependency between the average temperatures and the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.
From this graph you can clearly see how unsually fast the change in the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has been since the start of the industrial era:
This is the most meaningful data regarding global warming not some temperature charts because they are only showing the effect not the actual cause and I'm not saying greenhouse gases are necessarily the only cause but according to the IPCC the probablity that only natural causes are behind this process is less than 5%.
One final thing to take note of is even though on the 650kyr scale graph there is very clearly upward trend nearing present, the 2kyr scale graph it looks relatively even all the way till the latter half of the 18th century. After which the eg. Carbon Dioxide level have a jump of about 120-130 ppm during the 200+ years. In the first graph change this big has only few times over the last 650 000 years and has always taken at least thousands of years and usually lot longer.
Read this IPCC report even if you don't want to aknowledge it at least then you know what you are arguing against. Especially the FAQ part is very quick to read through and explains some very common misconceptions.
Edit: hopefully it actually shows the last word of my post now and edited some typos/sentences
I'm going to post one more thing since at this point there is usually attack against IPCC which is obviously communist conspiracy determined to steal jobs of the average Joe's.
The full conversation behind this comment can be found from the link "First" in my OP and I would stress the part where he says "Since the process requires word by word approval, the delegation from each government has the opportunity to prevent every sentence, every phrase, indeed every word, from making it into the summary, unless each word is consistent with the underlying science, as documented in the rest of the report."
So everything in the report has been also accepted by the delegation of the US goverment which isn't exactly huge on the global warming issue.
PS. english is actually my third language so please don't take the amount of typo's as indication my lack of intelligence.
==================================================================
"The IPCC plenary approval process for each Summary for Policymakers results in documents that are scientifically sound, thoroughly vetted, and exceedingly conservative in their assessment of the risks of climate change. Once one understands the process, it is clear why this needs to be the case.
I am a scientist who contributed to the AR4 of the IPCC. I am an author on the Working Group 2 Summary for Policymakers, and I participated in the plenary approval meetings. Here, I want to set the record straight on Mr. Morano’s misleading characterization of the IPCC plenary approval process. The essential nature of the plenary approval process is that every government sends a delegation of seasoned negotiators assigned to make the final document something that government can accept. Since the process requires word by word approval, the delegation from each government has the opportunity to prevent every sentence, every phrase, indeed every word, from making it into the summary, unless each word is consistent with the underlying science, as documented in the rest of the report.
Sure, there are many governments that are committed to action on climate change, but there are also several, including our own, that are openly skeptical. The skeptical governments come to the plenary approval meeting determined to insure that none of the statements in the Summary for Policymakers is unjustifiably confident or unjustifiably dire.
The requirement for word by word consensus by the government delegations insures that every phrase in the Summary for Policymakers has been accepted by the delegation from the most skeptical government at the meeting. If one delegation feels that a statement is not consistent with the scientific evidence, that statement does not make it into the Summary for Policymakers, even if 120 other delegations feel it should be there.
This process is an incredibly powerful way to insure that the final document is free from exaggeration or overstatement. Each Summary for Policymakers has been thoroughly scrubbed for every trace of overstatement, first because that is what the scientists were tasked to to but also because the skeptical governments all sent their “A” teams to make sure of that outcome.
In the IPCC process, plenary approval requires consensus. There are no committees making back room deals, no exceptions for majority votes on contentious issues, and no exceptions. Every delegation from every government has approved every word.
Chris Field
IPCC AR4 coordinating lead author
AGU Member
Not me mate. I think wasting valuable resources combating global warming is tantamount to criminal negligence.
There are other way bigger issues for the world today.
If we are to be gambling anything at all, let alone our global prosperity, I would like to see somekind of serious odds of success first.
As far as I'm concerned any use of resources on the scale required to give us a chance to counter global warming guarentee's the sacrifice of a large proportion of the human population.
The cure is worse than the disease.
P.S. to the IPCC guy, you are paid to think the way you do. I am not. Who's independant now?
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
Here is article by former World Bank's chief economist Nicholas Stern on how not doing anything would probably cost lot more than working to prevent global warming.
I'm not saying that is what is going to happen and that article certainly has people agreeing and disagreeing. But it is one example that even many economists don't think that it is definetely clear cut case of working to prevent agw = losing money especially on the long term.
just because a theory has been put forth doesnt mean its better than a idea that has no theory until proven true, you just have to accept the fact that some things are beyond human understanding or beyond the understanding based on how we think
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money.
In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid.
Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Pathetic.
Why don't you ask the Chinese to show you what their chief economists think about the financial advantages in reducing carbon emissions are? Or the Indians. Economic growth? The world bank? Why not talk to the world leaders in economic growth. I guarentee you, you won't like what you will hear.
Those people haven't got to worry about what might happen in 40 or 50 years. Hundreds of millions of them are starving today.
We have a moral responsability to maximise the productivity of this planet. If we don't, hundreds of millions of people die. Not "maybe" sometime in the future. Actually. Today.
Get a grip mate, this is bullshit of the highest order.
Greens are swing voters, governments pander to their whims. They are also well off, middle class types from 1st world countries with no concept of danger.
The idiot squad.
Here is a gamble I am prepared to make. I will personally gamble the survival of mankind on these people being wrong. They've never been right yet, so it isn't really that much of a risk, now is it?
Meanwhile, if you want to get on board and start saving the world, there are serious and immediate problems that need addressing. Stop wasting your life on fancy, trendy claptrap and get your hands dirty. Turning off your lights when you are not using them isn't going to cut the mustard with me.
If you think emissions are so bad....... Why are you even using a computer? If you really beleive in all you say, why are you part of the problem?
Answer; either you are a willing butcher, keen to participate in the end of mankind, or when push comes to shove, when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, you don't believe in it enough either.
Actions speak louder than words. You can stop emitting carbon right now. All you have to do is turn off your PC, throw away your car keys, turn off your TV set, stop having children, stop playing video games. Go live in a cave or something with no central heating. I respect people with the courage of their convictions. I respect people who have the balls to lead.
Let us see, how much faith you put in this global warming theory. Let us see how big a threat to mankind you really believe this to be. If you want to drop out of modern civilisation to save the planet, be my guest. If you don't however, how about you stop trying to carc it up for the rest of us and get with the program.
I have the utmost scorn for you and all like you. You pay lipservice to the latest political fashion and no more. You haven't thought anything through for yourself but instead just re-gurgitate the party line. Send me links to other peoples ideas. You haven't done anything about it. You aren't ever going to. You just wish to feel a part of something. Bragging rights on sanctimony.
As I said earlier. Pathetic.
For myself, it makes very little difference to me whether the global warming theory is correct or incorrect. The correct course of action remains the same. I have other priorites.
You said it yourself best.
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money.
In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid.
Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
You state that these guys get paid to research Global Warming, well so does every other scientist or person who wants to keep researching something. I don't know if you trust people who never get paid more than people who do.
Should we mistrust every person who gets paid to do something just because he gets paid to do it?
Me because you obviously didn't even read the whole post the figure out that I wasn't member of IPCC but just posting a quotation. Which probably is quite clear indication of the process how you have reached your point of view regarding climate change.
IPCC doesn't make up the reports themselfs they use peer reviewed and published science. To make it clear basically summarize the scientific discoveries made by scientists all over the world to make one big report.
It has been put through 3rd step process to make sure it is accurate. First the science report is published to allow peer evalution, then it is reviewed again by the people actualling compiling the report, who are scientists themselfs, and finally every word in the report is reviewed and accepted by the experts and goverment officials sent to represent 113 nations(including the US).
Edit: one minor detail I forgot to mention IPCC doesn't pay the scientists anything. Only pay they are getting is what they normally get from their home institutions.
They all get paid to research Global Warming each and everyone of them. Scientists, peers, governmental representatives and all. They don't do it for free, it's their job. They do it for money.
In fact, It's a pretty good job. Well paid.
Who cares what process they use. The ramifications for them are that if global warming is not a threat, they will be unemployed.
You state that these guys get paid to research Global Warming, well so does every other scientist or person who wants to keep researching something. I don't know if you trust people who never get paid more than people who do.
Should we mistrust every person who gets paid to do something just because he gets paid to do it?
The difference being that one group of scientists can benefit from NEVER finding any conclusive results, while other scientists will simply have their funding pulled. It's a sad product of the mantra that these men are out to save the world and ensure our very survival...Global warming has been a political agenda since the beginning though, google Margaret Thatcher and Global Warming...the results are interesting.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'll leave it up to the scientists to decide if we're responsible of global warming or not, but I do know that global warming itself isn't really the concern, so much as the sure to follow global cooling is.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Calling papers published major peer review journals like Science and Nature “pseudo-science” doesn’t give you any more credibility it just paints you as being against science in general.
This is a real simple issue, either you believe the real scientists publishing in real scientific journals or you believe unpublished unqualified people writing for political blogs. The former say global warming is happening and it’s caused by humans, the latter can’t stick to a single line of reasoning for more then 2 weeks.
I am still waiting for an answer on where the 1970's global cooling went to, and how did they get it so wrong.
One thing I would like to see from the global warming crowd is what is the temperature going to be next year? We will then have a feel for how accurate their predictions are.
If you are going to claim there is money to be made by promoting global warming you really need to provide a source for that money. We *know* energy companies have $100 billion a year in profits on the line for opposing it and are not shy about paying money to anyone willing to oppose the real science on the issue.
Cooling was a popular issue in the mainstream press at that time, but there was no agreement in the scientific community that it was happening. Some people were a little rattled when it was discovered that interglacial warm periods usually only lasted 10 000 years and we are 10 000 years into the latest one. This got picked up in the media even though there was already considerable evidence that CO2 emissions would cause the earth to warm.
You’re asking for a weather prediction not a climate prediction. Climate predictions are predictions of trends, and trends can take a decade or more to confirm. The best you are going to get out of a 1 year prediction is that it will be within +/- 0.5 degrees of this year unless there is a strong el nino/la nina.
The middle ages was warmer than it is today......
You can buy into all this global warming BS if you want and give into what the goverment wants you to think cause it makes them billions and the companies that produce this stuff.... i see no proof of man made global warming lol.
Do you see cars on the road? There's proof right there.Tbh i'll be dead within the next 40 years so it doesn't bother me.
Greenhouse gasses warm the planet, we produce greenhouse gasses. That's proof right there.
The polar caps are melting faster then scientists previously anticipated. That's proof right there.
Isn't the ozone layer over top of large cities depleting, and isn't that proof?
Warmer weather is very nice, but not drough, not desertization, not floods, not increased UV exposure. Warmer weather is nice, but not the cost we'll pay for it.
I do believe it's a cycle, but I also believe that we're making things worse then they should. It's not about should it or should it not happen, it's about to what extent it will happen and are we doing anything to make it worse, and I believe that we are.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Mr Barroso says climate change is the ultimate political challenge
He said Europeans wanted "a vision and a plan of action" against climate change and the measures would cost 3 euros (£2.10) a week for every citizen.
YEP..
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
people people settle down, here is the hard truth to rationalize as your taking your midday crap or whatever.
4.5 billion years old est. earth age.
it was a mere 100 years ago people were on horse and buggy. today we are flying through the air and sending people to the moon.(thanks to free societies, freedom inspires the best of us
)
soon enough we will have real and practical 'clean' technology. anti gravity vehicles im hoping for.
if some people had their way, we would be looking backwards for answers such as windmills and the ilk.
realize you are being puppeteered and manipulated on all levels of political issues by egotistical, power hungry men and women. what kind of person aspires political power anyways? someone who truly wants to do good? no. not for the vast majority of political leaders. (JFK from the USA seemed like a genuine guy IMO)
don't worry and just remember we are merely a fleeting glimpse of time.
"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
And leave behind this place so
negative and blind and cynical
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable
So let the light touch you so that
the words spill through
And let the past break through
bringing out our hope and reason
Before we hide away."
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
clever.
anyway you rationalize it, you will do nothing about it either.
just dont take my money or my freedoms, which is the politics of it.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
They built and let it explode for one reason, they were told what to do or they lose everything in their world. and im sure this rational government you all love to claim has nothing better to do than have thousands of secret little agendas to keep the common man down, would never stoop so low as to try to influence the political agenda of global warming for profit.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Calling papers published major peer review journals like Science and Nature “pseudo-science” doesn’t give you any more credibility it just paints you as being against science in general.
This is a real simple issue, either you believe the real scientists publishing in real scientific journals or you believe unpublished unqualified people writing for political blogs. The former say global warming is happening and it’s caused by humans, the latter can’t stick to a single line of reasoning for more then 2 weeks.
"real scientifc journals" are wrong, and get disproven on a daily fucking basis...don't try to tell me that it's absolutely credible and true because it's in a fucking journal...GOD, LOOK at how agendized it all is, use some common freaking sense, and do the research on ice core dating like I asked you to, research the assumptions made, research the presuppositions upon which ice core dating is based...then come back to me. Until then, I'll just consider you another lock stepping global warming fanatic.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
the only "freedom" I have lost is expedited air travel.-I will subtlety invade your psyche-