Executive Summary: The Independent Summary for Policymakers is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of climate change science as laid out in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report. 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. It 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, including:
• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to 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.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
The Fraser Institute is a conservative think tank - they use "astrophysicists" to deny climate change. They also put out bogus reports about air quality - by utilizing toxins and particulates that have longed been banned and not including newer ones.
anyways - i feel like i'm beating a dead horse again ...
the IPCC report is there - those who want to still spend all their efforts looking to debunk this science are free to do so ... you will have plenty of success i'm sure ... meanwhile, another day of inadequate action passes before us ...
edit: and you can be sure exxon is part of the funding for this institute ...
The Fraser Institute is a conservative think tank - they use "astrophysicists" to deny climate change. They also put out bogus reports about air quality - by utilizing toxins and particulates that have longed been banned and not including newer ones.
anyways - i feel like i'm beating a dead horse again ...
the IPCC report is there - those who want to still spend all their efforts looking to debunk this science are free to do so ... you will have plenty of success i'm sure ... meanwhile, another day of inadequate action passes before us ...
edit: and you can be sure exxon is part of the funding for this institute ...
Have you even looked at the method used to compile the IPCC report?
As for your criticism of using an astrophysist that must be a joke. Or are you saying if we take a look at all the people who worked on the IPCC report that they will all have PhD's in climatology?
Exxon pays taxes to the government, the government funds the IPCC report. Do we get to discount the IPCC report because it is partially funded by Exxon?
When you don't realize that your own shit doesindeed stink you truly are lost.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If this ISPM report is indeed froma conservative thinktank I dont even know why I bother to reply. They only thing they have in mind is promoting the agenda of the conservative right, debunking what the MAYORITY of scientists worldwide agree on.
• 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.
I'll decide that one for myself, but I don't blame the media for it, that's way too easy.
• 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.
So a worldwide report will be published based on insufficient data? Yet all the data derived points in a direction that contradicts what these guys write. I saw the data and know the methods, they sound credible.
• 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.
I tend to believe the IPCC over these guys on these predictions.
• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.
Is believed to? Uncertainty? Read the IPCC report the mentioned percentage of our impact on climate change is 90%.
• 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.
Nonsense for the most part, these things are or 1) taken in to account b) not of any imprtance. Any computer model has a degree of error. [/quote]
• 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.
Again nibling on the edges trying to find something to raise doubt over.
And your ideas about funding and comparing this thinktank to the UN is a perfect example of how an agenda of making the UN look like a source of evil and a drain on the economy has worked. I agree there are agenda's everywhere but I'll take a worldwide non profit organisations agenda like the UN over this ISPN group any day.
And your ideas about funding and comparing this thinktank to the UN is a perfect example of how an agenda of making the UN look like a source of evil and a drain on the economy has worked. I agree there are agenda's everywhere but I'll take a worldwide non profit organisations agenda like the UN over this ISPN group any day.
Yeah, Kofi Annan definitely found the UN to be a a non-profit organization. You're right, you just can't get any cleaner than the UN. Look at Darfur and then tell me what you think of the UN and the way it works.
At no point have I disputed climate change, or that man has an adverse impact on climate change. All I'm doing is bringing a certain amount of skepticism to the IPCC report and I get shit on. The same type of skepticism that we should all have when lookng at any report by any agency.
Right now climate models are based on assumption on top of assumption. If one of these assumptions is wrong or off the final results will be off by a lot. Akin to me giving you directions of taking a whole bunch of lefts to get to an address. But if one of those lefts was supposed to be a right, well you tell me if you got to the right place.
Have you looked at how the IPCC report is drafted? Do you think it is drafted using the process that science should use?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
What do posters make of the ISPM report. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886
Executive Summary: The Independent Summary for Policymakers is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of climate change science as laid out in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report. 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.
I now it's far from being unbiaised but the article is actually funny, especially the part on David Bellamy, a noted environmentalist who graced the event by his presence.
Climatology doens't seem to be an exact science such as maths or physics so we will have to disagree and, even worse, people who actually take decisions will keep on disagreeing while doing nothing about it until they reach an agreement.
Have you even looked at the method used to compile the IPCC report?
As for your criticism of using an astrophysist that must be a joke. Or are you saying if we take a look at all the people who worked on the IPCC report that they will all have PhD's in climatology?
Exxon pays taxes to the government, the government funds the IPCC report. Do we get to discount the IPCC report because it is partially funded by Exxon?
When you don't realize that your own shit doesindeed stink you truly are lost.
yes ... i have ...
again - if u think your sources are credible - that's your perogative ... in the world of climatology and science - they are not ... just understand that you are dismissing all the leading experts in the field while continually pushing a few scientists funded by oil companies and other heavy emitting industries ...
after all these years and with all the available information out there - i really don't know why we are still having this debate ...
but like i said - at this stage - the time to debate is over ... you believe what you want to believe ...
I now it's far from being unbiaised but the article is actually funny, especially the part on David Bellamy, a noted environmentalist who graced the event by his presence.
Climatology doens't seem to be an exact science such as maths or physics so we will have to disagree and, even worse, people who actually take decisions will keep on disagreeing while doing nothing about it until they reach an agreement.
exactly ... all these reports are the same ... fabrications, large PR campaigns ... its a joke ...
but as long as they have people who are willing to listen - they will always have a voice ...
i will bet two nickels you have no idea the theory behind climate change and global warming ...
Global Warming and Climate change are totally 2 different things..way different.. And yes I know the theories...just don't buy into everything that people want to shove down my throat
why is there so much resistance to reports like this...? I mean, is it a "bad thing" to want to make changes that will slow the release of toxins and such...?
because people are ignorant and unwilling to take responsability for their actions. it seems the natural human reaction to anything is to shift the blame somewhere else.
an idiot can stand behind a vehicle and smell the pollution but cannot admitt it is entering the atmosphere.
an idiot can say that plants breathe in CO2 but can't admitt that they've been cutting down the trees that purify the air for thousands of years.
an idiot can see the brown clouds hanging over the cities yet cannot admitt they are breathing this pollution.
inmytree; the answer to your question is we are surrounded by idiots; and that is why.
Exxon Linked to Climate Change Pay Out
by: Steve Hargreaves 3 February 2007
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.
The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."
The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
While there is nothing wrong with funding new research, activists said the intent of the letter seemed to be to criticize the UN report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work.
"It is a major problem that scientists make arguments against climate change...that they can't back up [with] peer reviewed data," said Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for ExxposeExxon.
In a statement, AEI said Exxon's annual contribution to the group is small, amounting to less than 1 percent of AEI's annual budget.
It also said a $10,000 payment for scientific work was not unusual.
"A $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest," the statement read.
One academic disagreed with that claim.
"To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money," said Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois.
Wuebbles criticized the letter for attempting to influence the outcome of its authors.
"Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand," he said.
But David Karl, a climate professor at the University of Hawaii, said that the amount of money was typical for authoring such a report, but he took issue with the tone of the letter.
"It sounds like they were looking for a particular outcome," he said.
Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science.
"This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind."
A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004.
An Exxon ( Charts) spokesman said the company continues to donate to AEI, but said it does not control what the group does.
The spokesman also noted that Exxon is one of many corporations that give to AEI, which is a well-known think tank.
But Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming.
"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," reads Exxon's latest statement on global warming, issued Friday in response to the UN study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
"Because the risks to society and ecosystems [posed by global warming] could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."
But critics are calling Exxon's sincerity into question over their perceived attempts to cloud the public's perception of scientific opinion.
"What we want to see is that Exxon is making a polar change" before the company claims that it has reformed its old ways, said Hoover.
Exxon Linked to Climate Change Pay Out
by: Steve Hargreaves 3 February 2007
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
Imagine that being paid to do your job. All scientists should be criticing the IPCC report where the critic is valid. Next thing I know you'll be teling me that the scientist and others that wrote the IPCC report got paid as well. The bastards, expecting to be opaid for working. Where's the moral compass of scientists today?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Imagine that being paid to do your job. All scientists should be criticing the IPCC report where the critic is valid. Next thing I know you'll be teling me that the scientist and others that wrote the IPCC report got paid as well. The bastards, expecting to be opaid for working. Where's the moral compass of scientists today?
soo ... to you - a scientist in the panel getting paid is the same as someone who answers an ad to write a paper with pre-determined findings?
Yeah, Kofi Annan definitely found the UN to be a a non-profit organization. You're right, you just can't get any cleaner than the UN. Look at Darfur and then tell me what you think of the UN and the way it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN#Criticism_and_controversies
"The United Nations has been criticized as unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Recent examples include the Iranian nuclear program and the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the United States on one side with either China, Russia or both on the other."
It is a bitch that these things don't get solved as quick as they need to, but it's still better than doing nothing, turning the other cheek and walking away or starting a full scale war without precedent or trying the diplomatic path 1st. Sure I wish they'd be able to react faster and better, but the UN is not just the Security Council.
"In 2001, the UN and Secretary General Kofi Annan won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world."
Yea he is a real bastard.. Whats your point?
I'd rather be governed by the UN than the bunch of crooks like the ones leading the US nowadays. But let us keep our opinions about the UN for another thread.
Ok, I'll elaborate, yes you are correct, plants breathe CO2, which we emit in many ways, ways that have increased significantly over the last decades. The report clearly states that we contribute the mayority of gasses that lead to global warming.
Man I feel great! Life is what you make it.
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!! The report says it! I'm going to write a report that clearly indicates that I am a badass.
It's all Media propaganda anyhow..
Scientist who support the Global warming theory are getting funded to say so..
Scientist who are so called retired say the opposite
If anyone is still interested in finding out what is actually going on, "global warming" is the rallying cry of lunatic fringe environmentalists and posturing politicians, who maintain that it's all our fault, and who want people to think they are doing something useful, while ignoring actual environmental problems which are well-known, and which could be tackled given the political will, with a dash of common sense
Look at it this way. What if a scientist studied one tenth of a second of your life and then made claims and predictions about the rest of your life. Those predictions might even come true, but there would be absolutely no confidence in them.
What it a scientist studied a record of your life in written form, that accurately preserved critical details, and then made claims and predictions?
The evidence for climate change is not based just on the observations made during the timeframe of moden science. The most compelling data comes from antarctic ice cores and geological records that span hundreds of thousands of years.
Why would the scientific community make this story up? Do you imagine that there is no system in place to prevent crazy theories based on flimsy evidence from getting into the mainstream? Scientific research is subject to a process of peer review.
As usual, you have obviously made no effort to educate yourself on the actual SCIENCE of this issue.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
It's all Media propaganda anyhow..
Scientist who support the Global warming theory are getting funded to say so..
Scientist who are so called retired say the opposite
If anyone is still interested in finding out what is actually going on, "global warming" is the rallying cry of lunatic fringe environmentalists and posturing politicians, who maintain that it's all our fault, and who want people to think they are doing something useful, while ignoring actual environmental problems which are well-known, and which could be tackled given the political will, with a dash of common sense
Your ideas are right up there with "cows cause the green house effect". Maybe you should try to get ur head out ur arse and educate urself, I'm tired of trying to.
It's all Media propaganda anyhow..
Scientist who support the Global warming theory are getting funded to say so..
Scientist who are so called retired say the opposite
If anyone is still interested in finding out what is actually going on, "global warming" is the rallying cry of lunatic fringe environmentalists and posturing politicians, who maintain that it's all our fault, and who want people to think they are doing something useful, while ignoring actual environmental problems which are well-known, and which could be tackled given the political will, with a dash of common sense
These are not lunatic fringe environmentalists or posturing politicians. Here is a joint statement from the major science acadamies from Brazil, China, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
What it a scientist studied a record of your life in written form, that accurately preserved critical details, and then made claims and predictions?
The evidence for climate change is not based just on the observations made during the timeframe of moden science. The most compelling data comes from antarctic ice cores and geological records that span hundreds of thousands of years.
Why would the scientific community make this story up? Do you imagine that there is no system in place to prevent crazy theories based on flimsy evidence from getting into the mainstream? Scientific research is subject to a process of peer review.
As usual, you have obviously made no effort to educate yourself on the actual SCIENCE of this issue.
i'd also like to add that new discoveries have been made since the initial report went into review. in greenland; meltwater is trailing down the cracks to the base and lubricating the ice; making it move faster than previously predicted. in antartica; meltwater is filling the cracks; freezing and expanding to break off large pieces of ice. according to nasa; 1250 square miles of ice broke off and disappeared in 2005. in 1997 the earths ice cover was about the size of the us. in 2003 we'd lost the equivelant of all the states east of the mississippi.
the earths ice cover is the earths fail safe system. it reflects heat back into space. this is the importance of our ice; not just rising sea levels.
Your ideas are right up there with "cows cause the green house effect". Maybe you should try to get ur head out ur arse and educate urself, I'm tired of trying to.
trust me I'm educated but I just don't buy into all that crap..
Like I've said before..obviously we should all be trying to be cleaner and such to our environment ..just common sense..But that Global warning scare crap is just bullshit..
The Earth is billions of years old and goes through "changes" like this all the time but nobody ever talks about Global Cooling back in the 70's..The Little ice age, the Medieval warm period. Plus the IPCC draws as they saw firm conclusions on what many many scientist say is not valid.
Not exactly sure on the exact temp numbers but why is the average earth temperature now is 72F but a while back was 78F...
There are 2 sides to every coin..just because of Media propaganda doesn't automatically make it valid.
Yeah "scientists" say..oh my god global warming...but as well that people don't know that "scientists" as well are saying the opposite but nobody wants to hear what they others have to say..Plus in short...lol...The ones that believe in Global warming are forecasting the future temps and such..fuck that..I don't believe my local weather channel to tell me what the weather is gonna be in 2 days..let alone 10 years
And that is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, hopefully by informing these people with some SCIENTIFICAL FACTS instead of the politically shaped nonsense they've heard and read they might actually learn something. I'm not interested in doom scenarios, but in solutions. And even if I am completely wrong tempering the rise in temperature will only do good.
WHAT??.. you may have that a little reversed...LOL..
Comments
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886
Executive Summary: The Independent Summary for Policymakers is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of climate change science as laid out in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report. 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. It 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, including:
• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to 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.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
http://www.yourmedia.ca/library_articles/041028_gutstein_fraser.html
anyways - i feel like i'm beating a dead horse again ...
the IPCC report is there - those who want to still spend all their efforts looking to debunk this science are free to do so ... you will have plenty of success i'm sure ... meanwhile, another day of inadequate action passes before us ...
edit: and you can be sure exxon is part of the funding for this institute ...
As for your criticism of using an astrophysist that must be a joke. Or are you saying if we take a look at all the people who worked on the IPCC report that they will all have PhD's in climatology?
Exxon pays taxes to the government, the government funds the IPCC report. Do we get to discount the IPCC report because it is partially funded by Exxon?
When you don't realize that your own shit doesindeed stink you truly are lost.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'll decide that one for myself, but I don't blame the media for it, that's way too easy. So a worldwide report will be published based on insufficient data? Yet all the data derived points in a direction that contradicts what these guys write. I saw the data and know the methods, they sound credible. I tend to believe the IPCC over these guys on these predictions. Is believed to? Uncertainty? Read the IPCC report the mentioned percentage of our impact on climate change is 90%. Nonsense for the most part, these things are or 1) taken in to account b) not of any imprtance. Any computer model has a degree of error. [/quote] Again nibling on the edges trying to find something to raise doubt over.
And your ideas about funding and comparing this thinktank to the UN is a perfect example of how an agenda of making the UN look like a source of evil and a drain on the economy has worked. I agree there are agenda's everywhere but I'll take a worldwide non profit organisations agenda like the UN over this ISPN group any day.
Go back to blaming cows.
At no point have I disputed climate change, or that man has an adverse impact on climate change. All I'm doing is bringing a certain amount of skepticism to the IPCC report and I get shit on. The same type of skepticism that we should all have when lookng at any report by any agency.
Right now climate models are based on assumption on top of assumption. If one of these assumptions is wrong or off the final results will be off by a lot. Akin to me giving you directions of taking a whole bunch of lefts to get to an address. But if one of those lefts was supposed to be a right, well you tell me if you got to the right place.
Have you looked at how the IPCC report is drafted? Do you think it is drafted using the process that science should use?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I didn't read the report. But I did google ispm report on global warming to have a short independent review, and found this :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib
I now it's far from being unbiaised but the article is actually funny, especially the part on David Bellamy, a noted environmentalist who graced the event by his presence.
Climatology doens't seem to be an exact science such as maths or physics so we will have to disagree and, even worse, people who actually take decisions will keep on disagreeing while doing nothing about it until they reach an agreement.
yes ... i have ...
again - if u think your sources are credible - that's your perogative ... in the world of climatology and science - they are not ... just understand that you are dismissing all the leading experts in the field while continually pushing a few scientists funded by oil companies and other heavy emitting industries ...
after all these years and with all the available information out there - i really don't know why we are still having this debate ...
but like i said - at this stage - the time to debate is over ... you believe what you want to believe ...
exactly ... all these reports are the same ... fabrications, large PR campaigns ... its a joke ...
but as long as they have people who are willing to listen - they will always have a voice ...
Over the billions of years there has been times of Global Warming,Global Cooling, Ice ages etc...in 20 years it's gonna be Global Cooling..
We all should just naturally want to make our planet cleaner and such but to really believe in that Global warming crap is stupid
i will bet two nickels you have no idea the theory behind climate change and global warming ...
Global Warming and Climate change are totally 2 different things..way different.. And yes I know the theories...just don't buy into everything that people want to shove down my throat
because people are ignorant and unwilling to take responsability for their actions. it seems the natural human reaction to anything is to shift the blame somewhere else.
an idiot can stand behind a vehicle and smell the pollution but cannot admitt it is entering the atmosphere.
an idiot can say that plants breathe in CO2 but can't admitt that they've been cutting down the trees that purify the air for thousands of years.
an idiot can see the brown clouds hanging over the cities yet cannot admitt they are breathing this pollution.
inmytree; the answer to your question is we are surrounded by idiots; and that is why.
*************
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=75306232007
Exxon Linked to Climate Change Pay Out
by: Steve Hargreaves 3 February 2007
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.
The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."
The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
While there is nothing wrong with funding new research, activists said the intent of the letter seemed to be to criticize the UN report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work.
"It is a major problem that scientists make arguments against climate change...that they can't back up [with] peer reviewed data," said Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for ExxposeExxon.
In a statement, AEI said Exxon's annual contribution to the group is small, amounting to less than 1 percent of AEI's annual budget.
It also said a $10,000 payment for scientific work was not unusual.
"A $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest," the statement read.
One academic disagreed with that claim.
"To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money," said Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois.
Wuebbles criticized the letter for attempting to influence the outcome of its authors.
"Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand," he said.
But David Karl, a climate professor at the University of Hawaii, said that the amount of money was typical for authoring such a report, but he took issue with the tone of the letter.
"It sounds like they were looking for a particular outcome," he said.
Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science.
"This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind."
A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004.
An Exxon ( Charts) spokesman said the company continues to donate to AEI, but said it does not control what the group does.
The spokesman also noted that Exxon is one of many corporations that give to AEI, which is a well-known think tank.
But Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming.
"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," reads Exxon's latest statement on global warming, issued Friday in response to the UN study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
"Because the risks to society and ecosystems [posed by global warming] could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."
But critics are calling Exxon's sincerity into question over their perceived attempts to cloud the public's perception of scientific opinion.
"What we want to see is that Exxon is making a polar change" before the company claims that it has reformed its old ways, said Hoover.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
soo ... to you - a scientist in the panel getting paid is the same as someone who answers an ad to write a paper with pre-determined findings?
"The United Nations has been criticized as unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Recent examples include the Iranian nuclear program and the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the United States on one side with either China, Russia or both on the other."
It is a bitch that these things don't get solved as quick as they need to, but it's still better than doing nothing, turning the other cheek and walking away or starting a full scale war without precedent or trying the diplomatic path 1st. Sure I wish they'd be able to react faster and better, but the UN is not just the Security Council.
"In 2001, the UN and Secretary General Kofi Annan won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world."
Yea he is a real bastard.. Whats your point?
I'd rather be governed by the UN than the bunch of crooks like the ones leading the US nowadays. But let us keep our opinions about the UN for another thread. I'm not sure what you mean, but yea I read it and it's based on scientifical proven data..
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!! The report says it! I'm going to write a report that clearly indicates that I am a badass.
Scientist who support the Global warming theory are getting funded to say so..
Scientist who are so called retired say the opposite
If anyone is still interested in finding out what is actually going on, "global warming" is the rallying cry of lunatic fringe environmentalists and posturing politicians, who maintain that it's all our fault, and who want people to think they are doing something useful, while ignoring actual environmental problems which are well-known, and which could be tackled given the political will, with a dash of common sense
What it a scientist studied a record of your life in written form, that accurately preserved critical details, and then made claims and predictions?
The evidence for climate change is not based just on the observations made during the timeframe of moden science. The most compelling data comes from antarctic ice cores and geological records that span hundreds of thousands of years.
Why would the scientific community make this story up? Do you imagine that there is no system in place to prevent crazy theories based on flimsy evidence from getting into the mainstream? Scientific research is subject to a process of peer review.
As usual, you have obviously made no effort to educate yourself on the actual SCIENCE of this issue.
-C Addison
These are not lunatic fringe environmentalists or posturing politicians. Here is a joint statement from the major science acadamies from Brazil, China, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
i'd also like to add that new discoveries have been made since the initial report went into review. in greenland; meltwater is trailing down the cracks to the base and lubricating the ice; making it move faster than previously predicted. in antartica; meltwater is filling the cracks; freezing and expanding to break off large pieces of ice. according to nasa; 1250 square miles of ice broke off and disappeared in 2005. in 1997 the earths ice cover was about the size of the us. in 2003 we'd lost the equivelant of all the states east of the mississippi.
the earths ice cover is the earths fail safe system. it reflects heat back into space. this is the importance of our ice; not just rising sea levels.
trust me I'm educated but I just don't buy into all that crap..
Like I've said before..obviously we should all be trying to be cleaner and such to our environment ..just common sense..But that Global warning scare crap is just bullshit..
The Earth is billions of years old and goes through "changes" like this all the time but nobody ever talks about Global Cooling back in the 70's..The Little ice age, the Medieval warm period. Plus the IPCC draws as they saw firm conclusions on what many many scientist say is not valid.
Not exactly sure on the exact temp numbers but why is the average earth temperature now is 72F but a while back was 78F...
There are 2 sides to every coin..just because of Media propaganda doesn't automatically make it valid.
Yeah "scientists" say..oh my god global warming...but as well that people don't know that "scientists" as well are saying the opposite but nobody wants to hear what they others have to say..Plus in short...lol...The ones that believe in Global warming are forecasting the future temps and such..fuck that..I don't believe my local weather channel to tell me what the weather is gonna be in 2 days..let alone 10 years
WHAT??.. you may have that a little reversed...LOL..
Yourself and Polaris would love this article..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms