Don’t really care bears
Oddly, almost all the news sources on this report are outside the US. White House pressure on US news media not to report it? Nah!
Rising global temperatures could melt Latin America’s glaciers within 15 years, cause food shortages affecting 130-million people across Asia by 2050 and wipe out Africa’s wheat crop, according to a U.N. report released Tuesday.
The report, written and reviewed by hundreds of scientists, outlined dramatic effects of climate change including rising sea levels, the disappearance of species and intensifying natural disasters. It said 30 percent of the world’s coastlines could be lost by 2080.
Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlined details of the report in news conferences around the world Tuesday, four days after they released a written summary of their findings. The report is the second of three being issued this year; the first dealt with the physical science of climate change and the third will deal with responses to it.
I guess we humans still do have a stake in this natural selection game after all.
So it exists, and we’re speeding it up.
The “what to do about it” part is the tough one.
Making Ethanol sure isn’t the best way. As if promising farmers more money to make fuel crops instead of food crops wouldn’t raise controversy.
I like hydrogen, if it’s produced in Greenland and Hawaii, using free geothermal + seawater.
4 years ago they had consensus about a hockey stick chart of spiking world temperatures. They’ve dropped that, and lowered their sea level rise estimates to 23 inches. I wonder what they’ll change for the next report.
Dave, back up your bullshit. How would an administration so weak be able to supress the story?
Lol – Article states it will affect Africa, Asia, and Latin America – ok, so what i dont have an intention of ever visiting those places. It also lists California & New York a possibly being affected…
Just Build Dikes – REALLLY BIG ONES!!!
Another lopsided report that sees C02 as the ONLY significant cause of global warming. It’s not even colse to being the most abundant greenhouse gas. What a friggen waste of time.
The real point is Who Cares? If you have to give up full size trucks, large houses on large private lots and lots of driving to get anywhere, it would be better for Earth to fry, since the alternative is a lifestyle not worth living.
(For some of you greenies who justcan’t seem to visualize anything outside your collectivist thinking: I am NOT exaggerating or being facetious.)
Urban Sprawl = good, apartments and mass transit = better to have all life end.
And of course the UN has no self-interest whatsoever in promoting global warming hysteria.
For some of you greenies who justcan’t seem to visualize anything outside your collectivist thinking: I am NOT exaggerating or being facetious
Nobody thinks you’re kidding.
We just think you’re a friggin’ moron.
#8 BINGO, we have a winner.
The only countries that are going to be asked to give up jack shit to solve global warming are the Western Industrialized ones. They make up a small percentage of the UN membership.
We just think you’re a friggin’ moron.
You’re too nice!
#10, reminds me of how entitlement systems usually work… the minority pays for the benefit of the majority.
#9,#11 – oooh, oohh I’m calling an Imus on you, you guys should have to resign…..
Wait a minute, I’m an American, I can handle this the right way: Can’t you do better than that?
conservatives bore me — every thing they say can be boiled down to these four phrases.
domestic policy: “i’m not going to give up anything to help anybody else, period.”
foreign policy “america is rich and powerful and so everyone in the world must do exactly as we say, and must shower us with praise.”
religion “so long as my preacher says that the bible supports my actions, i will go to heaven, and everyone else will go to hell.”
ethics“if it’s not illegal, then it’s okay”
did i miss anything?
#13, TGW, If we’re going to fry there’s nothing we can do about it since there is nothing (so insignificant as to be nothing) we have done to create it.
Liberals bore me — every thing they say can be boiled down to these three phrases.
domestic policy: “How dare you question extortionary taxation and redistribution of income to non-productive sectors, you selfish Rethuglican!?.”
foreign policy “’world opinion’ (read: the opinion of the BBC and Reuters) must be courted, worshipped, brownnosed, etc. to the detriment of one’s existence, like in the Aesop’s Fable ‘The Man, His Son, And the Donkey’.”
religion: “everyone who disagrees with me is a right-wing born-again young-earth-creationist christianist!”
Riddle me this BatMan: If polar bears are exclusively northern hemisphere dwelling animals and penguins are exclusively southern hemisphere dwelling animals….how does a polar bear catch a penguin to roast it over a spit? Raid on a local zoo?
Liberals:
domestic policy: I have more stuff than some others therefore I am evil. It’s not possible to actually be successful without screwing someone else.
foreign policy: Because America is rich and powerful it follows that America screwed everyone else, therefore America is evil.
religion: There is no God but I’m still evil and guilty.
ethics: If everyone doesn’t have exactly the same amount of everything as everyone else, the ones who have more are evil cheaters.
If gas prices were twice what they are now :
– the rich would continue the same
– the middle class would car-pool, use transit system, move closer to their jobs
– the poor = no change
It’s going to happen anyways. My wife & I adapted ahead of time. The price of gas & heating could triple, and our only monthly impact would be one less movie w/family per month, one less restaurant w/family per month.
So while gas is cheap, I’m using the extra money to pay for hybrid car.
Liberals and Conservatives both suck. Think for yourselves issue by issue.
hahahhahhahahahahahahahahahaha
16&18 — nice replies, well landed
look, all i’m saying is that in historical context we as a nation owe a great deal of our wealth to the industrial revolution, and that during that era, our nation made a huge freaking mess
what is wrong with being a man a helping to clean it up?
#21 – Doing things more efficiently or cleaner is great. Cutting back what we do is not. Don’t tell me to drive a smaller car: instead find me a better way to power the truck I have without increasing cost.
Instead of penalizing success, find ways to allow others to also achieve it. Wealth is not a finite resource to be portioned out, wealth is generated.
What get’s me angry is the rich pukes calling news conferences from their private jets and limos to tell me what I’m supposed to sacrifice. (Algore, Kerry, DiCaprio, Hillary, Moore, Soros, etc.)
It says the panama canal could be obsolete – because ships could travel the northern route through the arctic.
But if the major parts of the world are flooded – wouldn’t the entire country of panama also be flooded? And the ships could simply float over it?
Of course, there wouldn’t be any shipping – with the major areas flooded – world trade would come to a stand-still. Billions will die. Which will lead to a much reduced demand for energy, reduced use of oil, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
So the problem will solve itself. In 50 years everyone (except may a few million) will be dead and they’ll be no more pollution.
You can hypothesize all you want. Whatever happens… the earth gets warmer… the earth gets colder… man had nothing to do with it and man can’t change it. Any money and time spent on controlling nature is 100% wasted.
#6 JimR
“Another lopsided report that sees C02 as the ONLY significant cause of global warming.”
It is abundantly clear from this uninformed comment that you have not even bothered to read the recent IPCC report. It is only 18 pages long and would repay you attention. Here is the link:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Doc_3rev.pdf
Just one of many quotes from the report that refute your above contention is the following:
“The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2”
Only when you have read the report will it be interesting to hear your arguments as to how and why it is ‘lopsided’. It would also be fascinating to learn what special expertise you bring to the party to enable you to make such a judgement.
#7,
“The real point is Who Cares? If you have to give up full size trucks, large houses on large private lots and lots of driving to get anywhere, it would be better for Earth to fry, since the alternative is a lifestyle not worth living.”
It is unfair that I will also fry with you because of your full size trucks and large houses… You are a futile little person (no matter how physically tall you are) who ties the meaning of your own life to such insignificant little things and calls them lifestyle… I also like mobility, but as long as I get there, it doesn’t need to be a full size truck. I also like a confortable place to live, but it doesn’t need to be a palace. I am sorry for you for having so insignificant things to live for.
FACT: Global Warming exist.
FACT: Humans contribute
FACT: Humans contribute
#29
>>FACT: the Earth is on a warming cycle (just over a halfdegree >>during the last 100 years) with most of the increase coming pre >>1940. That is before mass production of automobiles and mass air >>transit.’
But the IPCC report says:
“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.”
>>FACT: Global temperatures fluctuate as a result of the sun’s level of >>activity.
True – but the IPCC report says:
“Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2”
This compares to a value of +2.30 W m-2 for carbon dioxide and +2.53 W m-2 for nitrous oxide.
Fred, you are quoting political propaganda, not real scientific research.
The key to your quoted statement is “linear”. Global warming has not been continuous. It rose until around1940 then fell until around 1970 then rose again.
The “radioactive force” quote is irrelevant to the primary cause of global warming.
It is the indirect effect of the sun regarding the formation of clouds. Clouds are formed as a direct result of cosmic rays come in contact with water vapor coming up from the sea, they produce water droplets and form clouds. When the sun is more active ,solar winds increase and fewer of the cosmic rays reach the earth to form water droplets. Reduced water droplets equals fewer clouds and increased warming.
With fewer clouds in the atmosphere, more of the suns radiant energy strikes the earth with a result of increased thermal energy.
When one compares historic information regarding cosmic rays with historic data on temperature, there is a direct correlation with NO eight hundred year lag. There is an eight hundred year lag in the correlation between global warming and CO2 production. In other words, CO2 is a product of global warming not a cause.