Click here to enlarge
Fresh from winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the UN’s top scientific panel on climate change will meet in the Spanish port city of Valencia today to finalise a landmark report on global warming and how to avoid its worst ravages.
Some voices, including from within the IPCC itself, fear the panel’s grand report will be badly out of date before it is even printed. Others quietly criticise the organisation as being too conservative in its appreciation of the climate threat.
“Over the past several years we have realized … that the speed at which changes can occur — such as ice sheet disintegration and resulting sea level rise — is much faster than IPCC has estimated,” leading climatologist James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, told AFP.
Another weakness of the IPCC, say others, is a tendency to shy away from controversy.
British scientist James Lovelock blames the consensus rule that governs IPCC proceedings, enabling government representatives to meddle with “forthright and inconvenient forecasts” made by experts.
Scientific peer review is so devoted to checking and rechecking data and studies that researchers sometimes need a wake-up call to move them into action based on their own conclusions.
#5
That what what we were doing back since the 70’s. But since everyone ignored it, they changed it into a “global warming” issues to make it sound like it’s a world wide problem with a “dooms day” angle to it. Where as before it sounded like a localized issue like smog that most people though it was only a problem for big cities like LA.
Telling people to get smaller vehicles, live closer to work, in smaller homes, and in general live a smaller lifestyle is the very definition of “doing the wrong thing”. Living larger is the right thing for a 21st century being.
Actually I myself do most of what’s listed in #26. The difference is I do it to save money. Most of what’s listed there is just common sense and has nothing to do with AGW. Even reducing pollution is a good thing, to the extent of not lowering standard of living.
Minimize use of non recyclable items, such as plastics.
Eh? Plastics are most certainly recyclable. I recycle my plastic milk and orange juice jugs every week.
Global warming is a very good thing.
It beats the heck out of glaciers
#32 – to the extent of not lowering standard of living.
See, and that’s the thing…
Living farther from work, driving a larger care, bearing the burden of a larger house, etc… That’s what I would call a worsening of my standard of living.
Decadence is not synonymous with better living.
#35 then you havent lived or are jealous of those of us who are
decadence rocks
Yeah, but you’re trying to mandate your preferences on everyone else.
#36 – I grew up on a large plot of land in rural America. Keep it. I’m never going back. I’m not sure why you people think there is only one way to live, but I prefer urban living.
Why? Because I’m cooler than you…
#37 – No I’m not… How am I? I don’t give a crap where you live… But when gas is $7 a gallon and your SUV gets 9 miles to the gallon and you commute 40 miles a day… Well, don’t come bitching to me.
Burn up the planet. I won’t perish alone. You guys are going down too.
>>then you havent lived or are jealous of those of us who are.
Man, you are fucking delusional.
Gotta justify that empty life somehow, eh? If driving a 5mpg car 100 miles round trip to work floats your boat, go for it. People will be VERY impressed that you can afford things like that {snicker}.
I do agree with OFTLO that decadence is overrated. My wife cooks tastier and healthier dishes than any restaurant. The fruit and vegetables I get from my garden are fresher tastier than anything you can buy from a grocery store. My house is 3200 sq ft, but I use half the energy of a comparable family of 5 in a house of 2000 sq ft. becasuse I waste very little, even though I could afford to waste a lot.
But this thread started out about GW “deniers” which is a red herring for the real problem, the questionable credibility of the IPCC, the suspect certainty of their findings and the arrogance they exhibit when they are dead wrong in their findings.
For instance, they are 30 years off on their global warming predictions. Rather than admit that they could have missed a catalyst, phenomenon, an ingredient or misunderstood an interaction, they insist nothing was amiss and the ONLY reason for the huge discrepancy is that they were too conservative. So much for certainty, incredible modeling programs and trust. It’s the hockey stick all over again. “Let’s just fudge the numbers so it looks right then. There, see? we were right.”
10,000 scientists devoted to finding a cure for cancer have been modestly successful after 60 years of research.
2000 climatologists, after 15 years of research, armed only with incomplete data and defective computer modeling, still claim they KNOW the future and will change their data as necessary until it comes true. If they have a credibility problem, it’s not because I don’t understand what’s going on.
This just came out today: Rebuttals for the top 10 Climate change skeptic arguments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
GlobalWarmer, MikeN, PMitchell, etc keep dragging out the same arguments that scientists themselves debated decades ago and have already refuted.
As for conservation etc. The reason it isn’t happening has to do with our flawed economic system. Our economy is driven by debt and the only way for there to be debt is if there is a good chance it will be repaid, thus we need a constantly growing economy.
So conserving energy yourself is a good thing and should be encouraged, but whatever you save will get used by the economic growth monster.
It seems the only way that this can stop is the complete collapse of our economic system, which is poised to happen sooner than you think.
It seems the only way that this can stop is the complete collapse of our economic system, which is poised to happen sooner than you think.
Why is it poised to collapse? How soon do you think it will happen?
Oh really, they’ve refuted all the arguments? I see that there is plenty of lack of certainty and fudging in those arguments. ‘Why yes, carbon dioxide lags warming, but this time is different.’ They make no mention that the devastation can’t happen if countries are wealthy enough to adjust, and that the devastation can’t happen if the countries are not wealthy enough to produce all that CO2.
I hope you guys will acknowledge that even the proponents of this global warming theory are conceding important points, for example that in history, carbon dioxide levels increase after global warming.
#42 Global warming is a ticking time bomb that has at least a decade or two before it gets really bad.
Peak Oil is a bomb that has already exploded, and we are just seeing the beginnings of problems. Nobody is talking about this one, but it promises to bring the entire world economy to a screeching halt… literally. http://theoildrum.com
I always get a bit skeptical when someone or a group of someone’s tell me they have all the answer’s…..in this case it’s the IPCC….they have been wrong more than right.
I happen to believe that the planet is warming…..and not because of any spurious assumption’s of the IPCC….just casual observation can tell you that. I also believe that human kind has contributed to this, not caused it by any mean’s, just added a bit of wood to the fire. I, unlike the **true believer’s** of the new religion **Global Warming**, happen to believe that we can’t change what’s happening, or stop it or slow it down. That we need to quit giving our money to scam artists’s like Al Gore and other’s with their *carbon buyout’s and trade off’s* and devote our time and energy to making sure that we and those poorer than us will be able to live with the new warmer tempatures of the future. It can be done, and done without destroying life as we know it.
In the past and now as well, the only major thing OFTLO and I have ever agreed on was that we need to increase our pollution fighting, to make this planet a healthy place to live on. Just because it’s warmer dosen’t mean we can’t stop polluting the oceans, the air or the dirt we stand on. It won’t hurt us(even if we can’t stop GW,) to develop other sources of energy that are less hurtful. Stop flying plums 7000 miles so I can eat one in January, stop wrapping every product on the store shelves in tons and ton’s of packaging. Stop stripping the Oceans just so you can eat Sushi and be *cool*, stop buying Japanese products until they stop killing whales for no reason, other than to feed a tradition, or they stop fishing long net, killing off thousands of dolphins just for some tuna.
As someone said above, we can do everything possible to save energy at home, but our saving’s just goes to feed the corp. hogs….which happens to include every computor company in the world.
GW is with us, most likely to stay until the Earth decides to go into it’s next climate phase, puny little us have no major say in this process and to think we do is the height of arrogance.
Oh….I forgot….GROG….wise up……if you continue to believe that only Republican’s cause pollution and that huge energy wasting companies and pollutors aren’t owned by so-called liberal Democrats, as well as Republican’s and Moderates….then your as closed minded as those neo-con’s you like to bash.
If you want to get picky…warming really started under Roosevelt(the second one)….so let’s blame him for this mess. đ
#37 – You personally may not be trying to force a lifestyle, but the majority of the AGW nazis are. When you try to add a tax on fuel simply to encourage urban living, you are committing the ultimate evil of trying to force that lifestyle on those of us who have evolved past it.
I have no problem with people who want to live in the city as long as they do nothing artificial to to try and make me live there too or try and get me to help pay for it (mass transit, etc.)
#47 – you are committing the ultimate evil of trying to force that lifestyle on those of us who have evolved past it.
You misspelled devolved.
I’m pretty certain that of the myriad of reasons for the tax, both good and bad, none of them are to “force an urban lifestyle” on anyone.
If that is someone’s legit goal, while I admire their attempt to bring hicks to culture, its wrong.
But we need that money so pay your damn taxes you nature killing bastard đ
There are no good reasons for an artificial tax like the Europeans use. If anything, those who have a longer commute should get a tax credit since they have to drive farther to contribute to the economy.
Hell, that even applies to city dwellers. What’s wrong with living in Chicago but working in St. Louis? There’s your incentive for more trains, although ideally you’d use a private plane for the commute.
#49 – There are no good reasons for an artificial tax like the Europeans use.
No… There are no reasons that you support. It isn’t right or wrong, but you are more concerned about yourself than everyone else. Its valid enough, but no matter how far off the grid you want to go, you still live in a society… and there is a cost related to that.
If anything, those who have a longer commute should get a tax credit since they have to drive farther to contribute to the economy.
BS. That’s your choice to live in the forsaken shadowlands. When you get a break, it means someone else needs to pick up the slack.
But if I am going to agree then I want a tax credit for taking a vacation or buying a big screen TV because those things contribute to the economy too.
Hell, that even applies to city dwellers. Whatâs wrong with living in Chicago but working in St. Louis?
Nothing, aside from it being impractical.
Thereâs your incentive for more trains
See… You can be sensible.
although ideally youâd use a private plane for the commute.
Oh… never mind…
đ
But if I am going to agree then I want a tax credit for taking a vacation or buying a big screen TV because those things contribute to the economy too.
I agree. I didn’t mention that people who need bigger vehicles for their commutes should get bigger tax breaks. đ
Since I’m personally convinced the US drought is linked with Global Warming, I present the following link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
Climate scepticism: The top 10
A well organized Sceptic / Counter about Global Warming.
I didnât mention that people who need bigger vehicles for their commutes should get bigger tax breaks.
They already do. In our perverted Cronies first, Business second and People third government, that rule already exists:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=97505
Well this forcing of lifestyles is exactly what comes out in the comments here and elsewhere. Complaints that people don’t need those large SUVs, large houses, suburban living, Olive Garden(Mustard’s faovrite), etc.
#41 — ArianeB
THAT is what the IPCC calls refuting the skeptics???
I especially love this response to Claim #7: A carbon dioxide rise has always come after global warming, not before.
âThis is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years – a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth’s orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different.â
This is the central issue of the entire CO2 debate, and they say it is irrelevant!!! There is not one shred of proof that man-caused CO2 causes global warming. NONE. Yet we are supposed to spend trillions and suffer a dramatic change in lifestyle to combat our CO2 pollution?
Are people really this stupid?