Study sponsored by the same United Nations that has “sanctioned” the resource motivated genocide waged against the Iraqi people, headed into its 17th year, in the name of world peace.

Sometimes no Credibility

Let me guess, the solution is to give more power to the U.N. and global governance in general. How pathetically predictable.

Top climate experts warned on Friday that if their research projects were not fully funded, the oceans would rise and fire would reign down from the heavens.

Study sponsored by the same United Nations that has “sanctioned” the resource motivated genocide waged against the Iraqi people, headed into its 17th year, in the name of world peace

heh…

that’s possibly the most hilariously absurd global warming denier riff I’ve ever read.

And I’ve read manges and manges of them on all manner of conservative lolz sites.

But you take the cake, Hunta.

Nice work.

Thanks.

Don’t see anything but humor in that?

Peace,

The messenger and the message. Shooting down the messenger doesn’t make the message false. We’re not talking Roswell or Area 51 here, it’s not x-files but x-treme climate change and a lot of people will die during the next 20 years because of what …?

Dire Warming Report too Soft, Scientists Say
By Alan Zarembo / Thomas H. Maugh II

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

Look, I know climate disaster is all the rage these days and Gore has the momentum with _An Inconvenient Truth_and all, but I’ve been visiting the very real websites of very real climatologists and there is no climate crisis consensus.

Capitalists are ready to move on CO2 reduction as the next big thing and the policy makers have their coalition of the willing issuing dire predictions for the future and the media is of course fairly reporting the issue in a balanced and comprehensive manner, telling the people how it really is?

As global warming has become mainstream front page daily news, tell me what you’ve learned about global warming from the press coverage that you didn’t know say 2 years ago.

Sorry, but the IPCC is way ahead of the mainstream scientific community on this one.

Solid credentialed atmospheric and climate scientists view the IPCC and this report as political and energy policy driven.

There is no consensus scientific or otherwise for the planet being at any sort of climate disaster “tipping point.” It is a policy maker and media myth.

Peace,

Mike, you’re totally right; the fact that the U.N. is pushing “x-treme climate change” doesn’t in itself refute the theories that the U.N. is promoting. The evidence does.

“very real websites of very real climatologists” “Solid credentialed climate scientists”

I bet it says that on plaques on their walls.

the proof that global warming is likely caused by the sun

global warming on mars

global warming on Jupiter

global warming on Triton, moon of Neptune

global warming on Pluto

flux in solar activity over 11 years in the x-ray spectrum

graph demonstrating 11 year solar fluctuations

Here are some points from the report:

I. The report paints a bleak picture, noting that the early signs of warming are already here.:

A.Spring is arriving earlier, with plants blooming weeks ahead of schedule. In the mountains, runoff begins earlier in the year, shrinking glaciers in the Alps, the Himalayas and the Andes.

B.Habitats for plants and animals, on land and in the oceans, are shifting toward the poles.

C.Nineteen of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980, according to previous studies. The report said that more frequent and more intense heat waves were “very likely” in the future.

II. In some places, warming might seem like a good thing at first.

A. For example, worldwide food production is expected to increase with the first few degrees of temperature rise. For a time, an expanded fertile zone in the higher latitudes could offset losses in the tropics.

B. But at a certain point, crops everywhere will suffer as drought spreads. By mid-century, rising temperatures and drying soil will turn tropical forest to savanna in eastern Amazonia, the report predicts.

1. In North America, snowpack in the West will decline, causing more floods in the winter and reduced flows in the summer, increasing competition for water for crops and people.

2.California agriculture will be decimated by the loss of water for irrigation, experts have previously said.

3.Water will come more often around the world in its least welcome forms: storms and floods.

4.Rising temperatures will reconfigure coastlines around the world as the oceans rise. The tiny islands of the South Pacific and the Asian deltas will be overwhelmed by storm surges.

5.In the Andes and the Himalayas, melting glaciers will unleash floods and rock avalanches. But within a few decades, as the glaciers and snowpack decline, streams will dwindle, cutting the main water supply to more than a sixth of the world’s population.

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

7.Africa will suffer the most, with up to a quarter of a billion people running short of water by 2020, and yields from rain-fed crops falling by half in many countries. The continent could spend at least 5% to 10% of its gross domestic product to adapt to rising sea levels, the report said.

***“Don’t be poor in a hot country, don’t live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it’s a bad idea to be on a high mountain,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, one of the scientists who contributed to the report.

graph illustrating CO2 sollubility in water

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a prepared statement that political agendas need to be left behind and quick action taken to cut emissions.

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

Susanne Moser, a research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the political changes to the report do not diminish the need for action.

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

O.K. bacchus, graphs are nice, but what exactly is your point with that?

I would be greatful if someone could answer this question for me; it is well known that the absorbtion of gasses in a liquid decreases with temperature. That is to say, if the Earth’s oceans were to be warmed by the Sun, CO2 would be released. How do scientists know that this fact alone is insufficient to account for the historical CO2-temperature correlation (seen here )

how do scientists know that CO2 is the cause of warmer temperatures as opposed to the effect ?

here is a graph that demonstrates that the Earth’s *atmoshpere” has not been warmed in the last two decades. The ‘greenhouse’ theory of global warming requires the heat-trapping atmosphere to be the mechanism of warming, which in turn warms the surface. The ‘solar’ theory of global warming would predict that surface temperatures would increase first, and that the Earth’s surface would then gradually radiate heat into the atmosphere.

sorry, three posts up should read “decreases as temerature increases”

Find the “gloom and doom” in this very real paper upon which the IPCC is in part formulated and many of these “climate catastrophe” reports are predicated.

Footnote: Many climate scientists dispute the findings and predictions in this paper.

Read the science, then read the news.

What is possibly fact, is then spun into pure fiction.

Peace,

how do scientists know that CO2 is the cause of warmer temperatures as opposed to the effect ?

Simple answer is they don’t.

A correlation has been documented.

There is no substantive evidence of CO2 driving global temperature.

Peace,

Sharon Hays, associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, noted that “not all projected impacts are negative.”

Other governments, such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, had already expressed their displeasure with parts of the report by demanding changes – some of them seemingly minor in the grand scheme of climate change.

Panel member Yohe said that China and Saudi Arabia, for example, objected to a sentence that stated “very high confidence” that many natural systems were already being affected by regional climate changes, arguing that “very” should be removed.

There is without a shadow of doubt anthropogenic influence on the planet and hence the climate of the planet. We as a species have altered the landscape, redistributed the water and changes the very chemistry and essence of the atmosphere, much of the soils, the rivers and the oceans themselves.

These alterations have been going on for thousands of years with relatively little or no regard for the overall health and welfare of the planet generally or upon the “lower” species with which we share this earth.

The rate of change and the impacts these changes are having are accelerating with growing populations and the increased per capita demands of our more highly technological and technologically dependant society.

This rate of increased change and increased impact shouldn’t necessarily be viewed with increased despair.

Though we now have the ability to inflict more damage to natural systems, we also have more capability to repair and reverse the mistakes that have been made in the past.

The question now is:

Do we have the wisdom and the will to deal with the energy, atmosphere, land an water use issues with full regard and consideration given to the planet as a whole, to the “lower” species with which we share it; but most importantly with full regard for the inherent rights of and in a socially just manner with our brothers and sisters with whom we are to rightfully share both the responsibility for and bounty of this most wonderful planet?

Peace?

GWH, I have so often agreed with your political comments that sometimes I have tried to think that you have been playing devil’s advocate or something in your global warming denial diatribes. This last post, where you say The rate of change and the impacts these changes are having are accelerating with growing populations and the increased per capita demands of our more highly technological and technologically dependant society gives me hope that you are really as sane about this most important issue as you are oftentimes inspiring about other issues.

Meanwhile, New Yorker’s aren’t particularly known for panicking easily or exaggerating the dangers they face, but they starting to worry about getting flooded out somewhere down the line by the very possible failure of mankind making the right decisions about the environment in a timely and effective manner —” Hell looms!Study predicts heat waves, fires and flooded Manhattan”:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/04/07/2007-04-07_hell_looms.html

Insane hatred of the UN is my favourite American cult.

what? It even beats the American gun love cult?

(granted, the two are tightly connected)

Hilary Clinton says that the world won’t survive without American leadership on the Global Warming issue…

Hey, how about she drop the ‘leadership’ aspect and we’ll all settle on ‘cooperation?’

What a tit…

maybe she meant america has to be the leader, not china, in getting the third world to get serious about cutting CO2, and since Americans consume the most energy per person, it would make sense that they would have to be the leaders.

I love bashing Hillary, but I think that is a tad unfair.

it would make sense that they would have to be the leaders.

No, it really doesn’t.

Why on earth do we feel the need to have a ‘Leader’ in a global movement?!? It makes no sense. And on behalf of the rest of the non-american planet, it’s a tad insulting.

I would cut Hilary some slack on this if the Gov’t she’s been part of for years hadn’t taken every opportunity to tell the rest of the world to go get screwed anytime anyone mentioned that the American lifestyle is poisonous…

I have a really, really, REALLY hard time believing she’s going to require Big Business to make the kinds of changes neccesary to do anything productive concerning climate change if she becomes President…

As a non-American and a person who feels that American leadership has on balance been less than a blessing in the past I would have to agree.

She probably means that American politicians should make sure that the free world doesn’t go all commie over this global warming mullarkey and start clamping down on U.S. corporations.

I just meant that the most polluting country with the most wastefulness should have to be the leader by default, U.S., China, India, etc.

Yeah, I know Gorgeous… I’m just a little hung over from celebrating the death of Jesus last night…

heh heh…

If I was Jesus, y’know how ticked I’d be with God for letting my crucifiers use the old “It’s not vinegar, honest, let’s just shove a sponge of it at you!” trick as I was dying in incredible agony?

start clamping down on U.S. corporations.

What’s the waiting period to get a hybrid?

Lot08, to a degree I have played the devil’s advocate, but I am primarily concerned with the CO2 centric environmental fundamentalism that is sweeping the debate and the concept of dealing with this issue in terms of CO2 neutrality and preserving the status quo.

I personally have no particularly strong feelings positive or negative regarding the U.N. as a political body.

The true nature of the effectiveness and morality of the institution might best be quantified by the effectiveness with which the Palestinian issue has been dealt with or the years.

Its basic strength and weakness is the dependance it has on the member states as the basis for action, in that it is incapable as a political institution to implement any real and lasting policies of its own accord.

If the member states were on an equal footing, economically and militarily, and in terms of basic per capita development this would be a great strength, but they are not so it is instead a fundamental and undeniable weakness.

It allows the U.N. to function as little more than a bullhorn for opposing interests to do battle on the international arena.

Too little in terms of action and results, far too much political theatre.

As for American leadership on this issue, as the global economic and military superpower the rest of the world looks to the U.S. to step up and take responsibility.

But even if the U.S. does nothing, most of the land, water and resources are outside our national boundaries and it will be the cumiliative impact of local and regional changes that are going to triumph in the end, if mitigating our impact is going to happen.

Doing the right things for the environment and proceeding with truly sustainable development and sound environmental practices could best and most quickly be achieved with U.S. leadership, but that doesn’t preclude the rest of the world moving on this issue without the U.S.

First the total realm of this issue must be clearly understood and please do try to frame it in a context beyond the current media hype and the IPCC report. Land use and changes to the hydrological cycle are critically important to understanding our impact and mitigating it.

Mitigating anthropogenic climate change is not as simple as caps and reduction of our dependance on fossil fuels.

Peace,

And in terms of truly taking in the “big picture,” if you take a hard look at the total negative impact on both human society and nature of militarism, overpopulation, environmental pollution and economic disparity; global warming and climate change is not the principal or primary threat.

Peace,

maybe [Hillary] meant america has to be the leader, not china, in getting the third world to get serious about cutting CO2

So, let me see if I have this straight; you think the U.S. should take the ‘lead’ in preventing the Third World from developing the kinds of things that allowed the industrial revolution in the First World? (like coal-fired power plants?)

Luckily for you, rainbow, that process has already been occuring for quite some time, it’s called IMPERIALISM. How lucky for you that you’ve found a new ideology to mask it with. I bet your friends in the United Nations and the World Bank will be more than happy to help you “defend Mother Earth.”

Luckily for you, rainbow…

Totally lucky! I’ve always said that Rainbow was an imperialist UN shill.

Son of a sky-god and a mortal woman who could turn water into wine, who was persecuted by many, who was killed and resurrected, who is described as both merciful and wrathful by his follwers, whose sacrament involved eating bread or meat symbolic of his body and drinking wine which symbolized his blood…

You guessed it, it’s Bacchus!

Happy Bacchanalia all!

financed by elite international bankers no doubt

Global Warming Impacts Appearing Around the Globe

The second report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that global warming impacts are already advancing, and will get worse

“elite international bankers”

Of the Hebrew persuasion no doubt.

you think the U.S. should take the ‘lead’ in preventing the Third World from developing the kinds of things that allowed the industrial revolution in the First World

uh, sure.

We should make them our slaves.

I love imperialism, yes I does.