Global warming worse than predicted
Global Warming: Faster, Stronger, Sooner.
Scoop Link: Climate change accelerating far beyond the IPCC forecast, WWF says
By Paul Eccleston,
The Telegraph
Climate change is happening much faster than the world's best scientists predicted and will wreak havoc unless action is taken on a global scale, a new report warns.
Extreme weather events such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused an extra 35,000 deaths across southern Europe from heat stress and poor air quality, will happen more frequently.
Britain and the North Sea area will be hit more often by violent cyclones and sea level rise predictions will double to more than a metre putting vast coastal areas at risk from flooding.
The bleak report from WWF - formerly the World Wildlife Fund - also predicts crops failures and the collapse of eco systems on both land and sea.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2ºC.
The report says that the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a study of global warming by 4,000 scientists from more than 150 countries which alerted the world to the possible consequences of global warming - is now out of date.
And yet the climate change deniers in ACT and National have just thrown out our ETS and will hold a phony select committee where Rodney Hide will embarrass the country in front of the global media by dragging forward every climate denial flat Earther to explain why 4000 scientists from 150 countries are wrong. Despite the right wings best attempts at denying the true cost of man made pollution so that their big industry mates won’t have to pay for the true cost, global warming IS happening and it is happening harder and faster than has been predicted, which is EXCATLY what I’ve been trying to point out for some time now. Part of the problem is industry denial, the other part is the conservative rump of the country would hate to admit those tree-huggers were right all along. We are now beyond any ability to change the damage man made consumer culture pollution has produced and we now have to focus on adapting to the new realities.
posted by Bomber @ 10:38 am
51 comments
51 Comments:
Part of the problem is industry denial, the other part is the conservative rump of the country would hate to admit those tree-huggers were right all along
That is essentially right, the other problem are those in our society that too selfish to change their own lifestyles (even slightly).
Anyway I'm sure this thread will see all the climate change denying shills come out of the woodwork.....
3-2-1
I doubt this report will get much traction, Bomber. However right it may be, it comes from WWF, and that's enough to get it written off as propaganda by those too blind to see the bleeding obvious.
Harder to reject will the findings of a conference being held in Copenhagen in March next year, essentially to update the IPCC's 2007 report (which was based on results up to 2005) to take into account the last three years data. That will have real clout - it's intended to provide the COP meeting in Copenhagen next December (the one where Kyoto-2 should be signed off) with the latest info.
Rodney is looking forward to a permanent tan in a pest free environment.
With Rodney being the only "pest" left after winston was assasinated.
Big business want "other people" to pay for this. Plain and simple. As always. Just like chemical polluters and so forth.
Corporates (and farmers for that matter) believe they own their industries and it is their god given right to choose what happens in it. Thanks to out idiotic IP, environmental and commerce laws this is almost entirely true.
So when someone else comes along and has an opinion they take it as a personal attack. In this case it is in this case since they are the ones causing harm and are refusing to stop.
Much like they are ignoring us it is time the world started ignoring them and taking firm action without regard for their retoric. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt their position is irrational and damaging to reasoned discourse. (e.g. Exon/Mobile creation of biased and unethical "think tanks")
Good luck with National and Act on that. Of course, NZ is a tin-shite little country and matters not a dot in all this anymore.
We have already sold out our green cred and moral voice on the subject, which was really the only significant thing we had to offer in the first place!
Thank you Mr key, you are a winner!
...Exactly Mr Magoo. NZ "matters not a dot in all this anymore". Nothing we do or don't do will make a farts worth of difference. So why TF should we harm our economy ? Put people out of work ? raise the cost of living ? Why not wait until the science is settled ?
Because Ayrdale the science has been settled and leadership on this allows us to demand the same from developing economies, how can we demand China changes when we won't bother doing it?
Science is *never* settled Bomber. That is what science is all about.
Look, over there, the sky's falling!
Science is *never* settled Bomber. That is what science is all about.
Is gravity settled? That the earth is round, is that settled?
Current scientific consensus is that global warming is attributable to human activities. That is the opinion of nearly all scientific bodies of national or international standing.
Even if it turns out it isn't true in the long run, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
What is so wrong with thinking that we (the human race) should treat our environment with a little respect rather than chase unsustainable economic growth?
People ignore the role politics plays in this debate. If this was a purely scientific debate bomber & leighton smith would have no interest in it.
The science settled ? Garbage. Check out The Oregon Petition for a start. Apart from that why should NZ inflict serious economic damage to itself when nothing we do will make a fraction of a difference. Nil difference. Zero difference....Don't talk nonsense about us lecturing China. We can't lecture anyone. The planet has survived vast temperature changes and this blip is totally insignificant.
The science settled ? Garbage. Check out The Oregon Petition for a start. Apart from that why should NZ inflict serious economic damage to itself when nothing we do will make a fraction of a difference. Nil difference. Zero difference....Don't talk nonsense about us lecturing China. We can't lecture anyone. The planet has survived vast temperature changes and this blip is totally insignificant.
The Oregon Petition? Didn't those wackos give up a few years back? Show me a credible, unaffiliated to the fossil fuel industry group of scientists that are curently challenging climate change. Nutty conspiracy theorist.
global warming science is settled the way evolution is settled, Arydale take your flat earth crap and bug someone else the fact you'vce fall;en back to the Oregan petition bullshit shows how vacant your arguement is, we are all a lot wiser on this site, you need sbetter lies arydale - you and the ACT party are jokes.
If NZ had no carbon emmissions whatsoever, how much of a reduction in the total worldwide carbon emmissions would that equate to? 0.2%?
If NZ had no carbon emmissions whatsoever, how much of a reduction in the total worldwide carbon emmissions would that equate to? 0.2%?
And what was NZs population when we were the first country on the planet to give women the vote? Less than 1%?
And what % of Chinese women are allowed to vote now Bomber?
0%
Looks like China don't take much notice of NZ.
That was a really piss poor analogy for you to use Bomber, please try a bit harder.
Yes, we should show our disdain for the PRC by boycotting Chinese made goods. That'd show them we mean (no) business. Probably get them to reduce their carbon footprint too, and give women the vote.
You're oh so right, our so-called principles were simply naive and ineffectual. Since its inception, that purposeless gesture has only burdened our country with additional electoral expense. We should repeal voting for women immediately.
Oh so NZ cuts emmissions to show an EXAMPLE to the World not because we believe it will make a blind bit of diffence to Worldwide carbon emmissions? So our economy is going to be fucked (more so) so that we can show the World how gosh darn responsible people live? Great. We're a fucking drop in the ocean and our actions won't make any differnece whatsoever.
The analogy of women voting IS spot on, and as far as I know all women in China can vote - pointless as it may be because there is only one party to vote for. We have been an example for the world, how can we ask China to change if we are not prepared to?
Mmmm. So we aim for zero carbon emissions, and PRC/India/USA/EU aim for a similar target too ? Is that the Green party idea ?
The analogy of women voting IS spot on, and as far as I know all women in China can vote
Are you trying to be funny?
See I am kinda afraid to jump into this debate for fear of being labelled a climate denier (and a person who labels often lacks the intelect to debate rationally)
Regardless of what one might think of climate change, this notion that the science is settled (and I offer no opinion on the science, I am not a scientist) seems blatently untrue. It always feels like a penticostal church when people start yelling "there is no other truth but the word of god".
My point is that there ARE scientists who dissagree with the IPCC findings. This concept of concensus and settled science seems a blatent lie.
Argue your point, for sure, but dont imply that 'everyone agrees with you' when they simply dont.
My point is that there ARE scientists who dissagree with the IPCC findings. This concept of concensus and settled science seems a blatent lie.
Name and link to a CREDIBLE group of scientists that deny that climate change is at least partly man made please.
Regardless of what one might think of climate change, this notion that the science is settled (and I offer no opinion on the science, I am not a scientist) seems blatently untrue.
And OK, even *if* there is a slight chance that the science is not settled and the consensus is wrong, what is wrong with erring on the side of caution?
"A credible group...that deny that climate change is at least partly man made." Ummm, I'd call that tactic setting up a straw man argument. The greens are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that catastrophic climate change is totally produced by our modern day CO2 emissions. Plenty of scientists disagree. I'm not a scientist but happy to point you towards them . See my blog. Problem is Bomber gets peeved.
Ayrdale, this has nothing to do with the Greens (or greens) so keep your petty mindedness out of it. Forget straw men.
This is the basic tenet of what the IPCC say:
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
You can argue about what the word "most" construes, you can argue about the whys and hows. But show me a CREDIBLE group of scientists that oppose that view. Where are the INFORMED, IMPARTIAL, NON-PARTISAN people speaking up?
Yeah, you can dig out the old petrochemical funded stooges, the wacky conspiracy theorists and sensationalist authors, they're easy to find - thanks to your blog and other blogs like it.
And also, please address this point:
And OK, even *if* there is a slight chance that the science is not settled and the consensus is wrong, what is wrong with erring on the side of caution?
what is wrong with erring on the side of caution?
That is exactly the kind of retarded thinking that people hate.
How about the severe damage it will do to the NZ economy? The thousands people who's livelihoods will be badly effected just because you want us to err of the side of caution without question.
The precautionary principle can be used to justify anything. Consider an extreme example - pre-arresting a entire ethnic group who may be more statistically likely to commit crime.
The skeptical scientists are no more biased than any others. People on the IPCC have jobs that depend on 'carbon' propaganda.
Informed, impartial non partisan people speaking up. OK, here's one. From today's mail, Dr J ALbeck. MSc. Plenty more. New one tomorrow, and the day after. Have a look at ClimateDebateDaily.com.Try this for starters.
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/
...reading the posts above, and I have to say I don't know one anonymous from another, and nor do I have any idea whatsoever of who the posters are...the doom/gloom/precautionary principle seems to be on a very defensive back foot. Not surprising really. As I have said before (B4 bomber rudely cut me off)this is a very high stakes game for the international left, for the greenies, AGW is the last throw of the dice. After this, the left are consigned to the dustbin for at least a generation.All we have to show is that the science isn't settled, and that global catastrophe isn't around the corner. Piss easy really.
Wow, I love it that as soon as anybody brings up examples they are called "wackos" and deniers. Sounds like a witch hunt designed to flush out those who don't confirm to the fundamental religion of "climate change" which was just like global warming and then of course we had the hysteria of global cooling in the 70s.... whatever next?
I suppose there is a consensus when alternative viewpoints are deleted........ I wonder if it is symbolic of the way the IPCC does thing or just people being pathetic
I suppose there is a consensus when alternative viewpoints are deleted........ I wonder if it is symbolic of the way the IPCC does thing or just people being pathetic
Oh for gods sake - Scott if you want to flirt with Ayrdale, go do it on his blogsite, I have no interest you doing it on mine.
Oh Bomber, you are a character and you do go on. I think you're just trying to hide your big privatisation agenda.
That is exactly the kind of retarded thinking that people hate.
How about the severe damage it will do to the NZ economy? The thousands people who's livelihoods will be badly effected just because you want us to err of the side of caution without question.
"Skepticism is healthy. And when it comes to talking about climate change, one can understand - to a certain point - why certain people are cautious or slow to accept scientific findings concerning global warming as being true.
Yet when skeptics become outright opponents of the idea of climate change, one wonders what exactly is going on in their psyches. Especially given that global warming is, in a sense, akin to Pascal’s wager: that is, if we take precautions to forestall damage caused by global warming (such as switching to alternative fuels, which we will, as J-Ro points out, have to do at some point anyway), we stand to gain much and lose relatively little. If, on the other hand, we deny the existence of global warming and refuse to take precautions, we gain little and stand to lose a great deal"
Anyhow, clean energy and climate change mitigation industries have the potential to stimulate growth in other sectors and provide jobs.
sdm said...
The precautionary principle can be used to justify anything. Consider an extreme example - pre-arresting a entire ethnic group who may be more statistically likely to commit crime.
Yes it can, but nobody is suggesting that are they?
The skeptical scientists are no more biased than any others. People on the IPCC have jobs that depend on 'carbon' propaganda.
You seriously think all the institutes and individuals on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change that broadly concur with the IPCC are towing the line to save their jobs? You are crazier than I thought.
3/12/08 6:25 PM
Ayrdale said...
Informed, impartial non partisan people speaking up. OK, here's one. From today's mail, Dr J ALbeck. MSc. Plenty more. New one tomorrow, and the day after. Have a look at ClimateDebateDaily.com.Try this for starters.
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/
Your linked site also features talks by Jim Inhofe, the US senator. Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle. Hardly good for an impartial site. I'm still waiting to be directed to CREDIBLE, IMPARTIAL scientific group that denies climate change is at least partly man made. Here look I'll throw in a list of CREDIBLE, IMPARTIAL scientific groups that broadly agree with the IPCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Ayrdale said...
...reading the posts above, and I have to say I don't know one anonymous from another, and nor do I have any idea whatsoever of who the posters are...the doom/gloom/precautionary principle seems to be on a very defensive back foot. Not surprising really. As I have said before (B4 bomber rudely cut me off)this is a very high stakes game for the international left, for the greenies, AGW is the last throw of the dice. After this, the left are consigned to the dustbin for at least a generation.All we have to show is that the science isn't settled, and that global catastrophe isn't around the corner. Piss easy really.
The problem is the science is settled. Anyone who really looks at the facts cannot seriously contest this any more. Stop wasting your and other peoples' time. This isn't a 'left vs right' thing.
Heine said...
Wow, I love it that as soon as anybody brings up examples they are called "wackos" and deniers. Sounds like a witch hunt designed to flush out those who don't confirm to the fundamental religion of "climate change" which was just like global warming and then of course we had the hysteria of global cooling in the 70s.... whatever next?
And those that are concerned about climate change and want to do something about it are called greenies, socialists, nannystaters and lefties. Climate change isn't a fundamental religion - it's SCIENCE.
If the scientific consensus changes I'll change my views. If you don't believe the overwhelming current scientific evidence that's up to you. If you want to carry on being wasteful, pointlessly driving gas guzzzling cars and raping the Earths resources thats you prerogative too. But please stop trying to justify yourselves by twisting the science and spreading FUD.
Anonymous, if you're right I'll eat my non-existent hat.
To go back to the start (and plainly we'll have to agree to disagree)our carbon emissions are so miniscule that nothing we do or don't do will make make a blind bit of difference. The sceptics simply need to maintain healthy scepticism, and continue to question. The truth, via science,the ARGOS,CLOUD experiements etc, will emerge. (Google those, and check the reason for their existence; ie, scientific uncertainty)...It hasn't yet.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,072 American scientists have signed - seems an awful lot to me.
Do they not count?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,072 American scientists have signed - seems an awful lot to me.
Do they not count?
Oh no you didn't - Scott how easy is it to sway you, this 'petition' of scientists is the most descredited bullshit on the net - and has been torn to shreds by many people - their definition of 'scientist' is so fucking broad it loses its meaning altogether - how the hell can someone with a Bcom or Law be considered a 'scientist' and when you actually look at how many of these 'scientists' are actual climate scientists the number drops to 1% of the total climate scientists in America think man made pollution isn't responsible for global warming.
Ouch, ouch, ouch. You are usually much better than this scott.
Well I am certainly not a scientist - I have an MA (hons) in Politics and have now enrolled in Property. But this use of the word consensus - are you saying bomber that amoungst climate scientists, there is consensus?
Cos if you look at a number of documentarys - GWS and doomsday called off, they do site climate scientists.......
Anon @ 8:56:
The fact that this topic is on this blog site shows how political this debate is.
IPCC scientists are no more credible or impartial than scientists representing the oil industry, since both groups have cushy jobs based on their climate change position.
And Pascal's wager didn't run the risk of absolutely fucking a country's economy, so what sort of down syndrome analogy is that?
IPCC scientists are no more credible or impartial than scientists representing the oil industry, since both groups have cushy jobs based on their climate change position.
This is nonesense! The science is settled in the same way the science on gravity is settled or on evolution is settled - sure you can find fringe opinions there are those still on Earth who argue that the earth is flat and many more who don't believe in evolution but we smile politely and ignore them in the exact same way we should ignore climate change denial - your world view that we can continue to pollute the planet with no consequences whatsofucking ever is so far from reality they can't be taken seriously.
Bomber, this bloke is an arch fiend/sceptic. Pretty well qualified too...
Roy W. Spencer Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a supporter of intelligent design[1] and is skeptical of the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming...
Now Alabama will excite you, so will his support for intelligent design. But don't be sidetracked. I'd say he's smarter than both of us...
...well you anyway.
Down boy.
Quite a good point though isn't it? Bomber asked for credible scientists...well there's thousands out there. There's one I named...who has put his reputation on the line, and on the net if you'd care to look, yet alarmists still like to shout as loudly as they can that the debate's over.
Mate, the debate's not over, and it's not going away.
Don't let humour, irony or sarcasm get in the way of your response by the way...
Game set and match...
Spencer's interesting because he is one of the very few working (ie actively publishing in major journals) climate scientists who is openly sceptical of the dangers of warming. Note he doesn't deny warming - his own (UAH) satellite temp series shows significant warming (though the lowest rate of increase) - but his recent papers have been attempts to find "negative feedbacks" in the behaviour of water vapour and clouds. That is to say, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more water vapour, triggering either increased heat radiation out of the atmosphere to space, or increased cloud albedo. His papers make very modest claims about the size and significance of these feedbacks, but in front of sceptic audiences he loves to state that they definitively prove warming will reach a natural limit. Spencer seems to relish his role as the arch-sceptic, but he's about the only one left in atmospheric physics - at least since Lindzen at MIT stopped publishing.
His theories don't get much support from others in the field. One simple reason: if there were a strong negative feedback in the climate system, it would be very difficult for the climate to warm up out of an ice age - and we know it does that.
Thank you. Good points.
so Ayrdale the intelligent design climate warming denier who is the last one left in atmospheric physics is your champion to claim global warming isn't man made, that's all you've got?
Trolls shouldn't be feed.
Tree huggers shouldn't need to align climate change skeptics with creationists or flat-earthers if their argument is as strong as they say it is.
But climate skeptics are like flat earthers and creationists, the reason why you don't like it is because you appreciate how damaging it is to the climate skeptics to be seen in that light because the public understand how flat earthers and creationists disagree with the arguement and while they don't ubderstand the science between the debate of skeptics and warmers, they can understand a fringe group of clowns and how irrelevant they are to the actual debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home