Global Warming

From the IPCC report said:
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms.
Click to expand...

All your rain-free base are belong to us. You have no chance to see tornado make your time.
 
Some how I think the government had a bigger role in the conclusion of this article than anything else as Bush is trying to apease the enviromentalist and claimed that he was going to do something about america's role in global warming int the state of the union speech. Also one of the #1 things that will be an issue that is laid out on the table for next years election will be global warming. Large amount of the public feel like it is responcible for everything from sunrise to why yesterday wasnt as windy as today, nowthose in power who want to keep their seats and those hopefulls will beable to add even more people to those wo think it is all global warmiongs fault and will be able to feed off that as they try to pull votes their way. I am not saying that the report is total rubbish, but I do have a feeling that it had a nonscientific influance in it.

Why cant we just make it to some sort of middle ground? Sure I think we do have an influance on the climate and we should be carefull, but this is not solely man's doing.

Soon we are going to find out that we ended the ice age with the emisions from our cave fires. :p

Dan Robinson said:
All your rain-free base are belong to us. You have no chance to see tornado make your time.
Click to expand...
Some one set us up the death ridge.
 
Bart_Comstock said:
Some how I think the government had a bigger role in the conclusion of this article than anything else as Bush is trying to apease the enviromentalist and claimed that he was going to do something about america's role in global warming int the state of the union speech. Also one of the #1 things that will be an issue that is laid out on the table for next years election will be global warming. Large amount of the public feel like it is responcible for everything from sunrise to why yesterday wasnt as windy as today, nowthose in power who want to keep their seats and those hopefulls will beable to add even more people to those wo think it is all global warmiongs fault and will be able to feed off that as they try to pull votes their way. I am not saying that the report is total rubbish, but I do have a feeling that it had a nonscientific influance in it.

Why cant we just make it to some sort of middle ground? Sure I think we do have an influance on the climate and we should be carefull, but this is not solely man's doing.

Soon we are going to find out that we ended the ice age with the emisions from our cave fires. :p


Some one set us up the death ridge.
Click to expand...

A middle ground is exactly what the report represents, among thousands of experts who have done climate research. I'm not sure where to even begin to respond to your first assertion but I'd point out that the opposite is more likely true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott, I find your response to Bart interesting. May I ask you to re-read my post #20, dealing with how yesterday's IPCC "whatever it was" (it couldn't be a "summary" since the scientific report it was supposed to "summarize" will not be final for months) and explain why you disagree with Bart. I am sincerely interested in how you reach your conclusion that I'm not sure where to even begin to respond to your first assertion but I'd point out that the opposite is more likely true to Bart's contention that government had a lot to do with what the IPCC released yesterday.

As far as I can tell, government and politics had everything to do with what was released yesterday. So, I am curious as to what leads you to a different conclusion. Or, am I misunderstanding your point?
 
Mike Smith said:
Scott, I find your response to Bart interesting. May I ask you to re-read my post #20, dealing with how yesterday's IPCC "whatever it was" (it couldn't be a "summary" since the scientific report it was supposed to "summarize" will not be final for months) and explain why you disagree with Bart. I am sincerely interested in how you reach your conclusion that I'm not sure where to even begin to respond to your first assertion but I'd point out that the opposite is more likely true to Bart's contention that government had a lot to do with what the IPCC released yesterday.

As far as I can tell, government and politics had everything to do with what was released yesterday. So, I am curious as to what leads you to a different conclusion. Or, am I misunderstanding your point?
Click to expand...

Governments are part of the process, after all it is a summary for them and the IPCC is to serve and inform it's member countries. It's more of an issue of semantics, with different words having different meanings and effects but the actual content is not going to undergo major alteration by governments otherwise the process would grind to a halt. Just because governemnts are involved doesn't invalidate the findings of the climate scientists who have written the summary . Call me a skeptic but I doubt that there was considerable pressure from the US. It's also unfortunate that there is an effort to discredit the report before it's even fully out.

It is also key to note that the scientists have to be happy that the final language that is agreed conforms with the underlying science in the technical chapters. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence.
Click to expand...
Summary for policymakers is a summary of the IPCC reports intended to aid policymakers. The content is determined by the scientists, but the form is approved line by line by governments. [1] Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the final report will show more exhaustive supporting information but the conclusions will generally be the same. Some scientists even thought the summary didn't go far enough by not including glacial melting into it's sea rise calculations.
I am sincerely interested in how you reach your conclusion that I'm not sure where to even begin to respond to your first assertion but I'd point out that the opposite is more likely true to Bart's contention that government had a lot to do with what the IPCC released yesterday.
Click to expand...
I think you mis-understood here. Bart's assertion was that our government put pressure on the IPCC to hype global warming. I don't agree with this statement but not with the general assertion that governments have no role in the IPCC- they in fact compromise it. This kind of borders on political so I will leave it at that but if you want to discuss the politics more feel free to PM me. It would be nice if this issue could be discussed without the involvement of politics and it is unfortunate that the issue has become so polarized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Robinson said:
All your rain-free base are belong to us. You have no chance to see tornado make your time.
Click to expand...

Dear Dan

I try very hard to communicate in English and I understand what you and others post at 99% of the time, but I was ublable to catch your idea. What you mean by "All your rain-free base are belong to us. You have no chance to see tornado make your time".
 
Dear Scott

Regarding political pressures to influence the final text of the IPCC AR 4 I would like to suggest the reading of this article published in the International Herald Trubune I found very useful to show how things were going behind the doors in the UN Panel.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/01/news/warm.php

Two points in the article are very interesting:

The senior authors of the report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body convened every five years or so, have been inundated with e-mails and calls from some of the 650 other authors and outside experts eager to see findings tweaked in one direction or another.

With the clock ticking down and translators juggling six official languages, and government representatives trying to insure that findings do not clash with national interests, tussles have intensified between climate experts and political appointees from participating governments.

Alexandre
 
Alexandre Aguiar said:
Dear Dan

I try very hard to communicate in English and I understand what you and others post at 99% of the time, but I was ublable to catch your idea. What you mean by "All your rain-free base are belong to us. You have no chance to see tornado make your time".
Click to expand...

He's referring to an Internet cult video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4826944407865830684

The English translation of this 1980s game was very, very bad. Some guys went and made a music video out of it. It was one of the first cult videoes to hit the World Wide Web.

Sorry for the off-topic post.
 
If it takes the climate change/gw topic to spur this country to start trying to ween itself off fossil fuels, I'm all for it. Personally, I think we should be doing this for health and economic reasons... but hey, whatever. We may be getting to the point where people are starting to shun the topic since the media is so infactuated with it.

Back on topic... I gotta agree with Nuttall on this one. While I'm a proponent of human-induced climate change, I am not so far out there to proclaim hurricanes in past seasons were caused by it (heck we're still trying to undestand decadal and longer term ocean circulations). There are plenty of climate scientists out there that are completely loony. GCMs have plenty of issues, and the jury is still out on whether we're "doomed". Recently, a friend of mine at a certain university attended a seminar by a big name scientist in the hurricane->global warming debate. While I won't name this individual, this scientist could not answer numerous questions about his talk and basically chanted that hurricanes are the direct result of GW over and over.
 
Global Warming Canceled Due to Ice/Snow

Almost. This makes me laugh hard. MP

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?â€￾

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yellowstone floods reveal need to fix forecasting flaws in warming world, experts say
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mike Smith
Steve Miller
Researchers Say People Are Making Hurricanes Worse
Replies
3
Views
2K
Todd Lemery
Todd Lemery
Florida Tech Climate Change Lecture
2
Replies
26
Views
8K
David Wolfson
Earth on the Brink of a new Ice Age.
Replies
8
Views
4K
Dennis Dennison
Interesting article about global warming. Thoughts?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
12K
Mike Smith
Back
Top