Zipp0 1 #1 February 2, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html I guess we can end the debate now that the only fair and balanced news source on the planet has reported the truth. Finally! -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #2 February 2, 2007 The IPCC has released the political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) Let's wait until the actual report comes out. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #3 February 2, 2007 Quote Let's wait until the actual report comes out. But my knee is already jerking like crazy!!! -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 February 2, 2007 QuotePARIS — Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man No shocker... Quote and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. This is a shocker. And confusing. How is it that we have such power, but have no power? Is this saying that any efforts we undertake to prevent global warming are futile? If so, gas me up. Or is it saying that we were too late in our efforts to control global warming. I wonder what the point of no return was. 1930? 1950? I'd bet it was January 21, 2001. Had Dubya just done something on that day, we would not be facing it. Still, according to this document, pollution control apparently no longer has "global warming" as a reason to do it. We're just gonna have to control pollution for pollution control's sake. Where's the money in that? QuoteEnvironmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Why? We can do nothing to stop it, sowhy are we being urged to do everything we can to stop it? This is mighty confusing to me. It's like a report issued that says human mals cannot get pregnant, but we should still be trying. Quote"It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. The report says there is nothing we CAN do about it, unless steiner is speaking of efforts to relocate coastal cities, etc. If it is asking about reversing or halting global warming, read the report. We can't do it. So, let's end the discussion. Quote"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible." I am not saying there is nothing we can do. The FUCKING REPORT SAYS IT! If the report lacks credibility, then throw it out. But throw out all of it. QuoteOne of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, said scientists are worried that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands. Instead, world leaders should reduce emissions and adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather, he said. "This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," said Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate." Okay. Now I've got a better picture about what scientists are saying. Let's not make it any worse or any faster. It's gonna happen. Let's prepare for the changes so we can adapt. Got it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 February 2, 2007 QuoteOr is it saying that we were too late in our efforts to control global warming. I wonder what the point of no return was. 1930? 1950? I'd bet it was January 21, 2001. Had Dubya just done something on that day, we would not be facing it. We can be pretty sure that every day Bush talked about a new energy policy, he did nothing productive with regards to this subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpjc2000 0 #6 February 2, 2007 Or is it saying that we were too late in our efforts to control global warming. I wonder what the point of no return was. 1930? 1950? I'd bet it was January 21, 2001. Had Dubya just done something on that day, we would not be facing it. ______________________________________________________ Now THAT was funny... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #7 February 2, 2007 Indulging in a little all-or-nothing, black &white type thinking then? The point is there will be some warming. The SOONER we do something to reduce it the LESS warming there will be. or did you actually figure that out & were just pretending not to understand? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 February 2, 2007 QuoteWe can be pretty sure that every day Bush talked about a new energy policy, he did nothing productive with regards to this subject. Which President since Nixon has done anything productive with regard to this subject (maybe Carter, under whom Superfund was passed (6 weeks before Reagan was sworn in))? Clinton? Oh, yes. He's the one who never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification, though he did send Al Gore to symbolically sign it in 1997. It doesn't stop Clinton from stumping for environmental laws now, though. I'll credit him for his policy of increasing disclosures. I think his major legislative events were the Food Quality Protection Act and Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Most seem to agree that environmental quality improved during Clinton's reign, but at a lesser pace since the 1970's. Notably, Clinton revoked executive orders of Reagan and Bush. Their EO's required that a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations be performed for regulations expected to cost over $100 million. While Reagan and Bush wanted the benefits to outweigh the costs, Clinton's EO (Executive Order 12866) merely required that the benefits justified the costs. What about Dubya? He has done just as much as anybody in the last 30 years. According to the report, it is probable he couldn't have done anything, anyway. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,381 #9 February 2, 2007 > According to the report, it is probable he couldn't have done > anything, anyway. The report doesn't say that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #10 February 2, 2007 QuoteQuotePARIS — Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man No shocker... Quote and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. This is a shocker. And confusing. How is it that we have such power, but have no power? Is this saying that any efforts we undertake to prevent global warming are futile? If so, gas me up. . I don't understand your confsion. Getting pregnant is easier than getting unpregnant. Getting back into a jump plane at 13,000ft is more difficult than getting out of one. Many things are more difficult to undo than to do.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 February 3, 2007 Actually, I read the first couple of paragraphs and started posting. I actually thought they were saying, "It's warming. There's nothing we can do about it. Keep on trying." When I got to the end in the commentary is when it was made clear. You know, I read the report. The report was put together in a balanced way. It did not have the sort of shock and alarm that the news and spin did. I actually figured it out once I got to the end of it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 February 3, 2007 QuoteGetting back into a jump plane at 13,000ft is more difficult than getting out of one. I don't read this as something like uncooking and egg. (If anyone ever figures out to renature a denatured protein, big bucks!) Once I read the report, the REPORT said that: QuoteAnthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized. So instead of actually saying there is nothing we can do about global warming, I read the report as saying that control of greenhouse gases will not eliminate anthropogenic greenhouse warming. To me, this leaves the door open to other steps that could be taken. Once I read the report, it made sense. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #13 February 3, 2007 Where's rushmc when you need him to make rude comments about the UN and how all these scientists are idiots?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #14 February 3, 2007 I reckon it's too late to reverse the process. We can certainly try but individuals around the world will never see it as their own personal responsibility to reduce the emissions made by their machines, and act upon the matter. And this is the critical area for anything of significance to happen. Besides, will China suddenly call a halt to their economic development? Will Bush sign the obvious treaty? Will semi-nomadic tribesmen cease burning wood collected to cook their food? Will you stop flying, whether for your sport, work, or holiday? Will you stop driving your car? No. So I guess global warming is here to stay. And get warmer.So it's not really worth debating about. Look at what's happening today. It's here. And we're f**ked. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #15 February 4, 2007 Quote http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study Ian Sample, science correspondent Friday February 2, 2007 The Guardian Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #16 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuote http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study Ian Sample, science correspondent Friday February 2, 2007 The Guardian Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. Are you a commie or something? This is the way capitalism works. Where's rushmc to tell us how this is the only way to the truth?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cam 0 #17 February 4, 2007 also on truth-making.. Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change · Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told · Researchers warned not to talk about global warming Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Wednesday January 31, 2007 The Guardian The Bush administration was yesterday accused of systemic tampering with the work of government climate scientists to eliminate politically inconvenient material about global warming. At a hearing of Congress, scientists and advocacy groups described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming from scientific reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid pressure on an administration opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Such pressure extended even to the use of the words "global warming" or "climate change", said a report released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The report said nearly half of climate scientists at government agencies had been advised against using those terms. [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2002485,00.html] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #18 February 5, 2007 Mankinds arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Sure we're contributing to climate change. But we're not the only cause or even the largest cause. "Save the Planet!" they cry. But it's not the planet that they are really trying to save, it's our own stupid species they are worried about. There is nothing we can do to this planet that she won't eventually recover from. Remember, she has nothing but time. Human civilization has been around for what, 50,000 years? That's not even a blip on the timeline of existence of this planet. We haven't even been around long enough for major evolution to have taken place. We aren't much different (compared to other species whose evolution we have traced) from the apes that first walked upright 3,000,000 years ago. Depending on which source you quote somewhere between 95%-99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, virtually all before man ever appeared. Some of them lived here when the atmosphere would have been toxic to most life forms around today. Some were killed off by climate change that enabled mammals to take over. It's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Have a nice day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #19 February 5, 2007 QuoteIt's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Good point. The planet will be fine. It's only the end of the human race. And here I thought it was important. Fill 'er up! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #20 February 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Good point. The planet will be fine. It's only the end of the human race. And here I thought it was important. Fill 'er up! It is important, but only to us humans. Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #21 February 5, 2007 QuoteIt is important, but only to us humans. Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Why are we suddenly hearing a huge round of "The rock won't be turned into little smithereens" nonsense these days? Personally I've thought the euphemism "End of the World" was perfectly reasonable as a way of saying "End of the Human Race." Sure, it's not precisely accurate, but it's a phrase. Suddenly the deniers are chomping at the phrase. Is this a last-ditch effort to save face? It's like they're saying, "Ok, sure. Global warming is real and it's actually our fault and it's actually bad. But we caught you in a verbal slip! Nya nya nya!!!" First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #22 February 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt is important, but only to us humans. Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Why are we suddenly hearing a huge round of "The rock won't be turned into little smithereens" nonsense these days? Personally I've thought the euphemism "End of the World" was perfectly reasonable as a way of saying "End of the Human Race." Sure, it's not precisely accurate, but it's a phrase. Suddenly the deniers are chomping at the phrase. Is this a last-ditch effort to save face? It's like they're saying, "Ok, sure. Global warming is real and it's actually our fault and it's actually bad. But we caught you in a verbal slip! Nya nya nya!!!" Nobody is saying "Nya Nya Nya". How can someone be called a "denier" when they acknowledge that there is global warming and that we are contributing to it? Where is the denial? All I was trying to say, in a civil manner, was that it is rediculous to say we are harming the planet and it's tiring to hear all the alarmists say that we are. We haven't hurt this planet, we won't hurt this planet, and we won't be here as a species long enough to be anything more than the tick of a watch in Earth's history. We and the things we do ain't shit to the planet, yet people think we humans are all that matters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites WeakMindedFool 0 #23 February 5, 2007 QuoteMankinds arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Sure we're contributing to climate change. But we're not the only cause or even the largest cause. "Save the Planet!" they cry. But it's not the planet that they are really trying to save, it's our own stupid species they are worried about. There is nothing we can do to this planet that she won't eventually recover from. Remember, she has nothing but time. Human civilization has been around for what, 50,000 years? That's not even a blip on the timeline of existence of this planet. We haven't even been around long enough for major evolution to have taken place. We aren't much different (compared to other species whose evolution we have traced) from the apes that first walked upright 3,000,000 years ago. Depending on which source you quote somewhere between 95%-99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, virtually all before man ever appeared. Some of them lived here when the atmosphere would have been toxic to most life forms around today. Some were killed off by climate change that enabled mammals to take over. It's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Have a nice day! Dude! Are you channeling George Carlin or are YOU George? Can I have your autograph?!Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. -Eric Hoffer - Check out these Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #24 February 5, 2007 Neither. I just happen to agree with part of his philosophy, but by no means all of it. Sure you can have my autograph, but I gotta warn you that it's not worth much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,381 #25 February 5, 2007 >Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Probably true. The question is - should we be doing our very best to hasten that day? Or should we perhaps consider postponing it a bit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
narcimund 0 #19 February 5, 2007 QuoteIt's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Good point. The planet will be fine. It's only the end of the human race. And here I thought it was important. Fill 'er up! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #20 February 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Good point. The planet will be fine. It's only the end of the human race. And here I thought it was important. Fill 'er up! It is important, but only to us humans. Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #21 February 5, 2007 QuoteIt is important, but only to us humans. Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Why are we suddenly hearing a huge round of "The rock won't be turned into little smithereens" nonsense these days? Personally I've thought the euphemism "End of the World" was perfectly reasonable as a way of saying "End of the Human Race." Sure, it's not precisely accurate, but it's a phrase. Suddenly the deniers are chomping at the phrase. Is this a last-ditch effort to save face? It's like they're saying, "Ok, sure. Global warming is real and it's actually our fault and it's actually bad. But we caught you in a verbal slip! Nya nya nya!!!" First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #22 February 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt is important, but only to us humans. Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Why are we suddenly hearing a huge round of "The rock won't be turned into little smithereens" nonsense these days? Personally I've thought the euphemism "End of the World" was perfectly reasonable as a way of saying "End of the Human Race." Sure, it's not precisely accurate, but it's a phrase. Suddenly the deniers are chomping at the phrase. Is this a last-ditch effort to save face? It's like they're saying, "Ok, sure. Global warming is real and it's actually our fault and it's actually bad. But we caught you in a verbal slip! Nya nya nya!!!" Nobody is saying "Nya Nya Nya". How can someone be called a "denier" when they acknowledge that there is global warming and that we are contributing to it? Where is the denial? All I was trying to say, in a civil manner, was that it is rediculous to say we are harming the planet and it's tiring to hear all the alarmists say that we are. We haven't hurt this planet, we won't hurt this planet, and we won't be here as a species long enough to be anything more than the tick of a watch in Earth's history. We and the things we do ain't shit to the planet, yet people think we humans are all that matters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WeakMindedFool 0 #23 February 5, 2007 QuoteMankinds arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Sure we're contributing to climate change. But we're not the only cause or even the largest cause. "Save the Planet!" they cry. But it's not the planet that they are really trying to save, it's our own stupid species they are worried about. There is nothing we can do to this planet that she won't eventually recover from. Remember, she has nothing but time. Human civilization has been around for what, 50,000 years? That's not even a blip on the timeline of existence of this planet. We haven't even been around long enough for major evolution to have taken place. We aren't much different (compared to other species whose evolution we have traced) from the apes that first walked upright 3,000,000 years ago. Depending on which source you quote somewhere between 95%-99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, virtually all before man ever appeared. Some of them lived here when the atmosphere would have been toxic to most life forms around today. Some were killed off by climate change that enabled mammals to take over. It's all part of the life cycle of a planet, nothing new about climate change besides it being a political tool this time. Have a nice day! Dude! Are you channeling George Carlin or are YOU George? Can I have your autograph?!Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. -Eric Hoffer - Check out these Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #24 February 5, 2007 Neither. I just happen to agree with part of his philosophy, but by no means all of it. Sure you can have my autograph, but I gotta warn you that it's not worth much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,381 #25 February 5, 2007 >Mama earth couldn't care less. In fact, she'd probably be glad to get rid of us. Probably true. The question is - should we be doing our very best to hasten that day? Or should we perhaps consider postponing it a bit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
