Who can have doubt, when this guy says it's so?????
Posted on 02/02/2007 9:30:04 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC's political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth. 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) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).
Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort -- you own it and you should be able to access it).
Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May.
Who can have doubt, when this guy says it's so?????
"The questions are not formulated correctly."
Then "formulate" the questions and answer them.
"The matter is legal, not scientific."
The U.S.A. is not a signatory to the Kyoto treaty,therefore it is not a legal matter.
"Not that we have a clue about scientific models anyway, but they don't matter."
We have plenty of clues:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm
Why are we still in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty?
We need to offer to help them solve the problem. Massive numbers of new nuclear plants in the USA.
Yes, I do own stock in the uranium mining industry. By all means, build nuclear plants.
Groundhog Day!
I have a question. How can anyone believe we can dump pounds and pounds of carbon monoxide and god knows what into the atmosphere without ANY negative effect? Even if you dont believe in global warming you must admit that pollution is a BAD thing right?
Is Co2 considered pollution under the Clean Air Act?
If 97% of C02 is natural and only 3% man-made.Is it worth trillions of dollars to end up lowering temperatures by about 0.003054033 °C by the year 2050 ?
I think the evidence indicates that there has been warming. The key questions are: (1) what is the cause and (2) what to do about it.
There are multiple factors to consider, of which human influence is one. Even if human influence could be eliminated the warming might well go on.
Whether we should attempt to do anything about it is a matter for debate. Warmer might, on balance, be better than cooler. Or it might not. It is by no means clear that stopping the likely global warming would be a net benefit.
If we did decide we should try to stop or reverse global warming the question becomes what method should be used. The left quickly jumps on the idea of reversing industrialization and returning to a "more natural" lifestyle. However, this would cause great hardship and economic decline for the vast majority of humanity. Other methods appear less painful. On the one hand, we could try to offset greenhouse gases by increasing flora that will absorb more carbon dioxide. This is the "plant more trees" option. A potentially useful byproduct would be more forests and more wood products.
A second option would focus on reducing the temperature by deflecting/reflecting more sunlight. This wouldn't reduce the carbon dioxide--thus retaining the beneficial impacts on agriculture of higher CO2 (i.e., crops grow bigger faster). This is both technically feasible and economically less costly than the emissions reduction schemes touted by the Kyoto Treaty.
The temperature of the planet will continue to fluctuate over time. The wealth created by advanced capitalistic economies provides humans with the realistic option to modify natural fluctuations in ways that would be beneficial.
Global Warming is a political term foisted on an unknowing populace that means,
"I'm Smart and You're Not! Cogito ergo sum I can assume the necessary power over your lives to combat this Bad Bad Global Warming that you've caused and I will negate!
BS Alert!
There are three primary sources that heat our atmosphere.
1. The Sun a Class M VARIABLE Star!
2. Geothermal heating caused by plate tectonic activity to include volcanos and friction caused by plates rubbing against each other.
3. Human activity.
Human activity is MINISCULE compared to the first two!
If I could wave a magic wand and all of humanity disappeared the first two heating sources would continue uabated until our Sun exploded! The geological and astronomical history supports these conditions and ... AlBlowhard does not have the smarts to AFFECT a change, (actual he is affectatious but can effect nothing)
If we are going to put up giant reflectors to end this scourge, we could just as easily and even more environmentally consciously profitably put the steel, aluminum and copper industries into space. That would take 1/3 the load off the power grid right there and put an end to the whole problem probably forever.
Nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of our atmosphere. CO2 is 0.0360% of total atmosphere.
Of all atmospheric CO2,
3.225% is man made.
Thats 3.225% of 0.036% of the total atmosphere.
There was another thread that had a picture from the report (a cartoon) of "how much man contributes to greenhouse gases". It had industry, driving, agricultural, etc. The funny/sad part is the percentages added up to 100% (100% of greenhouse gases are manmade!!).
You and I know that what it should have said was "of the greenhouse gases that man contributes, these activites give the following percentages". But, thats not what they said and thats now what people will get from the cartoon.
Mans CO2 emissions= a softball.
Total atmospheric CO2= a large beach ball.
Add the softball to the beach ball= mans CO2 + atmospheric CO2= total CO2 (not much change).
Now lastly:
Total CO2= 1 large beach ball
Total Atmosphere= 1 hot air balloon
Add the softball to the hot air balloon.
any change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.