Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

Here is the ad in case you missed it before.

Do you see the connection to communism now?

that's a really funny add. don't know where it was banned, there it is on youtube... so who made it?
ok clearly it is ridiculous, please tell me you don't take this literally?

The real problem here is that climate change is being used to mask another agenda. Wise up to this and accept reality my friends.

no, i do not believe that.

specifically how to best deal with the global climate change issue is a valid matter for debate. but the discussion here is more about whether it is even happening, and whether or not human activity is to blame.

 

[K-man]

I'm sorry you are frustrated, but lets be honest about what is being proposed as a "mainstream" solution to climate change.

I'm only frustrated when you ignore the topic and go off on this free society, global domination path which is another topic for another day.

A carbon tax on emissions is a tax on all life processes on the planet. Controlling carbon emissions controls all sources. All life emits carbon.

We are not arguing the benefits or otherwise of a carbon tax.

What is being proposed by the UN and satellite groups is a global bureaucracy that will collect carbon taxes and control emissions. In my opinion, this idea is insane. It's not going to happen, barring some catastrophe.

That is simplistic. They are trying to achieve global consensus and that is as easy as herding cats.

It's also would lead to the death of billions of people. Carbon cannot be managed the way the global central planners want. This is the same hubris that the Communists engaged in...and resulted in the deaths of millions.

With the respect that this deserves ... garbage! Managing carbon emissions will not lead to the death of anyone. And, it has nothing to do with what the communists did or the Crusaders for that matter.

Now, we have people who want to take this same central planning ideology and implement it on a global scale? I'm sorry, that is insane. I'm not loony for point this out. The idea is loony.

Yes it is insane but it is only you that is proposing it.

Nothing this, when you take a look at the quotes from the people who are behind pushing the management of humans contribution to the carbon cycle on the planet, Ads like this start to make more sense. Here is the ad in case you missed it before.

Do you see the connection to communism now?

No. It's a crap video.

Honestly, it's not me who is derailing this entire issue. It's the people who would like to completely reshape global society and "manage the worlds carbon" who are derailing this issue. The real solutions to climate change are low cost, scientifically sound, and will maintain the world we live in without creating the global bureaucracy needed to manage the world's carbon emissions.

Nothing to do with global warming, sorry.

The real problem here is that climate change is being used to mask another agenda. Wise up to this and accept reality my friends.

well let's just stick to climate change for now.

 

[Flying Crane]

The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition to the United States government urging politicians to reject any policies based on concerns over global warming, and in particular the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.[SUP][1][/SUP] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[SUP][4][/SUP]
According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] mostly in engineering.[SUP][5][/SUP] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[SUP][6][/SUP] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[SUP][7][/SUP]

you might want to read the rest of that wikipedia article, that you quoted here. this bit is kinda interesting:

A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[SUP][28][/SUP] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[SUP][29][/SUP] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[SUP][29][/SUP]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewedjournal."[SUP][30][/SUP] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[SUP][30][/SUP]
Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[SUP][29][/SUP] A 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming".[SUP][31]

i wouldn't put much faith in this document. lots and lots of problems with it. kinda surprised you don't notice these things.[/SUP]

 

[Flying Crane]

Ditto There are 1000's of legitimate scientists posting data that disagrees with your "we all going to die" unless you subsidize green energy, pay for carbon credits, stop driving cars. Yet you choose to ignore these scientist. Funny you dont debate the message they put out (because you cant) so instead you talk about their parents, grades or degrees, where they earn a paycheck , ect you know personal attacks your record speaks for itself as well

when the source is not trustworthy, and has even been shown to have a vested interest in a particular outcome, then their message is automatically suspect and needs to be rejected. holding on to that source and message actually weakens your position.

Show me a legitimate, active academic with relevant training and knowledge who doesnt' have a suspicious background, who is championing your cause. Then we can debate. What you and Billc are giving us here isn't even worthy of debated, because the sources are fraudulent.

 

[ballen0351]

you might want to read the rest of that wikipedia article, that you quoted here. this bit is kinda interesting:


i wouldn't put much faith in this document. lots and lots of problems with it. kinda surprised you don't notice these things.[/SUP]

Yep I read it. Some green freak trolls tried to add fake names to discredit it. Even if 50% of the names are real that's over 15,000 names. Plenty of folks in the field don't agree with you so you better start looking up there parents and grandparents history to discount them

 

[ballen0351]

when the source is not trustworthy, and has even been shown to have a vested interest in a particular outcome, then their message is automatically suspect and needs to be rejected. holding on to that source and message actually weakens your position.

Show me a legitimate, active academic with relevant training and knowledge who doesnt' have a suspicious background, who is championing your cause. Then we can debate. What you and Billc are giving us here isn't even worthy of debated, because the sources are fraudulent.

Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically suspect to you so whats the point. YOU CANT PROVE climate change is man made.

 

[Flying Crane]

Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically suspect to you so whats the point. YOU CANT PROVE climate change is man made.

ok then.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yep I read it. Some green freak trolls tried to add fake names to discredit it. Even if 50% of the names are real that's over 15,000 names. Plenty of folks in the field don't agree with you so you better start looking up there parents and grandparents history to discount them

yeah, they showed how little quality control they had to verify who was even signing the document. Pretty lax standards, there.

There was also the part about a bunch of real scientist wondering if someone was trying to hoodwink them, with the "academic" paper that was submitted with it, designed to look as if it was a published, peer-reviewed paper, when it was not.

 

[ballen0351]

Man Humans are pretty powerful:

Professor Stephen Schneider, back in 1976:
“I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in–perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age–and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.” Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, New Yorklenum, 1976

In under 40 years we went from were all going to freeze to death to were all going to burn alive

 

[ballen0351]

yeah, they showed how little quality control they had to verify who was even signing the document. Pretty lax standards, there.

.

Dude people hack into the best most secure computer systems in the world so its pretty easy for people that cant actually debate the data to instead to post fake names. THey have verified many names on the list. You think its fake prove it. Look up some names.

There was also the part about a bunch of real scientist wondering if someone was trying to hoodwink them, with the "academic" paper that was submitted with it, designed to look as if it was a published, peer-reviewed paper, when it was not

Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[SUP][[/SUP]

 

[Flying Crane]

Man Humans are pretty powerful:


[/B]In under 40 years we went from were all going to freeze to death to were all going to burn alive

this disproves global climate change? how?

 

[Flying Crane]

Dude people hack into the best most secure computer systems in the world so its pretty easy for people that cant actually debate the data to instead to post fake names. THey have verified many names on the list. You think its fake prove it. Look up some names.

Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[SUP][[/SUP]

well of course he will deny any deliberate wrong-doing. That's not surprising.

 

[Makalakumu]

There are a lot of avenues that this discussion could take. One of them is about solutions. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the people who are against this and have a lot of emotional energy into opposing this would not be so opposed if more low cost solutions were researched and taken seriously. I could see all of the opposition in this thread saying, "well, I don't necessarily agree that this is a problem, but it's good to have some tools in the basket in case we're wrong."

The problem with is that the scale of what is being proposed is so off the charts and it changes so much about society that it completely turns people off intellectually.

Managing carbon emissions will not lead to the death of anyone. And, it has nothing to do with what the communists did or the Crusaders for that matter.

I think you better wrap your head around what is actually being proposed. Controlling global carbon emissions means that certain societies will not be allowed to develop and that developed societies will have to "de-industrialize". In that list of quotes I posted, the very people who put on all of these Climate Change Summits are explaining EXACTLY what is proposed. You are misinformed if you think that you can "manage" the carbon of the world without causing significant "alterations" in people's lives or ability to improve their life.

People will die, K-man. The central planning of carbon will kill people just as centrally planning other resources killed others in the past. Do you need to see some sources for that claim?

Yes it is insane but it is only you that is proposing it.

Here is what the Ban Ki-Moon said in 2009 in a NYT Op-Ed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=0

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.


A successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.


A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.


A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.

This is exactly what I said it was. It is a global bureaucracy that will manage the human side of the global carbon cycle. It will use carbon taxes to fund itself and it will draw funds other public and private sources.

Again, you need to accept the reality here and accept that this is what is being proposed as a solution.

 

[Makalakumu]

that's a really funny add. don't know where it was banned, there it is on youtube... so who made it?
ok clearly it is ridiculous, please tell me you don't take this literally?

No, it's tongue in cheek. Obviously. However, sometimes art captures the zeitgeist of a movement...which is what makes it really good art. For example, if Montey Python made this piece people would immediately recognize it as a satirical piece on the hubris of central planners in the UN.

Anyway, there is a grain of truth here. If you look at what the plutocrats write about managing global society to manage carbon, there is something very eerie about this ad.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are a lot of avenues that this discussion could take. One of them is about solutions. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the people who are against this and have a lot of emotional energy into opposing this would not be so opposed if more low cost solutions were researched and taken seriously. I could see all of the opposition in this thread saying, "well, I don't necessarily agree that this is a problem, but it's good to have some tools in the basket in case we're wrong."

The problem with is that the scale of what is being proposed is so off the charts and it changes so much about society that it completely turns people off intellectually.

the problem really is huge. I suspect that a few thousand ships and planes spraying salt water into the air isn't going to solve it. I admit I lack the scientific background to ultimately pass judgement on that one, but it strikes me as highly unlikely.

People will die, K-man. The central planning of carbon will kill people just as centrally planning other resources killed others in the past. Do you need to see some sources for that claim?

Maybe, maybe not. But far far more will die as the global mean temperature continues to rise.

Here is what the Ban Ki-Moon said in 2009 in a NYT Op-Ed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=0

I don't see anything offensive in this. I think you see conspiracy where none exist.

 

[Flying Crane]

No, it's tongue in cheek. Obviously. However, sometimes art captures the zeitgeist of a movement...which is what makes it really good art. For example, if Montey Python made this piece people would immediately recognize it as a satirical piece on the hubris of central planners in the UN.

Anyway, there is a grain of truth here. If you look at what the plutocrats write about managing global society to manage carbon, there is something very eerie about this ad.

i'm glad you recognize the satire. I see your point but I think it doesn't reflect any true conspiracy. that's my take on it.

 

[ballen0351]

this disproves global climate change? how?

Shows that these "scientists" have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[ballen0351]

well of course he will deny any deliberate wrong-doing. That's not surprising.

OR he did nothing wrong

 

[ballen0351]

[h=2]Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections[/h]Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[SUP][16][/SUP]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [SUP][17][/SUP]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[SUP][21][/SUP]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[SUP][22][/SUP]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[SUP][23][/SUP]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[SUP][24][/SUP]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [SUP][25][/SUP]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[SUP][26][/SUP]

[h=2]Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes[/h]
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[SUP][27][/SUP]


Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[SUP][28][/SUP]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[SUP][31][/SUP]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[SUP][32][/SUP]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][33][/SUP]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[SUP][34][/SUP]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[SUP][35][/SUP]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[SUP][36][/SUP]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[SUP][37][/SUP]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[SUP][38][/SUP]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[SUP][39][/SUP]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[SUP][40][/SUP]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[SUP][41][/SUP]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[SUP][42][/SUP]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[SUP][43][/SUP]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[SUP][46][/SUP]
• Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[SUP][47][/SUP]
• Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[SUP][48][/SUP]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[SUP][51][/SUP]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[SUP][52][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP][SUP][54][/SUP]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[SUP][55][/SUP]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[SUP][56][/SUP]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[SUP][57][/SUP]
• George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[SUP][58][/SUP]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[SUP][59][/SUP]

[h=2]Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown[/h]Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[SUP][60][/SUP]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[SUP][61][/SUP]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[SUP][62][/SUP]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[SUP][63][/SUP][SUP][64][/SUP]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[SUP][65][/SUP]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[SUP][66][/SUP]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[SUP][67][/SUP]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[SUP][68][/SUP]
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[SUP][69][/SUP]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[SUP][70][/SUP]

[h=2]Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences[/h]Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [SUP][71][/SUP]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[SUP][72][/SUP]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[SUP][73][/SUP]

 

[Flying Crane]

Shows that these "scientists" have no idea what they are talking about.

ah, ok then.