Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

miniTAX wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/patz.html

refer the first sentence
It doesn't say that 100% of the CO2 atmospheric increase is manmande, nor 50%, nor 2%. The science is as bad as this

Rubbish. If they weren't satisfied the major factor contributing to the recent increase in CO2 was a result of man's economic activity the IPCC would not have used the word anthropogenic.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/patz.html

refer the first sentence
It doesn't say that 100% of the CO2 atmospheric increase is manmande, nor 50%, nor 2%. The science is as bad as this
Rubbish. If they weren't satisfied the major factor contributing to the recent increase in CO2 was a result of man's economic activity the IPCC would not have used the word anthropogenic.

Satisfied perhaps that the word conjures up the proper mental image to further the political and ideological ambitions of the IPCC.

0 Replies

And what are the political and ideological imperatives of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

And what are the political and ideological imperatives of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

An excellent question. But as most of the AGW skeptics who have been shut out of the discussion by proponents of the IPCC believe there is a strong left leaning ideological perspective as well as political purposes built into all this, it certainly can't be dismissed. I have yet to see the IPCC even acknowledge any observation, data, or any conclusions that don't fit the drumbeated mantra that AGW will bring catastrophe to the world if it is not reversed in the near future.

If they truly believed that, I don't think we would be seeing recommendations involving selling carbon credits or exemptions for everybody but the most affluent countries. And we would see the global warming gurus walking the walk as well as talking the talk. From what I've seen, they don't.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But as most of the AGW skeptics who have been shut out of the discussion by proponents of the IPCC believe there is a strong left leaning ideological perspective as well as political purposes built into all this, ...

You are not going to tell my that our chancellor and her environmental minister are strongly left leaning, or you? Shocked

0 Replies

ah! They have a "left leaning political perspective". Which presumably means they are innumerate and totally incapable of earth system science.

Its the skeptics who are politically driven. You know full well that accepting the conclusions will mean radical change, to which you are unwilling to commit.

Therefore you rubbish the science
Then rubbish the methodology
Then pull every trick to rubbish the conclusion
Then when all else fails you rubbish the people making the conclusion.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But as most of the AGW skeptics who have been shut out of the discussion by proponents of the IPCC believe there is a strong left leaning ideological perspective as well as political purposes built into all this, ...

You are not going to tell my that our chancellor and her environmental minister are strongly left leaning, or you?

As you define 'left leaning', I don't know. As we define 'left leaning', I suspect both would be left of center here.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

ah! They have a "left leaning political perspective". Which presumably means they are innumerate and totally incapable of earth system science.

Its the skeptics who are politically driven. You know full well that accepting the conclusions will mean radical change, to which you are unwilling to commit.

Therefore you rubbish the science
Then rubbish the methodology
Then pull every trick to rubbish the conclusion
Then when all else fails you rubbish the people making the conclusion.

You presume a lot of stuff I didn't say in your therefore Steve. I am not unwilling to commit to anything that I believe to be the real deal and necessary for the common good. I am hugely unwilling to commit to radically altering my lifestyle or damage my country's economy or doom hundreds of millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty based on what appears to likely be flawed science. I at least have read all the stuff the IPCC has put out and read all the arguments on their side and have tried to do so with an open mind. I have also read all the arguments on the other side with an open mind too, and so far find the arguments put forth by the skeptics to be the most persuasive.

And in the meanwhile, I am going to guess that my personal lifestyle is probably comparable to yours, but I live my lifestyle out of choice and like having a choice. I don't want my government or anybody's government telling me how I must live to satisfy ideological or political ambitions based on fuzzy science.

0 Replies

Walter - not sure if these fonts (unicode 8 ancient Greek) are supported on a2k but if not you can look them up at the Perseus database or whatever online edition of Homer's Iliad in the original Greek - have noted number of book and verse next to each word.

Transliteration of "anthropo-genes" can be written either "anthropogenic" or "-genous" as your grammar book suggests - but the latter isn't a word in English, so we have to stick with the word we have. As you know transliterations from different alphabets are done by convention rather than by strict grammatical rules.

Iliad

16.249 (anthropos)
man

14.193 (genesis)

Quote:

origin, source, Il.14.201 ; ib.246, cf. Pl.Tht. 180d; beginning, in dual, ........Id.Phd.71e .

PS no, font not supported, sorry
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

0 Replies

Thanks, High Seas. (The grammar book, btw, is an American, by a prof. em. for Greek.)

0 Replies

Nothing against the professor!

It would be easier to show if I could post in Greek letters - maybe there's a way to do it on a2k using math symbols - will try tomorrow.

0 Replies

"OSLO (Reuters) - Sea levels are set to fall over millions of years, making the current rise blamed on climate change a brief interruption of an ancient geological trend, scientists said on Thursday.

They said oceans were getting deeper and sea levels had fallen by about 170 meters (560 ft) since the Cretaceous period 80 million years ago when dinosaurs lived. Previously, the little-understood fall had been estimated at 40 to 250 meters.

"The ocean floor has got on average older and gone down and so the sea level has also fallen," said Bernhard Steinberger at the Geological Survey of Norway, one of five authors of a report in the journal Science.

"The trend will continue," he told Reuters.

A computer model based on improved understanding of shifts of continent-sized tectonic plates in the earth's crust projects more deepening of the ocean floor and a further sea level decline of 120 meters in 80 million years' time."

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0636899020080306?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Make up your mind on this!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Make up your mind on this!

Well, what your quoted report says:

Quote:

Still, the projected rate of fall works out at 0.015 centimeters a century -- irrelevant when the U.N. Climate Panel estimates that seas will rise by 18-59 cms by 2100 because of global warming stoked by human use of fossil fuels.

"Compared to what is expected due to climate change, the fall is negligible," said Steinberger. Cities from Miami to Shanghai are threatened by rising seas that could also swamp low-lying island nations in the Pacific.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/patz.html

refer the first sentence
It doesn't say that 100% of the CO2 atmospheric increase is manmande, nor 50%, nor 2%. The science is as bad as this
Rubbish. If they weren't satisfied the major factor contributing to the recent increase in CO2 was a result of man's economic activity the IPCC would not have used the word anthropogenic.

"Anthropogenic" is in the gene of the IPCC. How do you want them not to use it ??? Had CC been not anthropogenic, the IPCC would simply NOT exist, so your reasonning is a non sequitur.

The IPCC mandate is, I cite:
"to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation".

0 Replies

Quote:

And in the meanwhile, I am going to guess that my personal lifestyle is probably comparable to yours, but I live my lifestyle out of choice and like having a choice. I don't want my government or anybody's government telling me how I must live to satisfy ideological or political ambitions based on fuzzy science.

Exactly the same spurious logic was used to oppose restrictions on smoking

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Quote:
And in the meanwhile, I am going to guess that my personal lifestyle is probably comparable to yours, but I live my lifestyle out of choice and like having a choice. I don't want my government or anybody's government telling me how I must live to satisfy ideological or political ambitions based on fuzzy science.

Exactly the same spurious logic was used to oppose restrictions on smoking

Except in areas where smokers and non smokers must share the same public areas or where fire hazards exist, I oppose restrictions on smoking too. And I don't smoke (any more) and I dislike being around cigarette smoke. (I do enjoy smelling a really good cigar or great pipe tobacco thought.)

Otherwise I can't see why my preferring the freedom to choose to do something on my own initiative or not should be considered spurious logic. I quit smoking because I was convinced that it was the right thing to do. I go as green as reasonble in my lifestyle also because I am convinced it is the right thing to do both for me and others. I can't see how the government forcing me to make such choices would be better than me making them on my own.

And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the IPCC mantra is based on competent science or flawed science.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
But as most of the AGW skeptics who have been shut out of the discussion by proponents of the IPCC believe there is a strong left leaning ideological perspective as well as political purposes built into all this, ...

You are not going to tell my that our chancellor and her environmental minister are strongly left leaning, or you?

As you define 'left leaning', I don't know. As we define 'left leaning', I suspect both would be left of center here.

I'm still perplex by the above response.

We have 'only' the neo.nazis right of our conservatives ....

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

The IPCC mandate is, I cite:
"to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation".

The 4th IPCC report builds on the work of earlier reports from which it is concluded that climate change is real and that it stems from human activity.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
But as most of the AGW skeptics who have been shut out of the discussion by proponents of the IPCC believe there is a strong left leaning ideological perspective as well as political purposes built into all this, ...

You are not going to tell my that our chancellor and her environmental minister are strongly left leaning, or you?

As you define 'left leaning', I don't know. As we define 'left leaning', I suspect both would be left of center here.

I'm still perplex by the above response.

We have 'only' the neo.nazis right of our conservatives ....

I judge your chancellor and her environmental minister to be left of center on environmental issues and to espouse more socialism than American conservatives would agree to. Whether or not American conservatives fully accept the IPCC assessment of the climate change, few accept the recommendations for heavy handed government mandates. As to who is right of who in Germany, I have no clue.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know