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

The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.

Keep it up, Cycl, with your "renewable resources" siren song...
Next: get prosecuted for mass murder!

Quote:

The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html

The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.

Yeah, people should be more afraid of suckers which buy the doom porn and go on preventive shooting of others to ward off an imagined lack of ressources rather than the lack of ressources itself.
Wars have nearly always started that way.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Exxon-Mobil

Admits that they have been consciously funding climate-change denial groups for years, and says that they have decided to cease doing so as they transition to renewable resources in the future.

Suck it, deniers, a major leg of your stool just fell right off...

Cycloptichorn

That would be true if Exxon-Mobil had any role in affecting or influencing my point of view on AGW or global warming in general. They didn't. Therefore who or what they fund is rather moot on that score.

You, however have misrepresented their current approach to the issue, at least as stated in the article you linked.

The oil companies stand to make huge profits from production of biofuels and other alternate energy sources, so I would imagine it would be in their interest to not knock these emerging industries.

Silly to say they didn't. Many of the articles you have read, the studies that have shaped your worldview, and opinions that you listen to on the issues, were paid for by Exxon-Mobil for exactly the purpose of creating disbelief in any sort of climate change issues. They DID influence your views. You just don't wish to admit it.

Unless your views on climate change denial were formed from your own mind, of whole cloth, with no outside input whatsoever? Hard to believe.

Cycloptichorn

It is far sillier to say that they did when they didn't.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

115.
Geologist Georgia D. Brown, an instructor of Geology & Oceanography at College of Lake County in Illinois, rejected climate fears and supported the notion of a coming global cool down. "I talk to my students about this topic every semester, not just when we are covering glacial geology, but at different points throughout the term. I want them to know that they shouldn't take every alarmist claim at face value," Brown wrote on December 13, 2006. "Fear is a means of controlling a population, and since the cold war has ended, the government needed new fuel for its control fire," Brown wrote. Brown, who said she "spent quite a bit of time doing research in climatology, and what triggers the ice age cycle" explained that "it is a slight increase in temperature, and the resulting increase in precipitation, that triggers ice sheet growth.....And have you read about the 30% decrease in the North Atlantic Current? What happens to Greenland, Iceland, The British Isles, and Europe as a result? It gets damn cold!"

The climate changed before the industrial revolution and its CO2 emissions. It has changed during the industrial revolution and its CO2 emissions. That's reason enough to expect climate to change regardless of the industrial revolution and its CO2 emissions.

...Mars Climate Orbiter, had a particularly humiliating crash, because the fault lay with a group of engineers who, in defiance of common sense, had continued to use imperial units of measurement in their calculations when all around had adopted the metric system.

Phoenix's active life is expected to be a mere three months. It will be killed beyond reasonable hope of resurrection not by heat but by the encroaching cold of winter.

Watching that winter arrive will be spectacular. Vastitas Borealis, the area that Phoenix has landed in, will be covered in a metre-deep layer of frozen carbon dioxide.

So much for finding intelligent life on Mars - hard enough to find it here on Earth:



However, the new orbiter made it, and brings good news for the "pollution" experts: there's a lot of frozen CO2, maybe left over from assorted Martian SUVs roaming that planet:

in most cases psychiatric disorder is indirectly caused by speech and language retardation.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

116.

Bush relents on climate science

Margot Roosevelt and Kenneth Weiss, Los Angeles

May 31, 2008


US PRESIDENT George Bush's top science advisers have issued a report that, for the first time, endorses what most scientific experts have long argued: that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion "are very likely the single largest cause" of the earth's warming.

The Bush Administration had long resisted a Congressional mandate, the 1990 Global Change Research Act, requiring the White House to report every four years on global warming and other environmental forces.

A US District Court last August ordered Mr Bush to comply with a 2004 deadline for an updated report, after a lawsuit by the Centre for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups.

Sharon Hays, deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the report did not represent a changed assessment, but "a rolling-up of a whole bunch of reports on the science, showing that climate change is primarily caused by human activity of the last 50 years".


The Administration had earlier issued reports on the effect of climate change on transportation, agriculture and human health. But environmentalists celebrated what they saw as a long-overdue admission from an Administration that has been reluctant to join global efforts to curb greenhouse gases, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

"This report represents a stark shift in what the Administration has been saying since 2001," said Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group. "For the first time, it has had to admit that global warming is already having clear impacts in the United States, and the impacts are going to get worse even with the most aggressive action to cut emissions."

The report by the National Science and Technology Council and the US Climate Change Science Program asserted that natural causes alone could not explain recent extremes of heat and cold, warming seas and an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. It also shows that regions of North America could warm faster over the next few decades than the global average.

The warming climate also will accelerate the spread of diseases carried by water, food and insects.

The few positive effects of climate shifts are outweighed by negatives. For example, warming and higher levels of carbon dioxide will speed up growth of forests and certain crops, but also increase insect outbreaks and spark more wildfires.

Warmer, less-snowy winters would decrease winter road maintenance cost, but increased coastal and river-related flooding and landslides were likely to cause more serious problems. Heat spells, the report said, "could cause railroad tracks to buckle or kink and could affect roads through softening and traffic-related rutting".

Industry representatives greeted the report with a shrug. Jim Owen, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, said the power industry "abandoned the science debate years ago. It's universally recognised in our industry that climate change is very real."

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Unless it involves WMD and Iraq, that is, in which case shitty theories and made-up evidence are perfect justification for drastic actions leading to the death and displacement of many millions of people...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

117.
Russian scientist Alexander G. Egorov, a researcher with the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in Saint Petersburg, called global warming a temporary inconvenience tied to the natural fluctuation of the sun. According to an October 18, 2007 translated article in Russian Science News, Egorov believes warming is "not more than a natural variation." The article explained that Egorov believes "long-term temperature rising to be just an episode of global history, a consequence of natural fluctuations, which depend on changes in solar activity and surface air pressure. The scientist has analyzed data of monthly average values of surface air pressure between November and April 1923-2005 in cellular mesh points, located northwards from 40th parallel of the northern hemisphere." The article concluded, "If pressure over Atlantic drops, then speed of warm water transfer grows, like in 1920-1940s, when warming was detected in the Arctic. During the 22nd solar cycle, which started in 1986, the pressure over vast territories of the northern hemisphere, including Canada, Greenland, the Arctic Ocean, Eastern Europe, Eastern and Western Siberia, dropped significantly. This stage of natural fluctuations concurs with current climate state, which is usually called the global warming. However, in the next solar cycle the pressure over the Northern Atlantic may change, causing the end of global warming."

Foxfyre - please try not to laugh at the reading comprehension difficulties of our infantile poster; he may be one of the test subjects here:

Quote:

in most cases psychiatric disorder is indirectly caused by speech and language retardation.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/5/583

Parados better have some medic look into his problems, though, before the dark sequels described in that article become irreversible