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

<ignore the "Bull". My computer misbehaves badly for some reason on replies on a2k, and only on a2k. The cursor jumps erratically back at random and I type half a sentence in the middle of something two sentences back before I realize it's done it. It jumps out of the reply box and posts things when I don't hit "reply". That was one of those cases. Superseded by later posts>

Well done, Walter!

I have read a lot of stuff on the IPCC reports and yes, I have read summaries of the IPCC recomendations from the beginning. I do not have a lot of faith in the IPCC to be an objective organization that solicits all scientific opinion and then draws its decisions though. I have come to view it as a thoroughly political organization. I thought you were referring to some kind of talking point guideline sheet that is issued to the press and other talking heads from time to time. Perhaps you could post the most recent guidelines for the policy makers though. I may not have seen those.

correction....whatever the document is for policy makers.

To further quote you MontereyJack ...

It does get really interesting how many members of A2K claim knowledge of what I think, intend, believe, want, have read, have not read, etc. and how often they are kind enough to inform me of these things. I wish I had such gifts but alas, I am but a mere mortal with feet of clay. I guess we can't all be blessed.

Actually I think you are blessed Foxfyre. You can present your side of the debate without resorting to personal attacks. We are all entitled to our opinion whether other people agree with them or not. Personal attacks by people who disagree with you is just a sign of their immaturity.
These people are best avoided.

Thanks Deckland, but some honestly don't think they're doing that while they are convinced that I do. But anyhow glad you're back. I don't know if it was this thread or another one, but you made a post that made me think you might be leaving us. I'm glad you haven't.

Then if you have read the IPCC reports, as you claim, you should realize that they do in fact deal with substantially all of the science, they evaluate material pro and con, and they EVALUATE AND QUANTIFY ALL, THAT IS ALL, REPEAT ALL, OF THE KNOWN VARIABLES THAT AFFECT CLIMATE AND TEMPERATURE. They do not just look at one thing, be it solar radiation, or cosmic rays, or whatever, and maintain that that explains everything,as so many of the denialists do. They look at EVERYTHING, and they assess the MAGNITUDE of the effect, which most of the deniers (including ican) do not. There are parts of their reports which include recommendations for possible courses of actions--that's part of their mandate, after all, and if you think that's political, so be it. If it's critical, and the science points to it being critical, then you damn well better have information on possible courses of action. But the scientific reports seem to be accurate summaries of a LOT of research in a LOT of different fields, and they concur. It's real. It's unprecedented in human history, and we've just gotten started. It's going to get hotter, it's going to affect sea level, and 50% of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coast. It's gloing to affect rainfall patterns and agricultural productivity (already is). If you haven't noticed, the world is heavily interdependent. Most of your food doesn't come from anywhere near you. Affect those webs of interdependence and transport and you can face mass starvation (and that can happen from a hell of a lot of different directions than just global warming, I might add. Modern civilization is extremely vulnerable to potential glitches in the system, no matter how they might arise--most major food crops are grown from a handful of different seed strains, which makes our food supply much more vulnerable, one new disease evolving to which a particular strain has no resistance, can potentially wipe out a large percentage of our food supply at one fell swoop--think the Irish potato famine on a global scale). That's why the plant agronomists are hurrying to create cryogenic seed banks, just because the potential for disaster from the growing lack of genetic diversity in our food crops is there. If you think that's political, so be it. It's the same kind of possibility for severe dislocation that the IPCC is trying to deal with from climate change. I think that's just prudence, not politics.

And, I repeat, the science, rather the many sciences, point toward a common finding. Anthropogenic climate change is real, its effects are already visible. It's going to increase. We're going to have to deal with it. The earlier we start, the better prepared we will be, and the more options we can create for ourselves.

I have not read the IPCC reports and I didn't claim that I have. Nor do I intend to do that. I have read summaries and analysis of the IPCC reports however that were prepared by both pro-AGW folks and skeptics. Could you please post the document for policy makers that you seemed to feel was so important? I don't know if I have seen that or not.

As I said in the first one up there "Summary for Policymakers" (keyboard sabotaged me in the second one). There's one isssued with each of the subsequent assessment reports. Go to www.ipcc.ch. Fourth Assessment Report is the most recent. Remember the "Summary for Policymakers" is just that, a summary, because they know they're not going to get some senator to read the whole body of evidence.. If you really want to be exposed to the full breadth of the data, read "The Physical Science Basis". Just click the appropriate link. It's hundreds of pages. I'm definitely NOT going to cut and paste it here. If you do not intend to actually read the evidence you're arguing about from ignorance,fox, then you are in fact displaying bias/

If someone's posts are devoid of intelligent discourse and are intended to mislead those unfamiliar with the science why on earth would I simply not bother with them? Unanswered crap tends to take on a life of it's own. Why shouldn't I shine sunlight on that crap. Admittedly the sunlight won't cause the warming some here claim it does but still what's wrong with sunlight?

That's so nice of you Fox. "I will pray for you" that no one thinks that was a personal attack on your part.

Fox's post -






It seems before Walter posted about the way you are, you made a comment that called him a numbnuts. To accuse Walter of starting the insults is rather obviously false Fox. You didn't name him in your original statement but you quickly pointed to him being one of those you were referring to. Of course you are never insulting in your own mind. However the insults by you are quite clear to anyone reading what you post.

Why won't you read it Fox? I thought you wanted people to read BOTH sides of the issue.

Years ago I felt excluded, now I don't mind (if it's not getting worse).

Well, those extracts on 'her' websites and what she gets as emails are information enough ....

Because

Understatement of the new millennium.

Fox is about as undecided about this topic as she is prepared to vote for a third party conservative candidate that stands for everything she claims to believe in (over a Republican, who she claims to be unsatisfactory).

T
K
O

No, I did not point to Walter until he intentionally insulted me by name. "Numbnut" is a very specific term reserved for those who deserve it and I don't assign anybody to it--I leave it up to the other guy to decide if it applies to him/her or not. If you think Walter is a numbnut, that is between you and him.

Have you read the IPCC reports? All of them? I don't intend to read it because it is lengthy, time consuming, and much of it is more technical than I care to deal with. I do trust the information being reported about it as so far nobody has contradicted anybody else about what the IPCC report says.

MJ seemed to scorn the fact that I hadn't read the release targeted at what he refers to as "policy makers" that he says is in a form easier to digest for the non-technies. I wonder if anybody here has seen such a document? I have asked MJ to post it, but so far he has ignored the request.

Since he doesn't seem to be able to locate it, perhaps you could post it?

And why is it important for you to say things like that Walter when you know they aren't true?

I am not finding the specific document you are referencing MJ. I have poked around the website quite a bit since there has been a website. But you should be able to copy and paste the document yes? Or are you referring to the information for the press? I have read most of that, yes.