Global Warming isn't a Myth, its a plan.

Looking at what would happen if Globe warms up 2-3C more in next century.

So in Europe instead of 35C it'll be 38C (big deal).

And in winter it'll be mild so in some places it'll not snow (bad?).

This whole Global warming thing is push by Europeans and Americans to stop the progress in East (China & India), they have no options, their manufacturing centers are moving, they have no population to support their older generation, they don't wanna have babies, their isn't much of a choice left to them even if they started baby production now, it'll be too late.

So why not destroy economy of China and India by making world against them by saying (these are the people who are killing us by letting CO2 in the air). Hello, CO2 in air means delayed global cooling i.e. good for the world.

So these countries will have to move the source of power which is renewable, which European countries have already registered and have copyrights for, so East can't make that stuff they'll have to buy it from West, i.e. production goes down, so many people out of power etc.

I want global warming its good to have shrinking deserts, more food production, I don't mind +2C more.

Interesting why IPCC researchers are now having to explain to the public why temperatures are not rising nor will they for the next decade. Wonder how accurate those models are beyond 10 years. Pretty much proves that global warming is a myth.

The foolishness is not your disagreement with the consensus view.

The foolishness is allowing your political bias to get in the way of even considering the body of evidence that has led to that consensus.

Are you too foolish to see your own folly?

This bite of realism brought to you by "Gadfly."

Interesting to note how anyone who disagrees with Global Warming is immediately labeled as foolish. Is that how science works now. "Oh you disagree... well your just foolish, your just politically biased." Call me what you will. Doesn't change anything.

I normally bite only once per thread, but this earns an exception.

Anonymous shows his/her foolishness by extracting one sentence from a long quotation, losing all context. The purpose of the IPCC is to interpret research for policy makers, not to do research itself. It relies on the world scientific community and the peer review process to monitor that research. It is an organ not only of the United Nations, but also the World Meteorological Organization. It has an impressive constituency of members, whom Anonymous dismisses as politcal and corrupt.

To support his/her dubious claims, Anonymous quotes from the best known of the deniers.

And thus because of his/her political bias, Anonymous refuses to follow my link to the IPCC site, where a vast collection of scientific data has been analyzed and compiled, with numerous links to original peer-reviewed research.

Do you believe Anonymous or the IPCC?

If you believe Anonymous, come to Gadfly for a well-deserved bite. Foolish people are my favorite intellectual meal.

This bite of realism brought to you by "Gadfly."

Here's your problem Gadfly,
Quote:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

In other words this is just a political body's interpretation of a collection of work brought to you by one of the most corrupt organizations in the world....The United Nations. They can't even nor will they enforce there own laws. If they had we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

Here's a great quote I found online.

Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists

Here's another example. The FOUNDER of the weather channel John Coleman is sewing Al Gore (the creator of the Internet for all you who don't know him) for the fraud he is. This is someone who makes weather his business.

Dr. Bill Gray, a pioneer in hurricane forecasting believes that Global Warming is more hype than science.

These are just a few people, who know a heck of a lot more about climate than anyone, and I mean anyone that will post in this forum. These are climatologists! I don't have to tell you Global warming is a hoax. You've got skilled credible professionals that can give you plenty of reasons to be skeptical. If Global Warming is so real and has the science to back it up, why are these people denouncing it?

So here it is, from the International Panel on Climate Change, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for its work. Why peace and not science? Because the economic disruptions that climate change might produce could easily lead to major conflicts. Follow that link, and you will find all the scientific evidence you need.

From "About IPCC" on the IPCC website

Mandate
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is 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. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Who we are
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
* The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
* The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
* The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

Why the IPCC was created
Climate change is a very complex issue: policymakers need an objective source of information about the causes of climate change, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences and the adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it. This is why WMO and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional practices, and a two stage review process by experts and governments.

Because of its intergovernmental nature, the IPCC is able to provide scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers. When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.

The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts and students. The findings of the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 played a decisive role in leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was opened for signature in the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. It provides the overall policy framework for addressing the climate change issue. The IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995 provided key input for the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Third Assessment Report of 2001 as well as Special and Methodology Reports provided further information relevant for the development of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC continues to be a major source of information for the negotiations under the UNFCCC.

You may rant and rave that this process has not produced a consensus, but that does not negate the IPCC's remarkable work.

This bite of realism brought to you by "Gadfly."

Your absolutely right Ray, I see no reason not to support programs that seek to study our planet or the environment for the benefit of all mankind. I believe we should all be good stewards of the land. My beef is with the people that take good science, and twist it around to fit their political needs. They say that there is a scientific consensus on global warming and that simply is not true.

Here's what it comes down to boys and girls. You say there's a problem with the planet and you need my help and of course, money, to fix it. Well fine. Show me the data. See if it stands up to skepticism and scrutiny. If it does great, here's a check, you have my support. But until then I believe global warming is a house of cards built on half truth's and bad science.

One could easily argue that using tax dollars to study Global Warming IS a necessary activity of a government intent on protecting its citizens.

Ray

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.

Four associated thoughts:
1. What is so offensive about the concept of human caused global warming?
Because the politicians are using this "theory" as a platform to take more money from people and essentially tell us how to live. People who are free, really don't like being told how to live.

2. "Gravy train"? (In the US, at least) spending on climate change research and initiatives is significantly less than spending on war.
Well. to that I would answer...duh! Protecting freedom is typically going to cost more than studying something unsubstantiated theories. Freedom aint free.

3. I appreciate many of the things that my tax dollars have provided.
Who doesn't enjoy free services. I enjoy astronomy and photography, cameras and telescopes cost lots of money, yet I'm not going to ask the country to subsidize my HOBBIES. I think the role of government is to protect it's citizens. And that's where it stops.

4. I have children.
Thanks to liberals who ban the use of DDT Africa now has million of children who have died and are dieing from malaria, Thanks to liberals who are simply trying to save the planet, food such as corn is being diverted from starving children in other countries, look at the riots. Global warming policy is simply going to keep poor and developing countries down, ie. China, India. Sorry, but I really don't want my children to grow up in a world where these liberal policies continue, I and many others are not going to be silent any longer

I'm responding only because my views were distorted. I can't expect others to respond for me on that.

Like most people concerned about climate change, I don't have a vested interest in any particular interpretation.

In fact, I have not even written as much as a single article other than book reviews and blog entries on the subject.

I am biased toward getting the best understanding of natural phenomena and responding as necessary. When it comes to policy, there are both liberal and conservative approaches that have promise, and I pay attention to both sides.

What I oppose most vigorously are claims, usually by people who want to wish away the scientific consensus, that most scientists have agendas. Those people, such the anonymous posters here, mis-characterize the ongoing scientific process because of their own agendas.

If you review my blog postings, you will see some where I take people to task for overstating the scientific case. But I also respect the (conservative) process that set up the IPCC so as to prevent political bandwagons and allow a consensus to develop (or not) by the usual process of scientific give and take.

The IPCC consensus that has developed has led to evidence-based warnings (not alarmist propaganda) that we ignore at our peril.

I have reviewed books on weather and climate by authors of varied scientific backgrounds and political leanings, including one by Newt Gingrich.

An objective reading of my blog postings and reviews should lead you to recognize (1) that I view this from slightly left of the political center (moderate to progressive, to quote one of my reviews) and (2) that I respect the IPCC consensus and the process by which it was developed.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Four associated thoughts:
1. What is so offensive about the concept of human caused global warming?

2. "Gravy train"? (In the US, at least) spending on climate change research and initiatives is significantly less than spending on war.

3. I appreciate many of the things that my tax dollars have provided.

4. I have children.

I couldn't agree with you more Fred. Computer models are far from perfect, and yet, even though they do lack a level of certainty, Global Alarmist typically alway turn to those same models and preach to use that unless we change our way's our planet will certainly change for the worse. They are absolutely certain that mankind is making the planet warmer, and to question them, is equal to heresy.

I for one would like to see just one computer model that predicts global warming and the same model can accurately historical climate trends that we already know about.

You spoke of political bias, seems to me that those that support global warming are of two camps, they are liberal or they get a paycheck directly related to climatology and the study of global warming. Some even sell books on the subject. ;)

The original article notes that this result is a refinement of earlier models.

These models are always tested against the best available data and thus are in a process of refinement and improvement.

In everyday experience, you can see the value of using computer models within their proper ranges. Weather forecasts of a week in advance are no longer wild guesses. Compare their accuracy today with what was available only a few years ago.

Because the climate system is so complex, models are far from perfect. The key is to understand their weaknesses as well as their strengths. The authors of the scientific report no doubt discuss the range of certainty of their results.

But you are equating error bars to wild guesses, and that either displays a lack of understanding of science or a political bias.

A good book on the issue of modeling vs. empirical predictions is Storm World by Chris Mooney.

I've promised myself to limit my comments on this issue, so I'll leave further comments to others.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

At any rate, it seems to me that the Earth is pretty much in charge of climatic change and man made CO2 has little effect. Last year we saw a net loss of 1 degree of global mean temperature yet man made CO2 levels actually increased. Seems to me that CO2 has no bearing what so ever on warming and the general consensus is starting to believe that.

Here's my question. We put all this faith into computer models for predicting future climate change. Yet it seems to me, that those models weren't able to predict this "NEW" cooling event. It's already known that this cooling cycle happens every 60-70 years so why was it not accounted for in the IPCC report? Not only that. If you take the computer models that we use to try and predict the future they can not accuratly predict past weather events or climate conditions.

It seems to me that Global warming is simply a hoax, propaganda served up by money hungry politicians who want to take your money, and climatologists that are looking to keep the gravy train moving. PROVE ME WRONG!

Following the link to the original article, this key sentence was not included:

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

In other words, this does not state that current predictions of climate challenges are wrong. It may, however, provide us with the cushion we need to act in a timely manner.

In no case should we use this as an excuse to continue business as usual.

For an extensive reading list on this subject, see the list of weather and climate books reviewed at The Science Shelf.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)