Global warming is happening that is not doubt about it . . .

That humans are adding to make it faster is also part of the problem. . .

But is going to happen not matter what . . .

People will die but more for the way that nations and leaders trying to cover up the facts rather than finding ways and looking for ways to help humanity survived.

Profits are number one priority over human beings . . . because we are expendable. . .

More research has to be done, more money should be allocated to map the earth and find out the possible scenarios as waters rises and land is lost. . .

So people can start planning too where to move, relocate or migrate like the ancient man did when they were caught in the ice age and survived.

The problem is that now lands are claimed by nations and nations are not friendly with each other anymore than the polite acknowledge of sovereignty rights.

What will happen if we wait to long and then force migrations by means of wars.

More unnecessary deaths when a good plan can make things possible.

But that is something that we people need to work on . . . if we let our governments tells us what to do . . . we already know where we will be heading as the climate change takes hold.

btw the current mass extinction event started about 50,000 years ago

Originally posted by Essan
I would treat all leaks on what the IPCC AR4 may - or may not - say with extreme caution. Even when the actual reports are released, I expect the media to "misquote out of context" a fair bit in order to generate more dramatic headlines. At a moment it's a bit like determining the plot of a movie from a 30 second trailer. Yes, the good guy gets shot and there's a car chase - but you don't yet know the context in which these events take place

Far, far better to wait until you get a chance to read the AR4 yourself (or at least, the Summary for Policy Makers - the full report will be pretty technical for anyone not a professor in atmospheric science etc) before drawing any conclusions or getting into any discussions.

yep i understand people want to jump the gun, but unless they are clear on what there findings are, and there words have strengh behind them, it is just a waste of time. saying things like likely just leaves things open, thats all i am saying. i understand that it may not be the final wording or the report. i have not read the past reports, so it will be intersting to see what it actually says.

i wonder what percentage of the scientists accept the findings, that are not part of the group, and is this board accepted as knowing what they are talking about.

Our local newspaper reports as IPCC have stated over the next period of 10 years, average temperture would increase frm 4'5C to 6C.

Gosh, this is serious!!

Hi There,

Only God deals in certainties.

How do you know this? Your assumption is simply presumption!

Unfortunately, we're talking about what will probably happen in the future based on the latest scientific understandings and research, and thus it's impossible to state absolutely - hence a range of possiblities with regards temp change etc.

I agree. The future state of the variability of the climate is open to guesstimations. However, the recent findings do show a trend in increasing temperatures, and support past findings that also suggested that temps would go on increasing. That temps have increased there is no doubt! We are not looking for absolute proof, we are looking for proof, and we have it.

It would be advisable to read the summary of the previous report (TAR) first.

Thanks for the advice, but I'll take the more recent and up-to-date reports for my information. Your quote merely represents a body of thought that seeks to obsfucate and cast doubt upon those preparing the report. It's a cliche trick from the 'book of aspersion'...just cast doubt, and cause confusion...don't allow the public to get a handhold on the reality of the issue. It's contemptuous!

Nonetheless, as in all branches of science, there are some who disagree on certain findings.

Yeah, I've already mentioned them...the 'scientific' money-whores.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,

Only God deals in certainties.

How do you know this? Your assumption is simply presumption!

LOL! Got me there

It would be advisable to read the summary of the previous report (TAR) first.

Thanks for the advice, but I'll take the more recent and up-to-date reports for my information. Your quote merely represents a body of thought that seeks to obsfucate and cast doubt upon those preparing the report. It's a cliche trick from the 'book of aspersion'...just cast doubt, and cause confusion...don't allow the public to get a handhold on the reality of the issue. It's contemptuous!

Eh?

I'm merely suggesting that it might be a good idea to read the previous report first, in order to get a better idea of what such reports contain and - when the AR4 is available - as a reference point for how predictions have changed and improved. I shall certainly be comparing the 2 myself in due course.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Essan]

Hi There,

Here I go again having to apologise...sorry Andy, I perceived (erroneously) a stab at the report and the report makers...I tend not to trust critics of global warming, simply because we have real evidence that our activities are contributing to it; critics have other 'nefarious' reasons for denying that they do.

Man has been pumping all sorts of toxic 'crap' into the air for the last 250 years, and whilst it was only a handful of countries doing so, the last 100 plus years has seen a rise in more nations industrialising and following the same trend...and this looks to rise even more. A lot of that 'crap' does not stay in the atmosphere, but finds its way back to earth in raindrops, some of which gets flushed off the land into the sea...either way, it gets into the foodchain by a number of avenues.

Even if we take global warming out of the equation, our self-toxification should prick our consciences to seek cleaner lifestyles...but you know this! Surely, its all about the recognition of environmental balance...and the putting back what we take out, with fossil fuels, we can't do that. We take them out, burn them, and create toxic waste...it's nonsensical!

Best wishes

Worth noting though that current estimates say that by 2050 there will be about 3 billion more people living on this planet.

Hmmm, could there be a connection I wonder?

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,

Here I go again having to apologise...sorry Andy, I perceived (erroneously) a stab at the report and the report makers...

No probs

btw I'm a harsh critic of the 'catastrophists ' - those who misrepresent the science and other evidence in order to present a more extreme impression of what is currently happening and what may well happen in the future. I'm also a critic of the 'deniers' - those who refuse to accept that human activity is having any impact on climate change.

I walk a fine line, assailed from both sides .........

Originally posted by Essan
I walk a fine line, assailed from both sides .........

I have played that game all too well... But barring any compelling information to the contrary, it becomes increasingly difficult to assert there are vast numbers of 'catastrophists' connected with this issue.

Trust me, as I've already indicated, I'd prefer that be the case.... But it appears that is fanciful thinking on my part.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by loam]

Global Warming: What a unique way this topic is dealt with in this thread. A.T.S.: deny ignorance, conspiracies, government wrongdoing etc.
With U.F.O.s, aliens, 911 conspiracy and many other subjects on A.T.S, it is the evil world governments and the even more evil invisible government calling the plays; they have been withholding the information, the absolute proof so that a factual case for these phenomena cannot be made.

Here we have a thread where many Global Warming proponents simply line up behind the government like good robots, and blindly trust the varying government's assessments of Global Warming. Incredible, isn't it? Trusting the government 100% on this subject but believing almost nothing else the government states at all. They nearly break their arms patting themselves on the back for agreeing with each other and the popular thinking on G.W. For a place that supposedly encourages open-minded discussion of almost anything, there is no room for skeptics here! The author of any publication that does not agree with the popular position on G.W. is instantly labeled as a fraud, bought off by big oil, a hillbilly or just simply a "money whore". The 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon petitions are all charlatans. World class geophysicists just "cherry-pick" whatever data they choose to make their case. The author of "State of Fear", "Jurassic Park", "The Andromeda Strain", other fine novels who is very well versed in science is just a clown. Whatever source cited is defamed and jeered as nonsense. As an environmental chemist of over 35 years experience, who tests environmental samples everyday, I too, was insulted, accused of sophomoric writing obviously having no life or work experience, no knowledge of science because I used the popular term "Theory" with global warming then shown some narrow definitions of the word to make their case. Even typographical errors were cited as proof of my ignorance. I was accused of "parroting" the work of others. So where is their original research on the subject? A chart (made by others) showing increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is shown me as proof? The smoking gun? It proves NOTHING! At 57 years of age, I resent these undeserved and derogatory comments that are clearly intended to discredit me. So what now? Old and senile? Is ridicule your best case for G. W.? Here is the reality of it:

The Global warming proponents cannot make their case with scientific fact, so they attempt to discredit anyone who does not believe in anthroPOgenic Global Warming in any way they can. These are the exact tactics that two-bit lawyers and shady politicians use to make their cases.


I posted earlier that I would make no further comments here because of the narrow-mindedness and rigid, unwavering attitude of some regarding the science behind Global Warming. I changed my mind because I AM open-minded. Let me tell you this: scientists must stay open-minded, always seeking the greater truth. Politics must never be allowed to influence science, which it unfortunately has on this Global Warming issue. If the U.N. report finally makes the case for G.W. with irrefutable evidence, I clearly am capable of changing my mind, and if so, I will lead the march for environmental reforms!


[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
If the U.N. report finally makes the case for G.W. with irrefutable evidence, I clearly am capable of changing my mind, and if so, I will lead the march for environmental reforms!

Then let us wait for the IPCC's release and assess the report accordingly.

Hi There,

I walk a fine line, assailed from both sides...

Yeah, Andy, I'm similar myself...and for a while I found myself 'see-sawing' between the presented data and the critics of the data, but then found that 'connections' existed between the big business polluters and influential politicians, and critics of the data.

All I have to do is stick my head out of the window to know that climate is changing. You know, I don't dress according to the TV weatherman, I look outside and see what the weather is doing and dress according to that. We see changes in the bio-patterns of animals whom live by the seasons, and we can see disruption. We can trace local weather patterns back half a century and we can see dramatic shifts, and out-of-kilter systems, throwing up more and more storms of increasing intensity. Basically, the natural systems are having to deal with extra heat and surplus energy, which is causing the change around in traditional weather patterns, and part of the reason for the extra heat and surplus energy is down to our activities which are driven by our lifestyles, and there are those whom will oppose in any way necessary, the conscientious and responsible calls to address the issue, because they do not care one jot about the consequences to others in other nations.

To my mind, global warming doesn't carry a singular effect, but many effects, not all happening at the same time...the effects are modular, and out-of-kilter. We do not see a full picture due to scale problems, but rather pieces of the picture in jigsaw fashion, and they do not remain in place, but swap around. The only thing we do actually see is the consistent slow rise in temps, causing floating module pockets of chaos traversing the globe as the climate seeks to adjust towards balance. The climate is robbing Peter to pay Paul, but always remaining in a growing debt...which our children's children will have to pay.

best wishes

If they're up to it...I say...Giddyup!!

You know...survival...fittest...and all that.

I reckon there are more than a few posters around these parts who believe homo sapiens sapiens aren't worthy of survival. Heck....no dung beetle or gnat ever caused golbal waming so they must be smarter than we all.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

“In 39 years at NASA, I’ve never seen anything like the degree to which the information flow from our scientists to the public is as inhibited as it is now.”

Regenmacher:

You said something, either in this thread or another, to the effect that this impending climate crisis was in fact previously known and explains much in the way of the political choices being made in the Middle East...in other words, it's all about grabbing the world's resources to survive what may be coming.

I too have had this thought, but dismissed it as unlikely.

Re-reading the article above, it occurred to me that the US was far more likely to have known before anyone else...and it's really a lot easier to believe this rationale then the one that requires large numbers of the people in our government to have lost their flippin' minds.