U.N. climate report will shock the world! (RELEASED)

It's a shame so many foks here on ATS have legitimate concerns about global warming, because not one person at the state department gives a rat's ass.

One day people will realize that they cannot eat money. There is more CO2 in the air now than anytime in the last 650000 years , and we are to blame.






[edit on 4-2-2007 by pai mei]

I suspect there will be many a rude awakening for those fail to prepare for future problems.

This is called not being prepared for anything:
Personal savings rate drops to lowest in 74 years CNN


The Groundhog Emerged, and Sounded a Lot Like Al Gore New York Times

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I am completely unworried about the effects of human caused global warming. What? 23 inches of sea level rise in 93 years....possibly...?Or maybe as little as 7 inches accoridng to the experts? Hmphhh. Why should I worry about that? Deal with it? Yes, that's a different story, but worry?....Nah.

darkbluesky:

Your post made me just realize something...

You see the Global Warming assessments as having minimal impact on your life.

Loam - Your realization is incorrect.

ah yes, the good old toothless tiger known as the UN.

Doesn't anyone find it strange that after years of largely ignoring the UN, suddenly US politicians are embracing it?

Could this simply be because the UN are saying something they want to hear?

as for the "ever decreasing number of sceptics" this is largely untrue - the number of sceptics continues to grow, but their opinions are conveniently ignored.......

largest extinction of species? does anyone know how many species there are on earth? nope NO-ONE KNOWS - so how can it be said that up 50% of species will become extinct?

I reiterate my opinion that we are not being told the full story......

Originally posted by budski
Doesn't anyone find it strange that after years of largely ignoring the UN, suddenly US politicians are embracing it?

To ignore the report, would mean to ignore our own scientists:
NOAA SUPPORT FOR IPCC : PEOPLE, EXPERTISE, TECHNOLOGY

Ye old cliches:
We can tell what kind of soup is in the pot by tasting only one spoonful.
Disregarding risk makes many a dead fool and the morticians rich.

ah yes - just as we took their word over WMD in iraq.......

scientists are not infallable

scientists have agenda's too

science has been proved to be biased towards obtaining a certain result when the result is expected by those conducting the research

climate models are merely sophisticated guesses

science can barely predict weather 5 days in advance - are we now to accept that they can predict 100 years into the future?

our atmosphere and environment is a massively complicated structure - it cannot be modelled using current techniques - it can only be guessed

computer models are only as good as the data input - we do not have enough data collected in the last 20 yrs or so to predict what will happen on a planet nearly 5 billion years old, nor do have enough data from geological samples. In fact, geological samples point more towards another ice age....

Originally posted by budski
science can barely predict weather 5 days in advance - are we now to accept that they can predict 100 years into the future?

our atmosphere and environment is a massively complicated structure - it cannot be modelled using current techniques - it can only be guessed

Maybe you better look up the difference between a regional weather model and a global climate model and you'll discover that answer for yourself.

Climate has already been modeled and the accuracy increases year after year, amazing how that works for mere guessing.

www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov...

Maybe you better look up the difference between a regional weather model and a global climate model and you'll discover that answer for yourself.

Climate has already been modeled and the accuracy increases year after year, amazing how that works for mere guessing.

www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov...



sorry, nil points - are you trying to say that scientists can accurately model climate and weather? they only just found out what el nino actually is, never mind the rest of the planet....

if their models are so accurate, wh do they qualify all statements with "may" and "could" etc etc.

some people are so gullible.......

Originally posted by budski
sorry, nil points - are you trying to say that scientists can accurately model climate and weather? they only just found out what el nino actually is, never mind the rest of the planet....

if their models are so accurate, wh do they qualify all statements with "may" and "could" etc etc.

I noted el nino will fade out by summer, amazing how this is coming true...must be voodoo magic!
2007 Hurricane Forecast: Is La Niña Coming?

I suggest you post your on climate predictions and see if you can do more than hindcast and blow smoke. Maybe you best include the terms if, may, could ....cause all science has a margin of error. Then we shall see how gullible you are.

go to this, then d/l all the data into excel, generate mean graphs from all weather stations, then look at the trends.......

data.giss.nasa.gov...

i reiterate the point that we are NOT being told the full picture, this is what i mean by gullability

if you cannot take ALL the facts on board before making a decision then it is not a true opinion.

Originally posted by budski
go to this, then d/l all the data into excel, generate mean graphs from all weather stations, then look at the trends.......

if you cannot take ALL the facts on board before making a decision then it is not a true opinion.

GISS data has already been compiled, maybe you should look at the bottom link I provided in my post: ATS: Global Warming Has Ended

Maybe you should tell me what climate model doesn't Include these parameters that you presume are facts? Then show me your climate model that does include the whole picture and is more accurate.





[edit on 6-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

you have completely missed the point that NO climate model can be accurate, you accuse others of cherry picking, but you do exactly the same when quoting from someone else's post.
as i said, WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DATA
our planet is around 5 billion years old and you want to model future events on a tiny percentage of what has happened in that time i.e. the last few years

get data (accurate data) from the last 500 million years (about 10% of the planets lifetime) and I will accept some of the models and conclusions, but to base a model on the small amount of info that we have, and call it accurate and complete is ludicrous. Geological data does not give a complete enough picture either.
now go ahead and cherry pick, mis quote and take pieces out of context.

have a rational conversation without doing the above, if you can, or does the fact that someone disagrees rattle your ego too much

Originally posted by budski
you have completely missed the point that NO climate model can be accurate, you accuse others of cherry picking, but you do exactly the same when quoting from someone else's post.
as i said,

Causality (physics)

Yes, climate models can be accurate and have been proven to be accurate. You can pretend all you want they don't forecast climate change or have a record of historical accuracy. It's more like you are the one disregarding proven working models for the sake of your ego.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Met office's climate predictions is but one good example of accuracy:
ATS: 2007 forecasted to be the warmest year yet

Go study chaos theory if you want to build a better model or deal with what you got. Nothing is going to be perfect, since humans are not.

you've just proved my argument



thnx

Originally posted by budski
you've just proved my argument

The only thing you have proven is your lack of comprehension in the meaning of the term "accuracy" and thus have confused it with absolute perfection, where as perfection is an ideal and not realistic.

Accuracy: The degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, precision, etc.

If the model says a 90% probability of an event occuring, then only the fool would disregard it. Maybe you should study probabilities and odds, then go to Vegas and learn about the term "the house always wins". I would also suggest you not test the validity of the AIDS/STD infection rate model with the local working girls either.

Repeat: Disregarding risk makes many a dead fool and the morticians rich.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

I would also suggest you not test the validity of the AIDS/STD infection rate model with the local working girls either.


are you speaking from experience?
personally I've never needed their services.......

Originally posted by budski
ersonally I've never needed their services.......

I don't have the problem in disregarding modeling data, you do.

Risk applies to all things and those who blindly disregard it get one of these.

The Darwin Awards