IPCC 2007 Report is out

[Animale]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11 ... index.html

If one so desires, they can download the "Summary for Policymakers" of the Synthesis report on this page http://www.ipcc.ch/.
As well as all the other parts ("The Physical Science Basis", "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability", and "Mitigation of Climate Change")

Animale

[Nick]

Now let's watch the usual group of retards to stammer out how they know better than the worlds top scientists.

[Animale]

Bueller?

[Xatrei]

I was looking at this some over the weekend, but haven't had time to look over it all as thoroughly as I'd like. What I've read so far should be pretty convincing to those sitting on the fence with an open mind, but the staunch climate change denier isn't going to be swayed by things like research findings or broad scientific consensus. At least not as long as they're hearing otherwise from an army right-wing, corporate shill crazies with a handful of fringe-of-the-fringe, unqualified "experts" to support their war on science and truth.

BTW - Has anyone found a source for a single PDF for each section? I'm sick of reading a chapter or section and then having to open another file. Breaking each part up into a dozen smaller sections is dumb.

[Somali]

/shrug

The worlds top scientists disagree. So you are in turn disagreeing with the worlds top scientists yourself.
We have contaminated data points we use to derive information, a lack of understanding and to top it off we have political agendas on both sides that seek to drive the arguments. What I generally hear from people against the IPCC and similar orginazations is that they want a better understanding of what's really happening before committing to policy to deal with the change. I even believe quite a few people that argued against the certainty of man made climate change said they would support funding for alternative energy sources.

Edit: I will say they do a good job of putting together their information and at least show their supporting data. I'll be looking through it more in my free time.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This report has changed my life. I believe every word in it and am now scared to death about our future existence on this planet. The irrefutable evidence contained in this un-biased, United Nations committee report, shows all of us fence-sitters the inconvenient truth of it all. I will from this day on, make sure I vote only for candidates that support policies that dump billions upon billions of dollars into this proven and innevitable crisis. I will only buy from companies that spent billions of dollars into being compliant with the terrorist demands of future treaties and proclamations based on this report.

[Nick]

Yeah dude the United Nations which your country is a part of that was set up after WW2 is so biased for absolutely no reason other than to CONTROL YOU DUDE. You keep sticking it to the man, man.

[Somali]

Actually. Isn't control one of the reasons the UN was established? I won't argue that control is a bad thing, but don't you think that control of people and establishing acceptable limits on human behavior is one of the end goals of the UN? What else would you call sanctions and interventions?

Edit: Yes I'm being difficult.

[Aslanna]

Seriously... With all the people saying Midntye (and that other guy) have DESTROYED THIS FORUM!!! (omg!) I wonder why people continue to respond to obvious idiocy. The silent treatment worked when we were kids. I think it could work here too!

[Fash]

I'll commit to global warming if you'll commit to not allowing it to be used as a stepping stone to global governance. The law of the sea treaty must be foiled and there must be no such thing as a global tax in any form. A commodities market must not be created around emissions. Emitting less is not an excuse for someone else to emit more. 95%+ of the money must be spent on productive alternative means, not merely on research. If time is of the essence, we must act in positive ways, not speculate on which positive path to take. Industry will have to take a hit and the world market should pitch in to stabilize and invest in it, in the name of progress.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'll commit to global warming if you'll commit to not allowing it to be used as a stepping stone to global governance. The law of the sea treaty must be foiled and there must be no such thing as a global tax in any form. A commodities market must not be created around emissions. Emitting less is not an excuse for someone else to emit more. 95%+ of the money must be spent on productive alternative means, not merely on research. If time is of the essence, we must act in positive ways, not speculate on which positive path to take. Industry will have to take a hit and the world market should pitch in to stabilize and invest in it, in the name of progress.

Sounds great, but it will never happen. Liberal philosophy will dictate only the more advanced countries and wealthiest of the wealthy shall shoulder 99% of the burden.

[Animale]

It makes sense that those who caused the problem be the primary folks to shoulder the solution. Don't know why that's unreasonable...

Animale

[Zaelath]

It makes sense that those who caused the problem be the primary folks to shoulder the solution. Don't know why that's unreasonable...

Animale

Some people like to lead from behind, where it's safe.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It makes sense that those who caused the problem be the primary folks to shoulder the solution. Don't know why that's unreasonable...

Animale

China? India?

[Sueven]

I'll commit to global warming if you'll commit to not allowing it to be used as a stepping stone to global governance. The law of the sea treaty must be foiled and there must be no such thing as a global tax in any form. A commodities market must not be created around emissions. Emitting less is not an excuse for someone else to emit more. 95%+ of the money must be spent on productive alternative means, not merely on research. If time is of the essence, we must act in positive ways, not speculate on which positive path to take. Industry will have to take a hit and the world market should pitch in to stabilize and invest in it, in the name of progress.

Wait...

You don't want global governance.

But you do want the world as a whole to use 'productive alternative means' which will require that 'industry will have to take a hit' and 'the world market should pitch in to stabilize and invest in it.' How exactly would you like to proceed with this plan without some sort of global governance scheme?

And spending money on 'productive alternative means' sounds great, but is both worthless and impossible without heavy investments into research. We don't have enough 'productive alternative means' available to sink that much money into, and the ones we have are not sustainable long-term, meaning we need research investment to develop others which are.

[Fash]

I'll commit to global warming if you'll commit to not allowing it to be used as a stepping stone to global governance. The law of the sea treaty must be foiled and there must be no such thing as a global tax in any form. A commodities market must not be created around emissions. Emitting less is not an excuse for someone else to emit more. 95%+ of the money must be spent on productive alternative means, not merely on research. If time is of the essence, we must act in positive ways, not speculate on which positive path to take. Industry will have to take a hit and the world market should pitch in to stabilize and invest in it, in the name of progress.

Wait...

You don't want global governance.

But you do want the world as a whole to use 'productive alternative means' which will require that 'industry will have to take a hit' and 'the world market should pitch in to stabilize and invest in it.' How exactly would you like to proceed with this plan without some sort of global governance scheme?

And spending money on 'productive alternative means' sounds great, but is both worthless and impossible without heavy investments into research. We don't have enough 'productive alternative means' available to sink that much money into, and the ones we have are not sustainable long-term, meaning we need research investment to develop others which are.

If accepting global warming comes with global government ipso facto, then the earth should sizzle and fry.

I could accept man's involvement in the atmosphere, i cannot accept handing over sovereignty of my country to a global committee that will likely be more corrupt and inefficient than the UN.

[Zaelath]

If accepting global warming comes with global government ipso facto, then the earth should sizzle and fry.

I could accept man's involvement in the atmosphere, i cannot accept handing over sovereignty of my country to a global committee that will likely be more corrupt and inefficient than the UN.

Beeeeeecause your current system is incorruptible and efficient? *gigglesnort*

What most of us in the "Western World" truly fear is sharing, because a global economy would spread the wealth across everyone and Americans, Australians, Europeans, etc would have to take a pay cut.

I know, I know, you think you're where you are through hard work, and divine intervention/luck has nothing to do with being born into the richest country in the world. It doesn't pass the laugh test though.

[Sueven]

If accepting global warming comes with global government ipso facto, then the earth should sizzle and fry.

I could accept man's involvement in the atmosphere, i cannot accept handing over sovereignty of my country to a global committee that will likely be more corrupt and inefficient than the UN.

Interesting.

I view global governance, on some level, as an inevitability if the human race continues to progress (as we conventionally define progress... health, wealth, knowledge, etc).

I absolutely understand wanting to be very very careful about how that eventuality proceeds, and I agree that there's absolutely no reason to be actively working toward it or trying to hurry up the process. I don't think anyone is asking us to "hand over sovereignty of our country" at this point. I think that the very notion of "sovereignty" will have become antiquated by the time a transition of that sort were to occur.

So I strongly sympathize with your concerns (which is partially why I don't like your approach to dealing with the problem... i'd like to see the issue addressed via treaty regimes, which are not overly sovereignty-threatening), but I'm surprised at the vitriol. Do you disagree that global governance, in some form (there's a very broad range of possible forms) is an eventuality? Are you automatically opposed to anything that seems sovereignty-threatening?

[Animale]

China and India will definitely be future problems if not addressed now. But the past/present/near future problems due to CO2 release lie squarely on the western world, particularly the U.S. Now, we need to also address the problems of the emerging third world in a meaningful way... but to say that China and India are currently or in the past have been the major causes of CO2 release are willfully ignorant at best.

Giving them a pass on this issue is, of course, not a good thing (although I will agree Kyoto definitely did that). That being said, both China and India are devoting a higher percentage of their GDP into alternative fuels/climate research than us - so in a way they are doing MORE than the good ol' U.S.of A. on this issue.

I also enjoyed the Bush administration officials stating that because they gave the most amount of money to science in this area (a large majority of the research in the IPCC report was done by U.S. based scientists) that we are doing better than everybody else. PR spin at its finest.

Animale