Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Who is/was on the IPCC?

The Panel is the IPCC corporate entity.
Chair: Elected by the Panel.
Secretariat: Oversees and manages all activities. Supported by UNEP and WMO.
Bureau: Elected by the Panel. Chaired by the Chair. 30 members include IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Working Groups and Task Force.

The Panel is responsible for the IPCC and its endorsement of Reports allows it to ensure they meet IPCC standards. The Panel's approval process has been criticized for changing the product of the experts who create the Reports. On the other hand, not requiring Panel re-endorsement of Reports has also been criticized, after changes required by the approval process were made to Reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change


But WHO are these 30 people?
Are they friendly? or inimical to the USA?

 

The principles of the IPCC operation[3] are assigned by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:[3]

1.Human-induced climate change,
2.The impacts of human-induced climate change,
3.Options for adaptation and mitigation.

Their mission is a pre-determined assumption, that climate change is man-made.

Are they going to be open to any other theory? or data? or criticism?

Will anybody be on the panel who ISN'T a warmist?

 

Cap and Trade? Carbon emissions from China, India and the rest of the developing world are exempt from these caps and they will continue to increase. China is already the world’s largest carbon emitter.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/25/virginia-ruling-aids-alaska-climate-suit/

Anybody care to comment how this will affect our future? For Good or Ill?

 

GTO

actually the graph I posted doesn't show very clearly whats going on since the dawn of man, it does however show that we are at the "average" top of the cycle and would "most likely" be entering a cooling phase had not mankind dumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We could go over graphs that depict the human era, although most people are more interested in being right in whatever they believe rather than what they believe being right. Personally I can't imagine how anyone gains an education at all by insisting there long held beliefs have to be correct. Admitting one is wrong is the first step in getting it right.

BPL
right on the money
two thumbs up
I'll post picts of my biodiesel truck once I get it on the road again
just did a major conversion/rebuild

BNTII
or just use the ignore function, works like a charm and saves a lot of useless reading.

Petros
BNTII and I went over this exact question a while back, if you care to go look up the conversation. He likes to play devils advocate and see if he can stump me, probably the best one on here at presenting viable issues. I'll recap it very briefly. Although we disagree on several important points if I remember we agreed that the data is substantially incomplete to be forming any conclusions about time frames going back even tens of million of years ago let alone hundreds of millions. Correct me if I'm wrong BNTII but I'm thinking we agreed on that one ?

There are very few studies and huge margins of error in the paleo climate record going back further than about a million years. Some segments/epochs are well studied, like the High Permian, particularly at the Permian Triassic boundary, which is why I quote from that time frame so often. But there is no consistent body of work going back to the snowball earth event of ~600 million years ago. So presenting arguments based on less than robust data isn't a very strong argument.

Is the information complete ? Nope, and never will be, but from what is known 98% of the people who study this agree with the theory. If you look at the graph I posted again you will see a small arrow at the top right, noting our present level of CO2



If you take a moment and go look up the mass isotopic studies that have been done on the atmospheric CO2 you will find that "all" the excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuels.

Kinda hard to believe that its not man thats driving climate shift if you take the time to look at the data. On the contrary, there is no evidence to suggest this is natural variation. The question becomes at that point "where in the climate record do we see spikes of 100 ppm CO2 in just a few short years which are directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels ?"

And a special thanks to Hoyt, for making my morning, laughed my *** off at so many posts its hard to even know where to start. How in the world can you make it through even a single day with that level of paranoia ? Obummer a dictator, please, Troy a communist ahahahahahahahahahahha. Ok I suppose I gotta put down the funnies and get moving. In Boulder today so long drive ahead.

Cheers
B

 

98% of the people who agree are ackowledged as consesus. Those who disagree, a much larger group, are ignored.

 

Doesn't quite seem to match up to your previous assertion. "Average" and "most likely" leaves a bit of slop in the system. Again, the chart YOU posted shows a definite warming trend over the last million years. Given that over time, the cold (ice) sink is being depeleted, it is VERY reasonable to assume that the warming trend would accelerate as the warming forces begin to dominate Earth's climate.

Totally ridiculous (stupid) reply and more thinly veiled insults. I don't "believe" in anything related to the climate. YOUR chart clearly shows a warming trend over the last ONE MILLION YEARS. SCIENTISTS have determined that the Arctic Ocean has been open nearly 2 DOZEN TIMES in the last TWO MILLION YEARS. Yet to you that is merely "irrelevant".

To sum up my position on global warming, I actually don't care about it. The entire world runs on burning petro fuels and that isn't going to change no matter what in the forseeable future. So I actually don't lose any sleep over it at all.

 

That's a very good question. Fortunately, there's a very good answer. Climate change isn't a partisan political issue -- except in this country, where self-identified conservatives have seized on it and started an ideological war.

And quite frankly, that knee-jerk conservative desire to cram partisan politics and ideology into every scientific, medical, educational, economic, social and cultural issue that comes up has shoved me farther and farther left over the years -- or more realistically, left me standing in what used to be the center, while they keep moving farther and farther right.

And once 'conservatives' politicize an issue, step two is to immediately accuse everyone else of being the ones with political motives.... just like you're doing with this particular subject.

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy the notion that damn near everything that comes up is part of one sinister conspiracy or another.

I think Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley are probably spinning in their graves over what the conservative movement has come to nowadays; I don't think they envisaged a future for it where fear, paranoia and resentment would become the order of the day.

 

Trying to paint Obama as some sort of evil dictator or tyrant trivializes the very concept. It's a complete joke.

But of course, demonizing presidents is nothing new. I still remember the flood of books, videos and chain emails accusing Clinton of being a serial killer, drug lord, rapist and whatever else fevered imaginations could come up with.

 

Troy,

Excuse me? What political party was it that banned light bulbs? What political party wants to force "cap and trade" on us? What political party want to have a carbon tax? What political party wants to ban hair spray? What political party wants to force lower CAFE standards on the car makers, rather than let consumers choose what kind of car they want? What political party used tax money to waste Billions on "alternative" energy companies (41 of which are now bankrupt)?

Sorry, it was liberal Democrats that started the ideological war, based on incomplete science. But clearly they did do not care a witt about science or the future at all, but about political power over both people and companies. And about crookedly passing phoney laws to profit from. And many, like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Soros, Pickins, Buffett and others lefties have become wealthy based on phoney legislation that their followers lobby to get passed.

BP, Mobil oil, Standard oil are often the companies behind the CO2 limiting regulations, and about spreading the global warming propaganda. Get a clue, they do it because they are using these laws to make even bigger profits by limiting competition. Why do you think we have to buy gasoline mixed with ethanol? It cost more, causes more pollution, reduces engine efficiency, but makes investors in ethanol plants wealthy (investors like Gore, Clinton, Sorors Pickins, Buffett and others). Ethanol fuel blends are a BAD idea, but it was the political left that forced it on us.

 

Please demonstrate how our current President is an "evil dictator who doesn't respect court rulings".

Where has he proposed a "world government"?

God is a delusion.

Looks like you are deluded too.

By extension, just about everything you have said hitherto is a delusion.

 

Is a bit like carbon credits which I don't buy.

However, if the bio-diesel market actually creates the new demand to increase planting, the credit goes to this new industry.

It only works for real when bio-diesel can be profitable against fossil fuels; otherwise it's a charade.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Science isn't a popularity contest, and isn't decided by opinion polls. But when I say 'scientific consensus,' I'm not talking about what Joe Blow's darling wife down the street thinks; I'm talking about the fact that there is overwhelming agreement among scientists on this subject.

Of course you can find scientists who are dissenters. Hell, you can probably find a credentialed scientist somewhere who claims that gravity is just an illusion....

But it's an inconvenient truth that most of the noisier climate change naysayers aren't even climatologists. They're scientists from other fields, who've decided to ***** out their scientific credentials to the petroleum industry in return for paychecks.

Are you aware that probably every so-called proof you've posted about climate change being fraudulent has already been debunked on this very thread? Most of them several times, in fact. Someone posts something; it gets thoroughly shot down; and ten pages later someone else is posting the same crap all over again as though it's gospel.

I stand by what I said earlier: any rebuttal of climate change that has to paint the majority of scientists worldwide as complete fools, dupes or conspirators is dead on arrival as far as I'm concerned. And no argument I've seen on this thread can stand on its own two feet without being propped up by that assumption.

 

Light bulbs I haven't kept up on, so I can't give an informed opinion.

Cap and trade worked very well to rein in acid rain, by any measure you want to use. So when did it become an evil liberal conspiracy -- instead of a sensible, market-based approach to a problem?

You're somewhere out in Never-Never land, if you think the oil companies are behind the push for energy conservation and the attention being paid to climate change. Say hello to Captain Hook and Princess Tiger Lily for me, while you're there.

How can you blame climate change on liberal Democratic politicians in the United States? Do they have some kind of mind-bending ray, that controls scientists all over the world?

 

Amazing thread this, its got all the smart people involved.