Climate Change Report

[Back]

Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if we are more environmentally aware?

I would hazard a wild guess that those who are more environmentally aware stand to gain.

[Tgo01]

Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if we are more environmentally aware?

I would hazard a wild guess that those who are more environmentally aware stand to gain.

Yes, I think we should and could do a lot more to be more green. The problem is it's not as easy as waving a magic wand. You can't expect to just raise the costs of everything across the board overnight and think everything is going to turn out okay. You can't make a deal with China where we promise to reduce our carbon emissions by a shit ton by the year 2020 while China only has to promise to not produce as much carbon emissions starting in 2030.

I mean seriously; does Obama even know what the fuck he is doing? I know he had no clue what he was doing when he was first elected; everyone knew this, even those who voted for him. But the dude has had 6 years of on the job training. What has he been doing all that time?

[Gelston]

Ignore all that Earth crap. Come move up here to Mars. I'm now accepting applications to move in to one of our exclusive communities now.

[Warriorbird]

Ignore all that Earth crap. Come move up here to Mars. I'm now accepting applications to move in to one of our exclusive communities now.

[Tenlaar]

YYou can't make a deal with China where we promise to reduce our carbon emissions by a shit ton by the year 2020 while China only has to promise to not produce as much carbon emissions starting in 2030.

Says who?

[Atlanteax]

Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if we are more environmentally aware?

I would hazard a wild guess that those who are more environmentally aware stand to gain.

South East Asia will lose badly ... barely above current sea level.

Northern half of the US may win.

[waywardgs]

Those pesky scientists at it again.

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article...50115?irpc=932

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Climate change and high rates of extinctions of animals and plants are pushing the Earth into a danger zone for humanity, a scientific report card about mankind's impact on nature said on Thursday.

An international team of 18 experts, expanding on a 2009 report about "planetary boundaries" for safe human use, also sounded the alarm about clearance of forests and pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilisers.

"I don't think we've broken the planet but we are creating a much more difficult world," Sarah Cornell, one of the authors at the Stockholm Resilience Centre which led the project as a guide to human exploitation of the Earth, told Reuters.

"Four boundaries are assessed to have been crossed, placing humanity in a danger zone," a statement said of the study in the journal Science, pointing to climate change, species loss, land-use change and fertiliser pollution.

Of a total of nine boundaries assessed, freshwater use, ocean acidification and ozone depletion were judged to be within safe limits. Others, including levels of airborne pollution, were yet to be properly assessed.

The report defined climate change and loss of species as two core areas of concern. Each "has the potential on its own to drive the Earth System into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed," the authors wrote.

Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are about 397 parts per million in the atmosphere, above 350 ppm that the study set as the boundary for safe use.

Almost 200 governments will meet in Paris in late 2015 to try to agree a deal to limit global warming to avert floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels blamed on rising emissions of greenhouse gases.

The study said that rates of extinctions of animals and plants, caused by factors ranging from pollution to deforestation, were 10 to 100 times higher than safe levels.

"Transgressing a boundary increases the risk that human activities could inadvertently drive the Earth System into a much less hospitable state," said lead author Will Steffen, of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Australian National University, Canberra.

The report expanded definitions of the planetary boundaries set in 2009, making it hard to compare trends. (Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

[Gelston]

Those pesky scientists at it again.

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article...50115?irpc=932

[crb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter%27s_bias

People think scientists are immune to bias, they aren't they're entirely affected by it, all humans are. The only real way to eliminate it is a double blind study where the people who design the study are not the people who do the measurements are not the people who do the analysis and no one knows who is funding it.

Climate scientists have jobs because of a belief that man is causing global warming and man can do something to stop it. To produce a report refuting that undermines their livelihood, so they have an inherent bias, no one should be surprised by this.

I pride myself in being a man of science, I'm a big science nerd, and I'm certainly not convinced on this topic, and in fact, as time goes on, more and more scientists are feeling safe enough to publish results that undermine global warming dogma, and I grow even less convinced on the topic. I also reject any claims as to my own ethics in holding this position, because skepticism is the prime mover of scientific progress.

I know that Mars is warming, without SUVs, I know that the earth has been warming longer than we've had SUVs. I know that it is a geological fact you can find in museums and textbooks that we're exiting a mini ice age after the medieval warm period, which makes me think getting warmer is normal. I know that recent published results indicate solar flares and other solar activity may have a stronger affect on global temperatures than previously though. I know NASA did a complex ARGO experiment to study ocean temperatures and they didn't find any warming. I know north pole ice is decreasing, and I know south pole ice is increasing. I know that the only constant in our climate in our history has been it has always been changing. I know that largely the green movement has been co-opted by the red movement. I know this because many common sense solutions that would actually work to reduce carbon emissions are rejected by these people because, while they would reduce carbon emissions, they wouldn't hurt the economy enough to bring about the political change that they're really after. I know that we're right now in a warming pause unexplained by any of the global warming proponents prized computer models. I know that global warming proponents undermine their own science with nonsense like blaming Katrina, a middling hurricane, on global warming because New Orleans was a soft target with poor infrastructure. Like blaming California droughts on global warming when the midwest is flooded. Like blaming a particularly warm summer day, or a tornado, or any other normal weather happening on global warming. It makes them look like idiots and exposes "global climate change" as the political tool they think it is. I would love to talk about it with an actual unbiased geologist, but I don't know any that aren't driven by their own brand of politics and if I ever try to bring it up I'm labeled as sucking on a Koch teat or something, because I dare to be a skeptic when I see science turn into dogma?

Fuck it.

[Warriorbird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter%27s_bias

People think scientists are immune to bias, they aren't they're entirely affected by it, all humans are. The only real way to eliminate it is a double blind study where the people who design the study are not the people who do the measurements are not the people who do the analysis and no one knows who is funding it.

Climate scientists have jobs because of a belief that man is causing global warming and man can do something to stop it. To produce a report refuting that undermines their livelihood, so they have an inherent bias, no one should be surprised by this.

I pride myself in being a man of science, I'm a big science nerd, and I'm certainly not convinced on this topic, and in fact, as time goes on, more and more scientists are feeling safe enough to publish results that undermine global warming dogma, and I grow even less convinced on the topic. I also reject any claims as to my own ethics in holding this position, because skepticism is the prime mover of scientific progress.

I know that Mars is warming, without SUVs, I know that the earth has been warming longer than we've had SUVs. I know that it is a geological fact you can find in museums and textbooks that we're exiting a mini ice age after the medieval warm period, which makes me think getting warmer is normal. I know that recent published results indicate solar flares and other solar activity may have a stronger affect on global temperatures than previously though. I know NASA did a complex ARGO experiment to study ocean temperatures and they didn't find any warming. I know north pole ice is decreasing, and I know south pole ice is increasing. I know that the only constant in our climate in our history has been it has always been changing. I know that largely the green movement has been co-opted by the red movement. I know this because many common sense solutions that would actually work to reduce carbon emissions are rejected by these people because, while they would reduce carbon emissions, they wouldn't hurt the economy enough to bring about the political change that they're really after. I know that we're right now in a warming pause unexplained by any of the global warming proponents prized computer models. I know that global warming proponents undermine their own science with nonsense like blaming Katrina, a middling hurricane, on global warming because New Orleans was a soft target with poor infrastructure. Like blaming California droughts on global warming when the midwest is flooded. Like blaming a particularly warm summer day, or a tornado, or any other normal weather happening on global warming. It makes them look like idiots and exposes "global climate change" as the political tool they think it is. I would love to talk about it with an actual unbiased geologist, but I don't know any that aren't driven by their own brand of politics and if I ever try to bring it up I'm labeled as sucking on a Koch teat or something, because I dare to be a skeptic when I see science turn into dogma?

Fuck it.

http://io9.com/8-logical-fallacies-t...nts-1679442426