Is this the be-all, end-all proof of global warming and whether our cars cause it?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments, formed by the United Nations in 1988, has released their first of four reports on global warming this year. The last set of reports was concluded in 2001. This group of scientists is generally considered "the voice of the world" on global warming. Scientists from the U.S. are included in the group. According to their own web site, the report was "produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated". Here is a direct quote from the report, courtesy of the AP, which I found on Yahoo:
"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone." According to the report, "very likely" means "over 90% sure".
The report, which is to be made available today, and can be read here (via pdf) is the strongest language that the scientific group has ever used, and it points to the burning of fossil fuels as a main culprit. Before you dismiss this report, be aware that this group is said to be rather skeptical. According to Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, "There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science. It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."
Apparently, all of the scientists quickly agreed that "attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes" was a no-brainer, as this was not a point of contention among any of them. China had the loudest resistance to including fossil-fuel burning in the report. The U.S. scientists were not said to have any problem with that.
Please, add your comments. I know that this is controversial, try to be reasonable whichever side you choose to believe. Remember how important of an issue this is to the entire world.
Related:
- Is Washington pressing scientists to downplay global warming? Congress to investigate
- Editorial: So, since "global climate change" is official now...
[Source The I.P.C.C. via Yahoo]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1985 Gripen 1:49PM (2/02/2007)
Sorry to your international readers, but being U.S.-centric I have to say that the good news on the political front is that I don't think any of the currently announced or many speculated presidential candidates are as dismissive of global warming reports as the Bush Administration. I think whomever is elected the next President of the U.S. will be much more eager to actually address this problem than the current one. Hopefully then both the Legislative and Executive Branches of government will work together to try and reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply
Benson Leung 2:10PM (2/02/2007)
"I know that this is controversial, try to be reasonable whichever side you choose to believe. "
It is exceedingly clear now that the "controversy" of global climate change is not among scientists.
This study shows that among scientists, there is an overwhelming concensus about the existence of rising temperatures, adverse effects of those rising temperatures, and that burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor.
The more I observe the two "sides" of this issue, the more it becomes clear that the side that denies climate change, or the human involvment in it is really an astroturfy production by big industry with interests in burning fossil fuel for a living.
The average person might think that there was a 50-50 split of pro-climate change experts and anti-climate change experts, but this is confusion.
Reply
Cal 7:49PM (2/02/2007)
The news channels have commentators explaining that the UN group that released this report is made up of politicians and scientists. The report resonantly released is supposedly written by the politions, I assume, using information for previously generated scientific data. The scientists from IPCC have yet to release their new report based on their research.
Reply
Doug R 3:32PM (2/07/2007)
You have obviously not done your homework #2. There are far more examples of biased data from the environmental side than the other. Rather than review the data that challenges the enviro view, the common response is to say "they're funded by big business". Whether or not it's true makes little or no difference.
The predictions coming from Paris are wild at best.
2-11.5 degrees of temp. increase and 7-23 inches of sea level rise by 2100. Very scientific in a CYA sort of way. This mirrors the "in the next 10 yrs. it will be......" that has occured every 10 yrs. for the last thirty. Before that they claimed it was "global cooling" we were causing.
They claim an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes. The meteorlogical experts are in complete disagreement. They claim change for the next 1,000 years is inevitable and yet a scientist on a Tom Brokaw special said that with proper action we can stop the warming altogether. Another group of scientists say they are not sure whether we're causing warming or cooling but we're causing something. But of course, they're all in agreement and the debate is over. That's just from your side!
I've been studying the 150-200 yrs. of temp. data given from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. So far, it doesn't jive with the man induced global warming scenario unless you ignore all temp. recording stations except those centered in metropolitan areas. Cities are known to be warmer than the surrounding areas due to buildings, rooftops and paved roads absorbing heat. The increase in population and size of cities over the last 50 yrs. also coincides conveniently with the "hockey stick" graph. This method is also used to bias graphs such as those listed above.
Reply
Doug R 5:12PM (2/07/2007)
I'm sorry to triple comment here but I was reminded of something else. In response to the "currently announced or speculated presidential candidates" being more receptive then Bush, here's something to consider:
John Edwards has stated his support for the man made global warming view and his comments reflect these theories accordingly. He has just finished building the biggest house in the county in which he lives, 25,000+ square feet. It can hardly be described as a "house". Roughly 100 acres of mature forest was clear-cut in order to build this palacial monstrocity. I wonder what his "carbon footprint" is? No matter how efficient the glorious castle, it can't be good.
I own land. It's a privilege and a responsibility. I would never abuse the land in this manner no matter how much money I had. This makes me want to hurl.
The current leader of the movement, Al Gore, lives in a 10,000+ square foot mansion of his own, not to mention two other homes he owns. He is a jet setter to the extreme and the majority of his trips aren't "green" oriented either. He burns more fuel on one trip than I use in a year driving an SUV. So just how dedicated to the environment is the "grand poobah" of the movement anyway?
Reply