Scientists hope treaty can mitigate climate change

[#juan]

Scientists hope Poland treaty can mitigate climate change effects

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 | 9:17 AM ET http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/10/poznan-climate.html#socialcommentshttp://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/10/poznan-climate.html#

The Associated Press


Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate said at an international climate conference in Poznan, Poland, that they have completed one crucial task — proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.
Now, they have to figure out just what to do about it.
"It is critical for us to get a much better understanding of the impact of climate change in some parts of the world," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the Associated Press in an interview Tuesday.
Scientific warnings of potential catastrophe have been the backdrop for talks among more than 10,000 delegates and environmentalists negotiating a treaty to control the emission of greenhouse gases, which have grown by 70 per cent since 1970.
The treaty, due to be completed in one year, would replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Pachauri said he was concerned that negotiators were sparring and probing — and leaving key decisions for the last moment.
"My concern is that if we leave everything to the end, we might end up with a weak agreement that doesn't really address the problem," he said.
Last year, Pachauri's IPCC, which collected the work of more than 2,000 scientists, said climate change is "unequivocal, is already happening and is caused by human activity."


Scientists hope Poland treaty can mitigate climate change effects

 

[#juan]

The significance of this article is that the scientists are saying that there is no longer any doubt that climate change is real, and that human activity is causing it.

 

[Walter]

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate said at an international climate conference in Poznan, Poland, that they have completed one crucial task — proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

Except for all the Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate who have proved beyond a doubt that global warming is a natural phenomenon that occurs with or without man's help.

 

[#juan]

There is a broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, caused in large part by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and if left un-checked will likely have disastrous consequences.
Furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence that we should act now on climate change, and this is reflected in the statements by these definitive scientific authorities.

Joint statement from 11 national academies of science
Issued 7 June 2005 by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:

Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However, there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.​

 

[hermanntrude]

I thought we'd sorted this one out. even tonington's been saying that global climate change is non-anthropogenic (meaning that it isn't caused by humans)

 

[#juan]

I thought we'd sorted this one out. even tonington's been saying that global climate change is non-anthropogenic (meaning that it isn't caused by humans)

Do you mean the "Poland Treaty" didn't happen? All those scientists deluding themselves?

 

[Praxius]

Scientists hope Poland treaty can mitigate climate change effects

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 | 9:17 AM ET

The Associated Press

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate said at an international climate conference in Poznan, Poland, that they have completed one crucial task — proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

And yet they don't explain how they proved it beyond a doubt.... they just claim they did.

Wonderful, any other brilliant concepts to put on the table, like ET actually being based on a real life alien that actually visited a random kid in the middle of the US?

Now, they have to figure out just what to do about it.

Nothing.

"It is critical for us to get a much better understanding of the impact of climate change in some parts of the world," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the Associated Press in an interview Tuesday.

Ok look people.... in this politically correct world we live in, how the hell can these people be allowed to keep switching their claims from Global Warming to Climate Change whenever they feel it suits?

This is where they continually fail to prove a damn thing in regards to "Global Warming" ~ Where they can't get the facts to fit global warming, they switch over to climate change as if the two are interchangeable, which they are not.

If they can't figure out the differences between global warming and climate change, then how the hell can anybody take what they say seriously?

Scientific warnings of potential catastrophe have been the backdrop for talks among more than 10,000 delegates and environmentalists negotiating a treaty to control the emission of greenhouse gases, which have grown by 70 per cent since 1970.

The treaty, due to be completed in one year, would replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Pachauri said he was concerned that negotiators were sparring and probing — and leaving key decisions for the last moment.

"My concern is that if we leave everything to the end, we might end up with a weak agreement that doesn't really address the problem," he said.

You already have a weak agreement that doesn't address the problem.... not to mention they haven't even proven that they "Proved GW Exists".... so they're royally screwed so far.

Last year, Pachauri's IPCC, which collected the work of more than 2,000 scientists, said climate change is "unequivocal, is already happening and is caused by human activity."

Scientists hope Poland treaty can mitigate climate change effects

Wrong.... 1st off.... they jumped back to Climate Change from Global Warming.

Which is it? Global Warming or Climate Change?

See, I believe there is Climate Change in progress, but Climate change isn't directly caused by human activity. We may have a part in it, but we are not the sole causes of it.

And I have yet to see any evidence or proof linking humans as being the direct causes, let alone any proof showing that "Global Warming" is real.

All I see are people claiming that they all agree that it exists and that we are the problem...... where the hell is the proof that removes all doubt?

See if there was any, and it removed all doubt, then wouldn't I no longer be doubting it?

Just because you got a bunch of big wigs trying to tell us how it is and for us to simply trust them, makes about as much sense as believing US Intelligence that Iraq had WMD simply because they want us to believe them.

If you ain't got any proof you ain't got nothing, and saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[Praxius]

Do you mean the "Poland Treaty" didn't happen? All those scientists deluding themselves?

I personally believe there probably was a Poland Treaty and it did happen..... But I also believe all those scientists are still deluding themselves based on the common removal of facts and factors that don't suit their agendas or the agendas of those paying them.

 

[#juan]

I personally believe there probably was a Poland Treaty and it did happen..... But I also believe all those scientists are still deluding themselves based on the common removal of facts and factors that don't suit their agendas or the agendas of those paying them.

Praxius that is hardly a scientific argument. You have no scientific basis on which to tell us that the IPCC scientists are wrong, deluded, whatever....and certainly none to suggest they are being bribed.

I am not a meteorological scientist either but I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I'm not going to jump in and say they are unequivically
wrong with no research.

 

[#juan]

I personally believe there probably was a Poland Treaty and it did happen..... But I also believe all those scientists are still deluding themselves based on the common removal of facts and factors that don't suit their agendas or the agendas of those paying them.

Praxius that is plain dopey. 2000 of the top meteorological scientists are deluding themselves because you say so?

 

[Praxius]

Praxius that is hardly a scientific argument. You have no scientific basis on which to tell us that the IPCC scientists are wrong, deluded, whatever....and certainly none to suggest they are being bribed.

It doesn't have to be a scientific argument.... until they actually explain and prove how they know without a doubt if Global Warming (or is it Climate Change) exists or if humans are the cause of it, then they're talking out of their asses as far as I am concerned.

No evidence, means no belief in anything they say.

That's just common sense.

I am not a meteorological scientist either but I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I'm not going to jump in and say they are unequivically
wrong with no research.

Well I took Mechanical Drafting a while back myself, didn't enjoy it.

But regardless, They are not unequivically right either unless they can clearly explain and prove that what they claim is actually true, it's as simple as that.

They might be right, they might be wrong, but until they actually provide the evidence and prove one way or another, they are indeed talking out of their asses and all assumptions are valid until they do, since all they are giving us are more assumptions in which they expect us to believe.

Science doesn't have any relation to this method of thinking and nobody would send someone to jail for the rest of their lives unless there is some kind of evidence or proof linking them to a crime. I treat this no differently......

Scientists are not Gods and whatever they say is not written in stone, it never was..... and if they think I'm stupid enough to simply believe what they tell us without providing evidence to back up their claims, then they got another thing coming.

Scientists have been wrong before countless times, they will continue to be wrong on a number of things in the future, and if they simply expect me or anybody else to swallow their tripe without properly explaining themselves, then they are also wrong in that assumption as well.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius that is plain dopey. 2000 of the top meteorological scientists are deluding themselves because you say so?

Yeah and how many of those scientists were at the UN's little pow wow?

One would have figured the explainations would have been sound and solid right then and there and this little meeting in Poland wouldn't be even required..... but there were more then enough scientists who opposed the final conclusions based due to flawed or lack of evidence.... so the debate is still on-going, which brought these guys to yet another meeting to make it seem like all these guys agree that this is the final explination.... all the while there could be 5000 other scientists who oppose those claims.

Hell, if I go and gather up 2000 people, get them altogether for a few days, I'm sure we could make it seem that the Smurfs really did exist a long time ago..... that doesn't make it true, and their titles of scientists or professors simply don't make it so either.

You either provide the proof in which you claim to be true, or you're just wasting everybody's time.

 

[#juan]

quoting Praxius
Scientists are not Gods and whatever they say is not written in stone, it never was..... and if they think I'm stupid enough to simply believe what they tell us without providing evidence to back up their claims, then they got another thing coming.
They might be right, they might be wrong, but until they actually provide the evidence and prove one way or another, they are indeed talking out of their asses and all assumptions are valid until they do, since all they are giving us are more assumptions in

Praxius....You wouldn't understand the evidence if they mailed it to you......And they probably would if you asked them.

 

[Tonington]

Have you even read the IPCC reports Praxius? If you haven't, then you ought to start there for your assertions of missing proof.

If that's too long for you, try something like these links:
Basic Radiation Calculations
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Roger Revelle's Discovery

So, take these pills and call me in the morning if your problem persists.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius....You wouldn't understand the evidence if they mailed it to you......And they probably would if you asked them.

Oh I understand more then you think I do.

But wasn't that the same excuse the US Markets used against their own government? "It's all too complicated for the average person, so just trust us that we know what we're doing. The market will work and correct itself without any outside influences."

Yeah, we all know how well that turned out don't we?

And I shouldn't have to have the information mailed to me, we're not talking about some miricle weight loss drug or scientology..... if they have the proof and the proper evidence, then it should be publically know and released for all to see.

And if the evidence is just the same crap everybody has been recycling since the 80's (which I bet it is) then they haven't proven a damn thing and are nowhere closer then they ever were to finding out what is really going on.

 

[Praxius]

Have you even read the IPCC reports Praxius? If you haven't, then you ought to start there for your assertions of missing proof.

If that's too long for you, try something like these links:
Basic Radiation Calculations
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Roger Revelle's Discovery

So, take these pills and call me in the morning if your problem persists.

Didn't I see some of these already in some of the many other threads about this same topic in which you and I already debated all of this before?

Skimming through those links, it would seem that it is the same information as before, explinations on how they modified their calculations and removed some very key factors in their studies..... not to mention never having some key factors in play for those calculations in the first place.

But is this the "Evidence/Proof" the above scientists are claiming that support their above assumption that they are right? If so, then once again, it's still an old, outdated and flawed science which has a very limited view on what is really going on.

But anywho, I really have no desire to get into a big giant debate once again over these details, because it's all been done before and my position has not changed, and will not change this time around.

So I'll focus more on the original report that was not included in the thread:

It listed some likely effects of global warming:

• Arid regions will grow dryer, rising seas will flood coastal areas.
• Melting glaciers will flood communities downstream and then dry up the source of future water supplies.
• Up to 30 per cent of all plant and animal species may become extinct.

So yeah, nothing really new to report.

Since then, new evidence has emerged showing that ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic are melting, which threatens to dramatically raise the level of the oceans and flood coastal cities and low-lying islands.

"Small island states are living in a state of fear," Pachauri' said.

Really? New evidence? As opposed to the same old evidence that claimed the exact same thing? The exact same thing that was supposed to happen by 1995-96?

I live right on the coast.... it looks very much the same to me, minus a bit of normal erosion.

But he said there was no conclusive evidence the world is in imminent danger.

"I don't think we should jump to conclusions if we get material that is based on the last one or two years," the Indian scientist said. The IPCC issues its reports every five or six years.

The 2007 report cited a scientific consensus that global warming should be limited to 2 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst scenarios. To contain global warming to that target, carbon emissions must peak by 2015, then begin a rapid decline.

Pachauri now says governments should reconsider whether even that goal goes far enough since it would still raise sea levels from between 40 centimetres to 1.4 metres.

Dozens of scientists were among the delegates attending the Poznan conference, which exhibited some of the latest technologies and scientific studies.

"The skeptics are doing a good job because they are making us present ironclad proof," said Lawrence E. Buja, a climate change researcher for the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Then by all means, where it this Ironclad Proof?

But since that battle is over, he said, scientists need to move on and look at the detailed impact of climate change.

Oh. Ok, avoid the question apparently..... where's the proof? Oh we already gave it to you, so we're moving on now.

Nice.... real smart one there.

"That's a much harder question," he said.

Buja, who contributed to the IPCC report, said scientists are looking at futuristic solutions to halt global warming, such as imitating the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption by spreading sulfur in the atmosphere, or scattering billions of tiny refractors high in the air to dim the sun and lower the temperature.

But he said such radical solutions involve risks.

"How are you going to go up and find all those little refractors and pull them down if something bad starts to happen?" he asked.

Which also confirms my original viewpoint..... Humans shouldn't be d*cking around with the environment more then we already have been.

You want to reduce pollution? Good, do it..... but don't go around acting like it's a smart idea to start screwing around with our climates and atmosphere just to suit our own wants and needs.

 

[Tonington]

Didn't I see some of these already in some of the many other threads about this same topic in which you and I already debated all of this before?

You may have seen the radiation calculations before. I thought you might want to see some of the other information as well.

Skimming through those links, it would seem that it is the same information as before, explinations on how they modified their calculations and removed some very key factors in their studies..... not to mention never having some key factors in play for those calculations in the first place.

Modified, removed, yes...that's standard science. Hypothesize, form a methodology to test the hypothesis, test it, analyze results, modify hypothesis. Pretty standard stuff.

But is this the "Evidence/Proof" the above scientists are claiming that support their above assumption that they are right? If so, then once again, it's still an old, outdated and flawed science which has a very limited view on what is really going on.

How does the age of the science matter? Newton is still correct you know...

You just say it's incorrect, without ever explaining why. Just repeat that there is no proof, and the proof shown to you is wrong...

Burry your head some more Prax. :roll:

But anywho, I really have no desire to get into a big giant debate once again over these details, because it's all been done before and my position has not changed, and will not change this time around.

Because you won't ever try to understand anything. You didn't read anything except to skim over it and casually say it's old, or wrong.

You always ask for the proof, but throw up the same old crap every time. so, I'll continue to give you the opportunity to satisfy your requests...it's your choice what you do with it.

Really? New evidence?

Yes, new measurements happen every month. New studies get published every month. They simply add to the weight of those past findings.

As opposed to the same old evidence that claimed the exact same thing?

No, as opposed to earlier measurements. Like finding new evidence for the same crime.

I live right on the coast.... it looks very much the same to me, minus a bit of normal erosion.

Halifax is not a small island state, as I'm sure even you are aware.

Then by all means, where it this Ironclad Proof?

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Oh. Ok, avoid the question apparently..... where's the proof? Oh we already gave it to you, so we're moving on now.

Yah, last year. You could have read it anytime now, unless you want a subscription to Science, Nature, Geophysical Reserach Letters, Journal of Climatology, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, etc.

So, go read it.

Nice.... real smart one there.

You don't think it a tad unreasonable to ask every scientist to lay out the entire history of their field every time they make one comment on it for the press? How long do you have Praxius? You want to sit there and take notes all week? :lol:

Which also confirms my original viewpoint..... Humans shouldn't be d*cking around with the environment more then we already have been.

You want to reduce pollution? Good, do it..... but don't go around acting like it's a smart idea to start screwing around with our climates and atmosphere just to suit our own wants and needs.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[#juan]

The following is the last paragraph from the article in Tonington's link:
The carbon dioxide green house effect

The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct effects of CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water, and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system, and especially interactions with living creatures. The creatures who would count the most were humans. The climate a century hence would depend chiefly on what they chose to do about their emissions.

 

[GreenFish66]

Right on ..Juan!

I wonder how much warmer it is above the Alberta tars sands compared to a remote place in saskatchuwan?..How does that affect the weather in Kenya?.. Ask a weather man/Chemist /ecologist!/Biologist and you will have an answer!..lol..

Good stuff...Juan!.Very insightful....

 

[Walter]

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/09/09/climate-change-is-a-hoax-n2552748

Yep.