Page 60 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1050555657585960616263646570110 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 2209
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1181  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Bad news today, at least for those who are concernced for the environment. It seems we still have an administration that, despite its rhetoric, wants to delay action on global warming, teaming up with the other major polluter in the world, China, in trying to water down the scientific reports.


    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
    Not good news at all. However, a fundamental anatomy lesson:

    The integrity bone is connected to the spine bone.

    This administration is missing both.

    The Bushies wouldn't dare cross their MaoMart banker.
  2. #1182  
    News today suggests arctic ice cap melting is happening about 30 years AHEAD of IPCC predictions.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...22477020070501

    It shows how cautious the IPCC really is with their predictions, and how wrong the Bush administration is to try to water down their reports.

    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
  3. #1183  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    News today suggests arctic ice cap melting is happening about 30 years AHEAD of IPCC predictions.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...22477020070501

    It shows how cautious the IPCC really is with their predictions, and how wrong the Bush administration is to try to water down their reports.

    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
    No, it shows how inaccurate these models are.
  4. #1184  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    News today suggests arctic ice cap melting is happening about 30 years AHEAD of IPCC predictions.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...22477020070501

    It shows how cautious the IPCC really is with their predictions, and how wrong the Bush administration is to try to water down their reports.

    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
    I read about this last night.....If true will this then lead to (or maybe caused by) the natural phenomenon that was report earlier in this thread where when the ice starts to melt it releases trapped gases from eons passed and then results in more ice melting resulting in more trapped gases released resulting in more........?
  5. #1185  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    It shows how cautious the IPCC really is with their predictions, and how wrong the Bush administration is to try to water down their reports.

    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
    That's the second time you posted about that.

    Do you have any real information on whether US and China input into this collaborative process is making the report more accurate or less accurate? Or are you just assuming that any moderation of language is always for the worse?
  6. #1186  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That's the second time you posted about that.

    Do you have any real information on whether US and China input into this collaborative process is making the report more accurate or less accurate? Or are you just assuming that any moderation of language is always for the worse?
    It does not matter that these attempts at scientific manipulation are coming from the governments of the biggest polluters in the world (US and China), any time you alter science, you make it less accurate.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1187  
    The final report has not been completed, therefore unavailable to be defended or challenged.

    Excerpt:
    In comments submitted ahead of the meeting, the U.S. and China say the proposed cap on greenhouse gas levels is too low and reaching the target would be too expensive. The two countries are expected to attempt to insert language into the final report that would weaken the conclusion that quick action can stabilize greenhouse gas levels.

    In its draft report, the panel says that by rapidly embracing energy efficiency and reducing its reliance on fossil fuels, the world may manage to hold the temperature rise to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, beyond which the planet may become inhospitable to life.

    Even an increase of 3.6 degrees could mean water shortages for as many as 2 billion people by 2050 and extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, the IPCC said.
    http://www.examiner.com/a-704149~Nat...use_Gases.html
  8. #1188  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The final report has not been completed, therefore unavailable to be defended or challenged.
    Exactly.
  9. #1189  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    It does not matter that these attempts at scientific manipulation are coming from the governments of the biggest polluters in the world (US and China), any time you alter science, you make it less accurate.
    The proposed targets are no more scientific before US and China input than after. The IPCC is a collaborative body, and all the content in all its reports are subject to modification from all its members. Someone just decided to publicize this issue for political reasons.
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1190  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The proposed targets are no more scientific before US and China input than after.
    Understanding the US/China intent is enough to further understand what generalized effect their direction may have on the final report. Knowing what pressure US government scientists have had to operate under to conclude predetermined, Bush administration results gives a further clue as to the US's input.

    The IPCC is a collaborative body, and all the content in all its reports are subject to modification from all its members. Someone just decided to publicize this issue for political reasons.
    'Someone just decided ...'?? Reaaaally?
    Last edited by backbeat; 05/01/2007 at 06:26 PM.
  11. #1191  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The proposed targets are no more scientific before US and China input than after. The IPCC is a collaborative body, and all the content in all its reports are subject to modification from all its members. Someone just decided to publicize this issue for political reasons.
    The scientific recommendations are indeed scientific. Deciding whether and how they should be acted upon is political.

    And it's good to know what governmental manipulations are taking place even if the scientists cannot stop them in the end. I don't see why anyone would resent that information being publicly reported.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 05/01/2007 at 07:37 PM.
  12. #1192  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    The scientific recommendations are indeed scientific.
    No, there are scientific findings, and then there are recommendations. ALL of it is the product of lots of negotiation. It's like you're walking into the room in the last 5 seconds of a five hour debate, and you hear the US say something. And you say, "Hey, you can't debate the science! You have to take it as is." And you insist that the state of the report at the moment you walked in is "scientific" and the US comment is "political interference."
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1193  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    No, there are scientific findings, and then there are recommendations. ALL of it is the product of lots of negotiation. It's like you're walking into the room in the last 5 seconds of a five hour debate, and you hear the US say something. And you say, "Hey, you can't debate the science! You have to take it as is." And you insist that the state of the report at the moment you walked in is "scientific" and the US comment is "political interference."
    Whataloadabull****e!
  14.    #1194  
    Shocking evidence that climate change has been going on, well forever...
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0428170229.htm

    We will see in our lifetime the greatest waste of taxpayer's money and big American businesses fork out money to try to shift nature's warming. We will then see American business lose to foreign businesses (i.e. Chinese, India) that won't partake in the foolishness.
  15. #1195  
    From the article:
    Such a scenario might lead to less warming in Europe than predicted by the IPCC, but we will probably not face an arctic climate, summarizes Svante Björck.
    Great news. We probably won't have to worry about another ice age soon!
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1196  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    We probably won't have to worry about another ice age soon!
    You're in northern Europe?
  17. #1197  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    News today suggests arctic ice cap melting is happening about 30 years AHEAD of IPCC predictions.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...22477020070501

    It shows how cautious the IPCC really is with their predictions, and how wrong the Bush administration is to try to water down their reports.

    http://www.examiner.com/a-702314~U_S...te_Report.html
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I read about this last night.....If true will this then lead to (or maybe caused by) the natural phenomenon that was report earlier in this thread where when the ice starts to melt it releases trapped gases from eons passed and then results in more ice melting resulting in more trapped gases released resulting in more........?
    Cell....your thoughts on this possibility?
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1198  


    Man and his petrol-dependent military-industrial economy have nothing to do with this unprecedented escalation.
  19. #1199  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post


    Man and his petrol-dependent military-industrial economy have nothing to do with this unprecedented escalation.
    But Glenn Beck says this is all fake?
  20. #1200  
    Hobbes I think it is a fallacy to think that human activities are the only factor in determining whether our world temp rises. but they are the only factor we have control over. And I for one choose to believe the recommendations of the vast majority of climate scientists based on the available data.

Posting Permissions