Climate change science update...

[Ken MacDonald]

Not all Science is One-Sided

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...g-east-anglia/

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Common Editorial

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

NB. Everyone has the right to reproduce the above editorial. It is under Creative Commons.

Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...agen-editorial

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

Fox news?!??!?!?!?!?

How gullible do you think we are?

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html


Result from three Global datasets: NOAA (NCDC Dataset) , NASA (GISS dataset) and combined Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK) (HadCRUT3 dataset)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

Fox news?!??!?!?!?!?

How gullible do you think we are?

An anomaly is a deviation. You have your base line at zero and a short snapshot in the climate history of the world. The variance is between -.6 and +.6 of a degree C. A year before the end of the chart it was +.3. We were seeing variences as large on the negative part of the scale. The climate line was in the positive in 1880 and that shouldn't have happened. The plus figures in the 1940's is also a surprise.

In a chart of such a short period it shows nothing abnormal. Probably it would be a nice idea not to get too excited until after 2050.

To me the deviation looks normal.

[Ken MacDonald]

Not all Science is One-Sided

Fox news?!??!?!?!?!?

How gullible do you think we are?

LOL! I'll bet you listen to NBC or MSNBC! A pox from Hannity and Beck on you! :)

Of course, never deal with the comments, but attack the source. Did you mention East Anglia in your response? Do you still trust them?

How gullible do you think we are?

To answer my question on another thread, ClimateGate has done real damage to the Global Warming belief. It will take time until it regains momentum again.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Getting Hotter and Hotter

Danish Prostitutes Offer Free Sex to Climate Conference Delegates:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579350,00.html

[Mike O'Connor]

Re: Really, now...

From the action above, I get the impression that many members are interested in the subject even though it is non-chess oriented.

Surely, an intelligent guy like you should be able to figure out how to avoid threads he doesn't like.

Don't open them.

You trying to be smart? I'm just sick of all the useless drivel out there; from the poverty industry to the environment industry to the H1N1 industry, etc., in one's face 24/7. There is no escape from one cause or another pushing its agenda and spilling over into other domains such as is the case here...

[Ken MacDonald]

Re: Really, now...

You trying to be smart? I'm just sick of all the useless drivel out there; from the poverty industry to the environment industry to the H1N1 industry, etc., in one's face 24/7. There is no escape from one cause or another pushing its agenda and spilling over into other domains such as is the case here...

So, cease reading those threads that annoy you!

If I thought this "Bulletin Board" would only contain chess, I would be happy to follow those rules, but you will have to speak to Larry about that. There are times when the threads annoy me also, BUT, I just don't open threads once that has been done.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

LOL! I'll bet you listen to NBC or MSNBC! A pox from Hannity and Beck on you! :)

I never rely on TV news for anything except a general indication of local events, and since I've been involved in local events that have been badly misreported, I always assume a good deal of spin is involved even there.

Of course, never deal with the comments, but attack the source.

Some sources are wrong so often that they should never be relied on, Fox news being one of them. Quoting them as any kind of source by itself puts you far out on the right fringe and gives strong evidence that you don't understand what is going on.

If I posted something using, say, radio Cuba as a source, how much careful research to see if they were right would you be doing?

[Ken MacDonald]

Not all Science is One-Sided

I never rely on TV news for anything except a general indication of local events, and since I've been involved in local events that have been badly misreported, I always assume a good deal of spin is involved even there.

Some sources are wrong so often that they should never be relied on, Fox news being one of them. Quoting them as any kind of source by itself puts you far out on the right fringe and gives strong evidence that you don't understand what is going on.

If I posted something using, say, radio Cuba as a source, how much careful research to see if they were right would you be doing?

Well, I can't allow this to degenerate any further into name calling and insults, but I can now see where many of your opinions come from. So, I bow out. It seems that discussions with you get off track frequently.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

Well, I can't allow this to degenerate any further into name calling and insults, but I can now see where many of your opinions come from. So, I bow out. It seems that discussions with you get off track frequently.

This is how the climate scientists get their "consensus".

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

Well, I can't allow this to degenerate any further into name calling and insults, but I can now see where many of your opinions come from. So, I bow out. It seems that discussions with you get off track frequently.

Thankyou for your gracious concession of defeat. :)

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network

A recent poll:

http://people-press.org/report/559/

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

I never rely on TV news for anything except a general indication of local events, and since I've been involved in local events that have been badly misreported, I always assume a good deal of spin is involved even there.

If that's the case, why would you assume the spin on global warming is properly reported? Does it depend on agreement with your opinions?

Often what people complain is misreported is simply a case of the reporter seeing the issue differently than the complainer. What is seen as misreporting is simply a reporter showing the flip side of the coin.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

If that's the case, why would you assume the spin on global warming is properly reported? Does it depend on agreement with your opinions?

I don't make any such assumption. I go to the reliable sources. By and large that isn't the press.

A few press outlets are doing relatively accurate reporting, on global warming, but I don't just assume they are reliable, I check with the actual scientists.

Well, if it comes to Fox News, CNN, and all too often even CBC and BBC, versus "Nature" or "Science" I know who I trust more.

Often what people complain is misreported is simply a case of the reporter seeing the issue differently than the complainer.

And just as often it isn't, at least based on the evidence.

What is seen as misreporting is simply a reporter showing the flip side of the coin.

When a reporter gives outright fabrications and lies, and they often do, that isn't the "flip side", that's the "false side".