For global warming beleivers. Look how political your sources have become.?
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/feb...
Read this.
Answer:
n.e ways
Ok let me answer you
As a consultant, the problem is that you have to write in the manner to politicians which reflects following aspects:
- most of them are not scientists and studied law, social sciences, economics etc... therefore the same version as for the scientists is unthinkable. Moreover, they would not have the time to read it. If needed, they can still read the whole source. That is why executive summaries are developped
- no strict orders can be done to politicians, only a package of recommandation, possibly as neutral as possible.
Free for them then to follow them or to put them in the trashcan.
----------------
Regarding the way to go to mitigate climate change, I also have it all on my computer and its only a question of time we make politicians understand and accept such simple concepts.
I told you that it´s nothing new, it´s all on postkyoto.com
------------------
It is an alteration of policy recommandation, not a censorship of any scientifical experiments and research.
The energy question IS politic anyway in its nature as is the water question, and so on.
That is true that Politicians have jumped on the bandwagon for global warming because they know it is real, and they know that the American people may elect them if they say they will do something about it.
But will they or is it all talk and no action?
We can not wait for the politicians to do something, we must all do our part to save our planet. And don't vote for those that say they will solve the problems vote for those that have a track record or caring about our planet.
Global Warming is real. Look at the documentaries on Discovery Channel about the Artic melting and the Polar bears starving to death. They can no longer produce cubs. They are thin and undernourished. How much more proof do we need to get off our cans and do something?
Will it take money, I will give?
Will it take my time, I will offer it?
Will it take me getting the word out, I will do so?
Now we must all do our part. Dont wait for the Politicians.
That's not really a question. Shouldn't you have phrased it more along the lines of, "Do you know how political your sources have become?"
Oh, and even though you're pointing toward an article that shames the "gullible masses," aren't you asking people to believe an article that could have been printed by anybody? I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but wouldn't your post hold more clout if the article was posted on a reputable news site? At least then, when the masses of people read the article, they can say things like, "(Gasp!) I can't believe what I just read on the New York Times (or Fox, or CBS, or Washington Post) website!"
"In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" because of Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity [36]. Roger A. Pielke who published Landsea's letter writes: "How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn't paying attention", but notes that the actual report "Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts." He continues "So there might be a human contribution (and presumably this is just to the observed upwards trends observed in some basins, and not to downward trends observed in others, but this is unclear) but the human contribution itself has not been quantitatively assessed, yet the experts, using their judgment, expect it to be there. In plain English this is what is called a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." And it is a fair representation of the issue.""
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Ted Turner's (the founder of CNN) 1 Bill.$ gift was to the U.N. (The U.N. is "an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues.", which the U.S.A. is a part of.) It was made to support U.N. casuses.
its like doing a big fart and saying you cant smell it
First off, this is 2 year old "news". Secondly, why are you asking the same "question" twice?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
I guess in light of all the politics and scientific uncertainty, the really smart thing to do is go ahead and fill our environment up with toxins. I mean we can always 'fix' it if turns out that man-made pollution contributed to the problem. In other words, we can't identify with certainty why our environment is changing, if we are contributing to it, or even if it's a problem, but rest assured we will fix it if need be. Sounds like a plan.
Keep reading beyond the first paragraph, folks.
You have a great argument, very valid. Well done. Good job.
And it supports man made global warming.
http://www.desmogblog.com/ipcc-summary-r...
The fact that there's some political input into the IPCC reports doesn't mean global warming is less real than they say and less caused by man. It means it's MORE real and MORE caused by man than the IPCC report says.
First of all, the IPCC report is written by scientists. Here's a good description of that process:
"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."
Then the politicians try to edit it. The scientists are pretty successful in making the changes small, almost meaningless. But such changes are there are make the reports even more conservative about the science. This is the sort of thing that happens:
"At the global scale the anthropogenic component of warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems [high confidence]."
becomes:
"A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems."
Not much difference and, unfortunately for the skeptics, it goes the "wrong" way.
Are your sources not political? (From your article: "None of this will matter to the radical left, the environmental wackos." - sounds pretty biased to me)
I’d like to look at this issue from a purely logical standpoint.
I would like to start out with a few facts we can all agree on.
1) The Republican Party is pro big business. Among other things, it supports deregulation of large corporations so that these corporations can be largely (if not completely) be free of government control.
2) Both Bush and Cheney were deeply involved in the oil/energy industry at a point in their lives.
3) A corporation is legally bound to its stockholders and to put its bottom line ahead of everything else.
4) Corporations do not necessarily act in the interests of the general public. Witness Enron. Witness the cigarette industry. Tobacco lobbyists back in the day did their damdest to cover up the link between cancer and smoking. Why? Because it would effect the bottom line.
OK, can we all agree on at least the four points mentioned above? Feel free to do research. These points are all very well documented.
Now, I’m going to apply logic to the current situation.
Exxon, for example, is legally bound to its bottom line and to its stockholders and so, like major cigarette companies, it’s doing its damdest to downplay the effects of global warming. We all know that the argument for man-made global warming is that it’s largely being caused by CO2, which is, among other things, a byproduct of car emissions. But if the general public knew this, they might demand an alternative to fossil fuels or expend less fuel, etc. Sure, Exxon is researching alternative fuel ideas, or so they say, but they still draw HUGE revenues from oil.
Since Bush and Cheney are well connected in the oil industry (an industry which again, operates in the best interest of its stockholders, NOT the general public) and Bush and Cheney represent a party that is pro deregulation, would it stand to reason that Bush and Cheney might help the oil industry cover up the effects of CO2 so that the industry can continue to thrive?
Isn’t there reason for a least a little skepticism?
Here are my sources:
Peter A. Stott, S. F. B. Tett, G. S. Jones, M. R. Allen, J. F. B. Mitchell, G. J. Jenkins (2000). External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings. Science 290(5499):2133-2137. "More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings."
Tim P. Barnett, David W. Pierce, Reiner Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292(5515):270-274. "Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the [model] as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%."
Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ (2000). Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408(6809),184-187. "The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate."
T. M. L. Wigley, R. L. Smith, B. D. Santer (1998) Anthropogenic Influence on the Autocorrelation Structure of Hemispheric-Mean Temperatures. Science 282(5394):1676-1679. "Solar forcing alone cannot reconcile the differences in autocorrelation structure between observations and model control-run data."
T.P. Barnett, D.W. Pierce, K.M. AchutaRao, P.J. Gleckler, B.D. Santer, J.M. Gregory, W.M. Washington (2005). Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science 309(5732):284-287. "A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences."
K.Y. Vinnikov, A. Robock, R.J. Stouffer, J.E. Walsh, C.L. Parkinson, D.J. Cavalieri, J.F.B. Mitchell, D. Garrett, V.F. Zakharov (1999). Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent. Science 286(5446):1934-1937. "...the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability...is less than 2 percent for the 1978-98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953-98 sea ice trends."
Thomas J. Crowley (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science 289(5477):270-277. "The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system."
A. Walter, C.D. Schönwiese (2003). Nonlinear statistical attribution and detection of anthropogenic climate change using a simulated annealing algorithm. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 76(1-2):1-12. "the combined anthropogenic effect corresponds to the observed increase in temperature Jones et al. (1994), updated by Jones (1999a), for the examined period 1856–1998 on all investigated scales. In accordance to recent findings of physical climate models, the CM-FSA succeeds with the detection of anthropogenic induced climate change on a high significance level."
G. C. Hegerl, P. A. Stott, M. R. Allen, J. F. B. Mitchell, S. F. B. Tett, U. Cubasch (2000). Optimal detection and attribution of climate change: sensitivity of results to climate model differences. Climate Dynamics 16(10-11):737-754. "the detection of anthropogenic influence on climate is robust to intermodel differences ... An analysis of the recent warming, and the warming that occurred in the first half of the twentieth century, suggests that simulations forced with combined changes in natural (solar and volcanic) and anthropogenic (greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol) forcings agree best with the observations."
And here is your source: a blogger named John Bender.
So whose sources are more political: yours or mine?
The sources aren't the issue. The issue is the science and the facts behind it. That's all that matters.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: