Report: Global Warming At Critical Point

[Nakharar]

Report: Global Warming at Critical Point

 

Tue Jan 25, 7:24 AM ET

 

By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

 

LONDON - Global warming is approaching the point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea levels will be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monday.

 

It called on the Group of 8 leading industrial nations to cut carbon emissions, double their research spending on technology and work with India and China to build on the Kyoto Protocol for cuttings emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" blamed for global warming.

 

The independent report was made by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States and the Australia Institute.

 

"An ecological time bomb is ticking away," said Stephen Byers, who was co-chairman of the task force with U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. "World leaders need to recognize that climate change is the single most important long-term issue that the planet faces."

 

Byers is a close confidant of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the report was timed to coincide with Blair's commitment to advance international climate change policy during Britain's presidency of the G-8 this year.

 

Byers said it is vital that Blair secure U.S. cooperation in tackling climate change. President Bush has rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing that the carbon emission cuts it demands would damage the U.S. economy and that it leaves out emerging polluters like China and India.

 

"What we have got to do then is get the Americans as part of the G-8 to engage in international concerted effort to tackle global warming," said Byers. "If they refuse to do that then other countries will be reluctant to take any steps."

 

According to the report, urgent action is needed to stop the global average temperature rising by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the level of 1750 — the approximate start of the Industrial Revolution when mankind first started significantly adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

 

Beyond such a rise, "the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," the report said, adding that there would be a danger of "abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change." It warned of "climatic tipping points" such as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting and the Gulf Stream shutting down.

 

No accurate temperature readings were available for 1750, the report said, but since 1860 the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 percent to 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit).

 

The report said a 2-degree Celsius rise in the average temperature could be avoided by keeping the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 400 parts per million. Current concentrations of 379 parts per million "are likely to rise above 400 parts per million in coming decades and could rise far higher under a business-as-usual scenario," it said.

 

The task force urged G-8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and shift agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels.

 

The task force of senior politicians, scientists and business figures was formed last March. Its chief scientific adviser was Dr. Rajendra K. *****uri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

The British government welcomed the report, which mirrors many of the suggestions already floated by Blair in the leadup to Britain's G-8 presidency.

 

Blair has acknowledged the importance of U.S. cooperation, but concedes Washington is unlikely to sign on for the Kyoto Protocol and is instead pursuing international commitment to developing new environmentally friendly technology.

[Anonymouse]

Whenever there is something from an environmentalist, I usually ignore it.

[Nakharar]

Most of them have some psychological problem or other.

[DominO123]

Most of them have some psychological problem or other.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Care to developpe?

[Anonymouse]

Care to developpe?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What he means is that environmentalists are full of ****.

[Nakharar]

True. And my topic description sums it up.

[DominO123]

True. And my topic description sums it up.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

"Most of them have some psychological problem or other."

 

I asked you to support this claim of yours.

 

You have made a slanderous attack and diffamed them without any support.

 

I will believe you once you dare say this on their face and be ready to be sued for diffamation.

 

Those last days you have shown of what you are made of, I still await that you answer for your lies about Artsakh government in the other thread. But since you act only as a provocator, I'm sure that your goal is not to support anything but just to turn the attention around you.

[Arvestaked]

I asked you to support this claim of yours.

 

You have made a slanderous attack and diffamed them without any support.

 

Holy fecal matter! You pull that nonsense on everyone no matter how meaningless it is!

[Boghos]

Here is a book I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

[Arvestaked]

Here is a book I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Seems interesting.

 

I wonder whether the Skeptical Inquirer has written articles about global warming. I am sure it has along with other environmental issues.

 

Pen and Teller's "Bull#&!%" on the Showtime channel is a good source of that sort of skeptical breakdown as well.

[DominO123]

Holy fecal matter! You pull that nonsense on everyone no matter how meaningless it is!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Diffaming people is even illegal under law and someone can be sued for it.

 

It is always the minimal to ask some support, but I guess you are allergic to arguments.

[DominO123]

Here is a book I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I have already read that book, leave me some time(perhaps tomorow) I will review it in detail, I think that is what it need to be said, because this individual is a manipulator of the data he uses to support his claims.

 

I make this claim, but unlike some, when I do claim something I support it.

 

My review is to come tommorow. I even think that I may have a copy of the book somewhere.

Edited January 27, 2005 by QueBeceR

[Anonymouse]

Diffaming people is even illegal under law and someone can be sued for it.

 

It is always the minimal to ask some support, but I guess you are allergic to arguments.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Just like those annoying trial lawyers that sue tobacco companies on behalf of their clients because they 'didn't know' that smoking may cause lung cancer.

 

Here is an even better book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...g=UTF8&v=glance

[Arvestaked]

Diffaming people is even illegal under law and someone can be sued for it.

 

It is always the minimal to ask some support, but I guess you are allergic to arguments.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

It is "defaming." And what he said cannot qualify as defamation. The alleged statement must be aimed at a particular individual and it also must be proven that the statement was objectively injurious. Plus, an environmentalist usually has a political stance that they are seeking to achieve and if they are involved politically then what then they are a matter of public interest and therefore speaking against them is protected by the first amendment. Saying something is a defaming statement just makes it seem like you know what you are talking about even though you do not and in reality -- and this is the best part -- you are asking for support for a facetious comment. Something that was meant to be an exaggeration to show someone's feelings toward an idea. What you are doing is illustrated right here. That is ridiculous. You are are ridiculous. So sue me for defamation.

[DominO123]

It is "defaming." And what he said cannot qualify as defamation. The alleged statement must be aimed at a particular individual and it also must be proven that the statement was objectively injurious. Plus, an environmentalist usually has a political stance that they are seeking to achieve and if they are involved politically then what then they are a matter of public interest and therefore speaking against them is protected by the first amendment. Saying something is a defaming statement just makes it seem like you know what you are talking about even though you do not and in reality -- and this is the best part -- you are asking for support for a facetious comment. Something that was meant to be an exaggeration to show someone's feelings toward an idea. What you are doing is illustrated right here. That is ridiculous. You are are ridiculous. So sue me for defamation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Thanks for correcting my English, it is nice, English being my 4rth language and being a little dyslexic, I'm glad that we have among us someone who take the time to do this.

 

Defamation: It depend, the law can be interpreted, you should know you work in a Law firm yourself, right? And beside, countries like Australia do have in their law protection against "defamation" against groups and you probably know that protection against group defamation will probably be included in the States as well since they are starting to think of refforming it, here in Canada, there are some Juris Prudences about using the defamation against an individual, when attacking the group would be an attack against the individual, I havn't searched for the US, that would be a good homework for you, if you have access to the LEXSEE, maybe you can search that yourself.

 

I have to conclude that you are playing the role of the smart-ss like you usually do.

 

 

No, I can not sue you for defamation, simply because by attacking me you are in no way attacking my name and reputation, we are in a discussion board, where my alias is not my real name, neither yours... you can not commit defamation when you don't know whom you attack the character of, or that the person attacked get his reputation affected or his "person" is harmed.

 

The same can not be said, when someone claim that members of a group has psychological problems and offer no evidences to support it. Will he have the face to say that to an enviromentalist?

Edited January 27, 2005 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

Just like those annoying trial lawyers that sue tobacco companies on behalf of their clients because they 'didn't know' that smoking may cause lung cancer.

 

Here is an even better book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...g=UTF8&v=glance

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Better book sure, I guess the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" is a VERY credible source indeed. Why am I not surprised of your uses of biased sources.

[DominO123]

I have already read that book, leave me some time(perhaps tomorow) I will review it in detail, I think that is what it need to be said, because this individual is a manipulator of the data he uses to support his claims.

 

I make this claim, but unlike some, when I do claim something I support it.

 

My review is to come tommorow. I even think that I may have a copy of the book somewhere.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

After runing a google search just to keep myself updated about the Lomborg affair, I have decided to not review the book. There are many materials entirly destroying the book.

 

I was even surprised to learn that the Skeptical Inquirer has published an article as an answer to the work titled: "Skepticl About the Skeptical Environmentalist"

 

The answers to the work doesn`t only concern the environmental part but as well the economic one.

 

Here an abstract from the Department of Economics of the University of St. Andrews Welfare, Growth and Environment: A Sceptical Review of The Skeptical Environmentalist(Bjørn Lomborg, Cambridge University Press, 2001)

 

Another abstract from Cornekk University School of Law, "Some Realism about Environmental Skepticism: Bjorn Lomborg's 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'"

 

You can download it from here.

 

Here another review: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...l/assetid/17791

 

The answer from the Skeptical Inquirer: http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/environment.html

 

Those are just few examples, and here I am even not including the answers from biologists, environmentalists and people in the field to not be accused of using biased materials, even though they would be the best placed to answer.

 

There are out there works of hundreds of pages answering his book chapters by chapters.

Edited January 27, 2005 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

I forgot to add, even "Nature" has negativaly reviewed the book:

 

http://culture.neurobio.ucla.edu/~pel/envi...nt/lomborg1.pdf

[Boghos]

Yes, I have read the reviews and mostly are petty critiques that miss the main point completely. Most environmentalists, as most left leaning fakes, live in a make believe world where evrything is used in order to justify their gloomy predictions and to show how much better and caring human beings they are. In the real world, Man´s creativity, capacity to innovate, has brought about the fastest improvement in living standards in history, so much so that for the first time in history the absolute number of misers in the world is falling. Real Income per capita has increased 12 times in 200 years in the world, sure it is not evenly distributed but that´s another story. This is what the book is all about.

 

Fortunately more and more literature is being published unmasking the idiotic influence of political correctness on almost every single field, from Art History to Biology

[DominO123]

I beg to disagree, I don't see how it is a good way to answer some extremists by using an extremist from the other side. Lomborg book has not been peer reviewed before publication, like it is generally done with “scientific” works. And keep in mind that beside financial newspapers, he received no positive reviews for his book, and not only from Environmentalists. People talk about how he was “slandered,” but he is as well one of a manipulator of his kind, the “Scientific American” affair is an example.

 

Lomborg got what he wanted, celebrity, that is all what he was after, and fine for him he got a place in the Times magazine “figures.”

 

To support your position, it isn't the best thing to do to suggest the most doubtful and criticized work on the subject.

Edited January 27, 2005 by QueBeceR

[Nakharar]

"Most of them have some psychological problem or other."

 

I asked you to support this claim of yours.

 

You have made a slanderous attack and diffamed them without any support.

 

I will believe you once you dare say this on their face and be ready to be sued for diffamation.

 

Those last days you have shown of what you are made of, I still await that you answer for your lies about Artsakh government in the other thread. But since you act only as a provocator, I'm sure that your goal is not to support anything but just to turn the attention around you.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I don't think I owe you or anyone else an explanation. It's high time for you to come down from your pedestal and look in the mirror. Your self-drawn conclusions about me will only make you happy.

 

 

I have no interest in engaging in your duels where you like to draw your own rules. Why reply when you will only be satisfied with answers that will fit into your own regimented worldview. Your problem is that you make things too personal.

[Boghos]

I beg to disagree, I don't see how it is a good way to answer some extremists by using an extremist from the other side. Lomborg book has not been peer reviewed before publication, like it is generally done with “scientific” works. And keep in mind that beside financial newspapers, he received no positive reviews for his book, and not only from Environmentalists. People talk about how he was “slandered,” but he is as well one of a manipulator of his kind, the “Scientific American” affair is an example.

 

Lomborg got what he wanted, celebrity, that is all what he was after, and fine for him he got a place in the Times magazine “figures.”

 

To support your position, it isn't the best thing to do to suggest the most doubtful and criticized work on the subject.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Criticized may be, "most doubtful" is your call. In any case I think you miss the big picture on this one.

[DominO123]

I don't think I owe you or anyone else an explanation. It's high time for you to come down from your pedestal and look in the mirror. Your self-drawn conclusions about me will only make you happy.

I have no interest in engaging in your duels where you like to draw your own rules. Why reply when you will only be satisfied with answers that will fit into your own regimented worldview. Your problem is that you make things too personal.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Respect if you want to be respected... you've been freely making slanderous remarks since you registered here meant only to provoque. And you know it is true.

 

You've been doing this for long now.

 

Just to refresh your memory, it is you that decided to be abrasive not me.

 

Examples?

 

Here one.

 

This is not about an opinion, but again slandering without even trying to justify your remark. Claiming that the majority of environmentalists have psychological problems is a compleatly untrue statment and is disrespectable of a profession. If it wasn't of their red light, the Ozone layer destruction would follow a function representing an acceleration of an acceleration.

Edited January 27, 2005 by QueBeceR

[Stormig]

I can't comment on the severity of global warming or the Skeptical stuff at the moment. Hopefully later. However, I do have to admit that hearing the term "environmentalist" makes my skin crawl. I'm not talking about environmentalist as in the context of professional, moral environmental scientists... Mostly the "whistle-blowers," campaigners, those types. I'm familiar with some strains, local and/or connected to a greater circle, and they piss me off immensely as they rely on dooms-day speak to stir hysteria and become the centre of attention - without even going near any alternatives, suggestions. Very few mention their sterility.

All that said, I'm all for cutting down on whatever need be to stop aiding global warming, among others. It may indeed be a natural trend as some argue. However, that doesn't give carte blanche for exacerbation.

[Nakharar]

You still hold grudges for that? I meant it in a very nice way. You must be the total opposite of me. I easily forgive and forget. I apologize if it offended you.

 

Look at most of my posts and you will see that the huge majority are not the way you describe it. You are quick to judge and comparmentalize people here. You like to act on your prejudices I assume. You hold a Damocles sword over everbody and strike whenever you feel it is convenient.

 

About environmentalists: my cousin is one of these environmentalists who clearly need help. I have no respect for her. I only respect mainstream environmentalists and can sympathize with their cause if they don't make it a lifestyle out of it. My cousin on the other hand shows a missionary zeal that repulses me.