US government report admits frankly as never before climate state of emergency

[Skybird]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_sc/us_sci_climate_report

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts


The document, a climate status report required periodically by Congress, was a collaboration by about three dozen academic, government and institute scientists. It contains no new research, but it paints a fuller and darker picture of global warming in the United States than previous studies.
Bush was ultimately forced by a lawsuit to issue a draft report last year, and that document was the basis for this one. Obama science adviser John Holdren called the report nonpartisan, started by a Republican administration and finished by a Democratic one.

[SteamWake]

Its a 'goverment report' prepared by the very pepole whom have a vested interest in the topic.

"Admits" :rotfl:

[baggygreen]

Read paragraph 1 of the executive summary. A little... blatant, for my liking.

Source number... 3 from memory, cites the IPCC. However, climate alarmists no longer use the data gathered by and for the IPCC, because those data sets show cooling over recent years, whilst the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased.

Now, you'll find that the alarmists are using oceanic temperatures to prove AGW.

So on that point alone, the report is proven to be inaccurate.

Of course, I'm ignoring that the origin of the report lies in an attempt to sway undecided policy-makers in the US parliament back to the pro-AGW lobby in order to pass strict new climate change legislation...

Warming is happening on a long-term scale, I won't debate that. i will debate tooth and nail that AGW is a fact, and I'll do everything and anything I can to stop myself being taxed over something we cannot unequivocally prove, much less control.

:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Baggygreen - you summed it up nicely. I have no further comment.

Akybird - NASA last month said that humans aren't the cause. Why the propaganda machine?

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Warming is happening on a long-term scale, I won't debate that. i will debate tooth and nail that AGW is a fact, and I'll do everything and anything I can to stop myself being taxed over something we cannot unequivocally prove, much less control.


I agree with Baggy entirely. It is contrived taxable market perpetuated by the likes of Al Gore who stand to make billions. :down:

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330132018201124

[Skybird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print


WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.
Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
(...)
Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.
(...)
"We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/anthony_c_zinni/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

[SteamWake]

So you reseruct a thread that lay dormant for nearly two months to post further findings from an agency with a vested interest in the topic.

Sometimes I think you post this stuff just to see what kind of rise you can get out of the members.

[Rilder]

So you reseruct a thread that lay dormant for nearly two months to post further findings from an agency with a vested interest in the topic.

Sometimes I think you post this stuff just to see what kind of rise you can get out of the members.

I have such a dirty mind, as I saw nothing but innuendo in that... :rotfl:

[SteamWake]

I have such a dirty mind, as I saw nothing but innuendo in that... :rotfl:

That would be the kitty porn thread :cool:

[Skybird]

So you reseruct a thread that lay dormant for nearly two months to post further findings from an agency with a vested interest in the topic.

Sometimes I think you post this stuff just to see what kind of rise you can get out of the members.

Sure, thanks for having risen.