Appeasement policy towards climate change

[Skybird]

The release of the second of four IPCC reports is imminent.

However, one is wondering about this detail in proceeding:
while the reports have been written by scientists and experts in their field, now a conference of political representatives is already cutting, editing and censoring it and tries to soften up the summary for policymakers. the cuts are severe, for example the report's conclusion that a raise in in temperature by merely 1.5-2.5 degree will lead to the extinction of 25-30% of the globe's botanical and zoological species is about to be not mentioned in the "corrected" version. Also, calculations about the financial and economical costs/damages, according to political delegates, should not be mentioned in the final version that is to be released to the public.

One is wondering why politicians can consider themselves to be more expert in scientific fields than scientists themselves who took together the data.

The delegate from Belgium compared the conference now to the conference of Munich in 1938. He said like in 1938 now is the time to decide wether one want to act, or not. His reminder of the appeasement policy wins in relevance when considering this political censoring of a scientific report taking place even before it got released.

http://www.welt.de/politik/article79...ssagen_ab.html


It also is not surprising who are the loudest voices to prevent the grim parts of the report being published: it is the US, Saudi Arabia, India, and China. All of them have high interests in preventing anything that could hinder their selling of oil, buying of oil, consuming of oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6532323.stm

All in all the report concludes that the poor of the world will be hit the worst by climate change. It is also pointed out that this report is not depending on assumptions on the future on the basis of models anymore, but on observed empirical data.

[Letum]

Climate change might turn out to be mankind's greatest ever tragedy of the commons.

The IPCC reports will be no surprise. It will naturally reflect only the lowest common denominator of climate change views

[Skybird]

This is not so much an issue of lowest common denominator of "views" (which implies that all "views" at least have a comparable level of expertise, which in this example clearly is not the case). This is an issue of inudstrial interests suppressing scientific data, lobby demands censoring experts knoweldge.

[Bertgang]

I'm not surprised.

Environmental care requires a long run wiew.
Most of politicians haven't this perspective; they need votes, and saying stop with a businnes or an employment isn't the best way to be voted.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This is not so much an issue of lowest common denominator of "views" (which implies that all "views" at least have a comparable level of expertise, which in this example clearly is not the case). This is an issue of inudstrial interests suppressing scientific data, lobby demands censoring experts knoweldge.

Well, that is what I meant by the "lowest common denominator". Its the most basic thing that everyone will agree on; the only view left after all the censorship.

[Hitman]

This is an issue of inudstrial interests suppressing scientific data, lobby demands censoring experts knoweldge.

In the short term and *may be* also in the medium term it might be of their interest doing so. Though in the long term, absolutely NOT. Those f**ng ba***ds are preparing their own grave, and also ours. Climate change and Peak Oil will mean a tsunamical change to the lives of most people in earth, and wil bring down many of the companies who are now interested in hidding them.

Sad world

[STEED]

Another gravy train people, are to be a scientist.

Evolution.

[tycho102]

As long as it gets us off oil and onto nuclear (with core reprocessing), I'm all for it. Regardless of whatever kind of left-wing granola nutjob fantasy it may be, I totally support global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations, Kofi the Korrupt. All of it.

I want us off oil.

It should have been the last damn generation that got us off oil in 1974. They didn't. The issue went to Jimbo Baby Mcgibbits, and he went right along with Ford in banning reactors to "stop" proliferation. Never mind Pakistan, China, and AQ Khan -- by God, America has done it's part to stop the spread of nuclear weapon design and fission material.



So, here we are today. If it costs $15 trillion to move to nuclear energy and hydrogen in 2010, it will cost $50 trillion in 2025. That's the amount of money I estimate.

[toby66]

Two planets are chatting together in a bar:

Planet A: What's wrong with you? You don't look good.
Planet B: I'm sick and I've got a temperature. It feels so hot.
Planet A: Have you seen the doctor? What is it?
Planet B: Mankind.
Planet A: Oh, don't worry, that will go away.

[ASWnut101]

What, was that out of a child's book?

[TteFAboB]

The UN is a political organization, centered at and surrounded by politics. Political interference is not an exception, it's its nature.

It's interesting how the perspective we get from the future can help us understand the decisions of the past.

The report claims that Malaria will get out of control and cause millions of deaths. That's why DDT was banned back in the day. The choice was: insects or humans? They chose insects. Eliminating Malaria meant eliminating a potential source of human mass-killing. When choosing between people and anything else, you should choose anything else and preserve your life-threatening cards. For the same reason governments keep those highly mortal and epidemic diseases alive inside their labs. Then when you're faced with a contradiction in the future (why haven't you eliminated Malaria before it was too late then, as you propose we do with other things now? Do as I say and not as I do?) you can simply explain that it was no contradiction at all. It was an apparent contradiction, not a real one. It was a small price to pay to be able to have another card in your hand today, when all strength is required to be combined in order to save the planet and save mankind.

As with PETA and the dogs, as with the German activists and Knut, in order to save mankind, we must kill mankind.

Despite all the handwringing and increasingly desperate hysteria, where global warming is concerned there has been a failure to force this paranoid religion onto the world. Since the Rio Conference in 1992, the greens have tried using the threat of global warming to induce Protestant guilt in us all, to cap growth, to change lifestyles, to attack the auto industry, and the Great Satan of America. They have lost. Only schoolchildren remain rich fodder willing to believe it is up to them now to Save The World, which hasn’t needed saving one iota during the last 4,000,000,000 years or it wouldn’t still be here. Now it is surely time to face the facts: there isn’t a snowflake-in-hell’s chance of global warming altering real life. But the failure of the greens is not just with the public. While playing the climate-change card at the G8 Summit, the final Gleneagles’ declaration shows that the leaders of the developed world have no intention of sacrificing growth and economic success for an ascetic global warming religion.

[Rykaird]

So I am no scientist. But I have seen a lot of data that says the world is getting warmer - the shrinking polar cap for example is striking.

The great bait and switch in this global power play, however, is causality. We know that Ice Ages are cyclical - they come and go, and then repeat. It only makes sense then that you are either heading for, or receding from, an Ice Age. If you are heading towards an Ice Age you would expect global cooling. If you are receding from an Ice Age, you would expect global warming. So this whole thing may be nothing more than a regular, sinewave like temperature trend.

You'll notice during global warming discussions, the science demonstrating causality doesn't get a lot of play. Endless proof that the world is getting warmer, but no proof that it is due to man made influences. That is just glossed over as a "given."

Here's the admittedly cynical view. First, remember that scientists live on grant money and federal programs, so if this thing takes hold, they do quite well. Remember, they are people too, not some impartial, wise, unselfish beings looking out for us. They need to advance their agenda as well.

Secondly, the EU in particular is looking for a lever to try to control the US. That's why they want to push the UN so hard as a world body. Global warming works perfectly as that lever.

So, I'm very cautious when it comes to global warming, because the folks pushing that agenda also seem to be unusually interested in the reduction of sovereignty of nations and the establishment of worldwide organizations to dictate new rules on a global basis.

[toby66]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

What, was that out of a child's book?

It's funny how strong your desire is to take everything to a personnel level. Cool down, mate. It's just a forum where everyone is allowed to have his own opinion and "genre d'humour".

Well, it's true, global warming and cooling happened before. But fact is, that the natural changes happened over a much longer period than a few decades. So it's a least proven that we are fastening the process. In addition to that it's interesting to see that the warming started with the industrialisation. I don't think that this is a coincidence.