The Big Melt (global warming)

Do you even know what this report actually is? It is not the full report, full of available evidence and carefully evaluated. It is merely a Summary for Policymakers. In case you dont know what that means, it means Political Document. It was not prepared by scientists. The headlines will say otherwise, but the fact is this is a political document that was not prepared by scientists. It is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.
The actual scientific document doesnt come out for months, because changes are being made to it that make it consistent with the Summary written by politicians. If you dont believe me, read the appendix. Do you think this would be tolerated in any other field?

I ask you a question. Can you see the world around you changing? can you see that the weather is changing? can you see that seasons arent the same as they used to be? if this isnt down to global warming then what?

I hear you...but what are you saying we do then?... shrug it off cos it aint written by the right people!?...Pretend it's a load of codswollop?

I can't sit by and not do anything...something for sure is happening! and I'm sure as hell not going to sit around waiting for it to be written by the "right" (whoever they maybe) people before I do my bit.

There will always be people that put their own personal needs above the need of others in general...be it greed/power etc. c'est la vie!

Global warming is increasing at faster rate because of human activity. You may not believe that. But even if humans are not having an effect..and it is just the natural cycle of the world...maybe us humans can still do something to reduce it the natural cycle.

So either way, we should still be doing something.

A) This question is completely irrelevant in the man-made global warming argument.
B) Its called the earth's natural climate cycle. The earth was once in an ice age, yet somehow it managed to get itself out without help from humans, or a single SUV or factory polluting the air. There was massive cooling in the 1970s, so much scientists thought we were heading for another ice age. The average temperature is not even up to the level it was in the 1930s-40s. There hasn't been any increase in global temperature in the last 8 years.
One single volcanic eruption puts more pollutants in the air than every car ever made. Sunspot activity has been at an all-time high for the past 30 years. Guess what. Humans cant control the sun. Just because you cant think of anything else causing warming you assume its global warming? What kind of logic is that?

Once again, you have made a statement that is not even close to the truth. Where do you get your information? As I said above, the global temperature is not increasing faster, nor has it even increased in the past 8 years. Do you know how egocentric it sounds to say that humans can control the earth's natural cycles? We cant control tornadoes, even though we have tried. We cant control hurricanes or when it rains or when the wind blows.

I said maybe!...and I'm not saying we can stop hurricanes etc (nor would I like to, thats messing with nature as is humans polluting the enviroment)...but we can take steps to reduce the REASONS for the more unusual weather we are all experiencing by cutting down on the toxins put into the atmosphere. No we can't stop volcanos..but do we have to keep knowingly pollute the world with toxins? Cause and effect!

Where do I get my info?...from the internet!

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...techange_x.htm

What is your source for such a statement?

Ponrauil

There are several:

- Here is an article on cnn.com that supports the document itself, but even they cant disregard the fact that the document is written by politicians. Here is the relevant quote and link

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html

"the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on February 2."

- Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, exposed how the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be "change[d]" to "ensure consistency with" the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

Read the appendix as I said above. Its there.

- Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT meteorologist, who was a contributing author to a Chapter in the IPCC's third assessment, among others, has said that the Summary for Policymakers did not reflect the scientific work he conducted. One of the "2500 scientists" comes out against the report.

- The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers and found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary - Wall Street Journal.

- Keith Shine, a lead author of the 2001 report, said " We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." A Treaty Built on Hot Air, Not Scientific Consensus, Wall Street Journal.

Do I have to keep going? There are tons of non-biased news agencies reporting this.

Try to forget the bollocks political side of it for a moment. You can't ignore the fact that our climate is changing, most likely influenced over the past few hundred years as we made more of an impact with industry, pumping crap into the atmosphere, into the oceans - it can't just be a co-incidence.

Even if you can't see that side of it, we need to find new, renewable energy sources anyway, due to the fact that we've nearly drained all of the natural ones (coal, oil and gas)

I agree that the world changes its enviroment natualy but its been proven that it has changed far quicker then ever before since the industrial revolution

Pumping so much crap into our oceans and the atmosphere is going to have no effect whatsoever on our climate?

You may not want to believe the glossy, politically-skewed version of the report but ask yourself this? If the politicians have their own personal agenda, what benefits come from saying that human activity IS responsible for climate change exactly?

You may see the intervention as a political group presenting an over-exaggerated version of the 'truth' but maybe, on the flip-side, they have toned down the 'real' report because if we all knew how bad things REALLY are (or are set to become), there would be severe repercussions and civil disorder? That possibility has as much credibility as your speculation that they have doctored the report in such a way as to over-exaggerate the effects we have on our environment.

We can hypothesise all we want but the facts presented thus far all imply that humans DO affect the climate and that global warming is influenced by our day-to-day living.

Realistically, how can it not be? There are consequences to everything because everything operates in a delicate balance. Disturb the balance too much and you may not be able to fix it if things start going tits-up.

If we go on thinking we can live the way we do and then, one day, proof comes out that is completely undeniable even to those most opposed to the notion that we are to blame for such severe climate change but..... oh dear, it's too late to do anything - what then exactly?

I think the consequences will be a bit more serious than, "Oh well, nevermind. I guess we were wrong afterall!"