UN scientists see grim future if no climate action

Mar 23, 2014 by Richard Ingham
UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

A draft of their report, seen by AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), likely to shape policies and for years to come.

Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from Tuesday to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.

"We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences... including the implications for security," said Chris Field of the United States' Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.

The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming.

It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3-4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, adding to roughly 0.7 C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26-82 centimetres (10.4-32.8 inches) by 2100.

The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much.

Warming of 2.5 C over pre-industrial times—0.5 C more than the UN's target—may cost 0.2-2.0 percent of global annual income, a figure that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

"The assessments that we can do at the moment probably still underestimate the actual impacts of future climate change," said Jacob Schewe of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany, who was not involved in the IPCC drafting.

Many scientists concurred, he said, that recent heatwaves and floods were evidence of climate change already on the march—and a harbinger of a future in which once-freakish weather events become much less rare.

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed

Among the perils listed in the draft are these:

— FLOODING: Rising will "significantly" boost the risk of floods, with Europe and Asia particularly exposed. In the highest warming scenarios of untamed greenhouse gas emissions, three times as many people will be exposed to severe river flooding as with lower warming.

- DROUGHT: For every 1 C (1.8 F) rise in temperature, another seven percent of the world's population will see renewable decline by a fifth.

- RISING SEAS: If no measures are taken, "hundreds of millions" of coastal dwellers will be displaced by 2100. Small-island states and East, Southeast and South Asia will be the biggest land-losers.

- HUNGER: Average yields of wheat, rice and corn may fall by two percent per decade, while demand for crops is likely to rise by up to 14 percent by 2050 as Earth's population grows. The crunch will hit poor, tropical countries worst.

- SPECIES LOSS: A "large fraction" of land and freshwater species may risk extinction, their habitat destroyed by climate change.

Security threat

Poverty, migration and hunger are invisible drivers of turbulence and war, as they sharpen competition for dwindling resources, the report warns.

"Climate change over the 21st century will lead to new challenges to states and will increasingly shape national security policies," its draft summary says.

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed

"Small-island states and other states highly vulnerable to sea-level rise face major challenges to their territorial integrity.

"Some transboundary impacts of , such as changes in sea ice, shared water resources and migration of fish stocks, have the potential to increase rivalry among states. The presence of robust institutions can manage many of these rivalries to reduce conflict risk."

By reducing carbon emissions "over the next few decades", the world can stave off many of the worst climate consequences by century's end, says the report.

The IPCC will issue a third volume, on strategies for tackling , in Berlin on April 13.

The panel has issued four previous "assessment reports" in its quarter-century history.

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed

Each has sounded a louder drumbeat of warning about the gigatonnes of carbon dioxide spewed by traffic, power stations and other fossil-fuel burners and methane from deforestation and farming.

The Yokohama volume goes further than its predecessors in forecasting regional impacts in greater detail and emphasising the risk of conflict and rising seas.

The IPCC's last big report in 2007 helped unleash political momentum leading to the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen. But its reputation was dented by several mistakes, seized upon by climate skeptics as proof of bias.

Explore further: UN report sees $1.45 tn global warming cost: media

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN report sees $1.45 tn global warming cost: media

Feb 28, 2014

Global warming will reduce the world's crop production by up to two percent every decade and wreak $1.45 trillion of economic damage by the end of this century, according to a draft UN report, Japanese media ...

Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

Jan 17, 2014

The next 15 years will be vital in determining whether global warming can be limited to 2C (3.6F) by 2100, with energy and transport presenting the heftiest challenges, according to a draft UN report.

UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

Sep 21, 2013

Scientists will hike pressure next week on the UN's troubled climate talks as they release a report pointing to the dizzying challenge of meeting the international body's target for global warming.

Recommended for you

World greenhouse emissions threaten warming goal

5 hours ago

Emissions of greenhouse gases are rising so fast that within one generation the world will have used up its margin of safety for limiting global warming to 2°C (3.6°F), an international team of scientists ...

Tens of thousands join London climate march

6 hours ago

Tens of thousands of people in London joined a global day of protest Sunday to demand action on climate change, among them British actress Emma Thompson who said the challenge to save the planet was like ...

UN summit to test commitment to climate fund

6 hours ago

A global fund created to spearhead climate change financing faces a key test at a UN summit this week when it looks to the leaders of the industrialised world to stump up billions of dollars to fill its underflowing ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
2.2 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2014
Talk about a propaganda campaign. And phys.org is right in there plugging away with pictures of starving children (who will be the most harmed by restricted economic growth.) See the DDT ban for the fruits of leftist ideology.
neilllusion
2.2 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2014
I am shocked at the totally untrue article here about global warming. The climate has not risen in temperature for the last approx 17 YEARS ! ! That is a FACT. CO2 has kept rising in this time - so go figure - so many lies and sensationalist drama around same. Shame on this author and I'm afraid, the credibility of phys.org comes into question...sorry but I write the truth
neilllusion
2.3 / 5 (22) Mar 23, 2014
UN scientists are seen to be backtracking on their previous predictions, quite a lot less temp rise to 2100 (as if anyone could claim to have any clue about the climate in 2100!) !!!82cm!!! rise in sea level ??? I've not seen that anywhere... I was motivated to go thru each untrue statement promoted above, but there's too much, people. The article is a complete faith based nonsense. The earth warmed... it stopped warming 17yrs ago. What was Richard Ingham trying to do with this nonsense article, wrong on so many points that it is a disgrace to any form of jounalism/reporting
freeiam
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2014
I see a grim future for UN climate sensationalists.
No one can be serious about a prediction that has a factor 15 deviation.
Incredible.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2014
The best chart for comparing CO2 in ppm versus temperature is the data set from Mt Mauna Loa I've linked to here:
http://www.climat...sses.htm

The CO2 vs Temperature graph is located just about halfway down the page. Since the 1998 year of the Hockey Stick, the graph shows gradually increasing PPM of CO2 from just over 300 to just under 400 ppm for the period. For the same period the graph shows level to slightly declining atmospheric temperatures.

If CO2 vs.Temperature were mathematically linear, a rate of reaction equation could be easily derived by which we could calculate the non-variance with absolute precision till the end of time. So-called "Climatologists" are not producing a rate of reaction equation because the data stream doesn't fit the linear relationship they expected, instead the so-called linearity of CO2 vs. Temperature has inverted since 1998.

The data doesn't fit the template of the rate of reaction equation climatologists long for.
Duude
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2014
The grim future they are really referring is the lack of a more healthy stream of taxpayer dollars to science studying global warming.
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2014
You deniers have a problem of either being dups for the Koch brothers. I tend to agree with climate scientist Mann, that the climate response has been underestimated by the IPCC and we could see a 2.0C rise in global average temps by as early as 2040.
There is no such thing as global cooling. That is flat-earth thinking. That is the propaganda you deniers love to spread and so many of you sheep seem to swallow. The reality is global warming produces a number of localized responses depending on location, geography, latitude, seasons etc. The IPCC is saying that these effects will be more pronounced with the certain temperature increases we can expect from continued use fossil fuel.
The hockeystick shows CO2 at 400ppm, for the past 4 million years it hasn't exceeded 285ppm. That is man made. Temperatures track CO2 in lockstep so it's no surprise to see temperatures move upwards. You so called experts in "flat-earthism" need to find a new source of funds besides Koch money
Sinister1812
3.5 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2014
Just ignore the top six comments. We're trying to get their tax money, to support our lord and savior Al Gore.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2014
Just ignore the top six comments. We're trying to get their tax money, to support our lord and savior Al Gore.
Nice satire.

It also seems funny the fearmongering and nashing of teeth by the IPCC "scientists" appears to be in direct proportion to the length of the climate pause.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2014
No Sinister that doesn't have anything to do with taxes or Al Gore, that has to do with deniers increasingly desperate scramble for any facts supporting their flat-earth point of view.

Just a little back of the envelope calculation show that for every 50ppm/CO2 the global average temp increases 1 degree C. From our current fossil fuel consumption rate, I project 500ppm+/- 10 in 2050, 600ppm by 2100. That corresponds to 4C change 2100. 2C near 2050. It's enough that all of the predictions by the UN IPCC panel seem to be mankind's future.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2014
It's bizarre how many people actually WANT to live in a future dominated by smokestacks and radioactive wastes to be dumped and resurface who knows where.

I can understand that some people don't really have the mental capacity to get what a degree average temperature rise actually means. Their brain probaly shuts down at "oh, instead of freezing it'll just be 1 degree warm - how bad can that be? And warm is good for plants, right?"
But: How can they think their 'opinions' can be considered as anything else but those of a toddler?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2014
No Sinister that doesn't have anything to do with taxes or Al Gore, that has to do with deniers increasingly desperate scramble for any facts supporting their flat-earth point of view.

Just a little back of the envelope calculation show that for every 50ppm/CO2 the global average temp increases 1 degree C. From our current fossil fuel consumption rate, I project 500ppm+/- 10 in 2050, 600ppm by 2100. That corresponds to 4C change 2100. 2C near 2050. It's enough that all of the predictions by the UN IPCC panel seem to be mankind's future.
LOL. Funny then the climate has been cooling for more than a dozen years:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2014
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
https://www.jewis...lie.html

Fortunately one professional science organization is attempting to restore science to climate science:

"At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen."
http://news.inves...ls/03211
Sinister1812
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
No Sinister that doesn't have anything to do with taxes or Al Gore, that has to do with deniers increasingly desperate scramble for any facts supporting their flat-earth point of view.


Yeah that's true. Can't argue there.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2014
Does the UN see a grim future under socialism?

"Ukraine fears Russia 'ready to attack'"
http://news.yahoo...650.html
Thanks to AGW policies, the Euros are at the mercy of Russian gas.
How many AGWites here think Putin will follow the UN climate change fantasies?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2014
"Putin intends to have Gazprom develop the off-shore gas reserves of Chornomornaftohaz and Ukrtransgaz, two firms nationalized earlier this week by the Crimean parliament. By having Russia acquire Crimea, Putin gained control of about 70% of Ukraine's Black Sea off-shore oil and gas drilling rights. "
"ExxonMobil Corporation was intent on breaking Gazprom's dominance in supplying over 50% to 100% of the natural gas usage for 18 countries in Europe, including Germany and the Ukraine."
""Exxon and Shell are now in a legal limbo." They pursued an "exploration deal with a government which may soon no longer have jurisdiction over the region." "
http://www.breitb...s-Rights
Euros, how do you like paying a govt subject to no nation's law for gas instead of a corp. subject to laws of many nations?
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2014
This is a better graph for you Ubbatuba:

http://www.woodfo...fset:300

And R2 says " how do you like paying a govt subject to no nation's law for gas..." and this has to do with the UN IPCC assessments of global warming consequences exactly how? By the way, here is the APS position on global waming. 1-3C increase can be expected.

http://www.aps.or...07_1.cfm

Sinister1812
3.1 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
Howhot, I agree with everything you said. My comment earlier was at the deniers..
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
This is a better graph for you Ubbatuba:

http://www.woodfo...fset:300
Naw, this one is more germane:

http://www.woodfo...set:-345

neilllusion
2 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2014
It is clear that temperature rise goes before CO2 rise. That is a fact. And it makes sense. Increase temperature and gas comes out of solution. What doesn't make sense is that a gaseous molecule that makes up only 350 parts per million ( 1 part in 3000 approx) is thought to have any possible significant effect on climate, especially when put along side other climate forces. (the sun, clouds as two of many many examples.) Water vapour at 30,000 parts per million ( 1 in 30 approx) is much more prevalent in the atmosphere.
@ howhot - answer me this - how much temperature rise has occured in the last 10 to 15 yrs?
NONE! some would say its gone down a bit. And yet CO2 kept on rising. Come on lets put some logical reason together here. It is a rather blatant, in your face AGW mythbuster!!!!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
Just ignore the top six comments. We're trying to get their tax money, to support our lord and savior Al Gore.


I gave you a 5 star rating for this comment, it's about the most honest & accurate statement you've ever made, after all, that's why we come here & post our commentary, to express our most honest & deepest expression of our moral values?
neilllusion
2 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
If none of the climate 'Models' , relied upon so much by AGWers and IPCC, predicted the temperature flat-lining, what does that say about them? Even now they are being adjusted yet again (downward) in their predictions...
Interesting is the report that all the planets in the solar system warmed as the earth warmed. What then now? Has some sort of regulatory feedback (neg) kicked in to halt the warming as it has for the last 17 yrs?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
It is clear that temperature rise goes before CO2 rise.


So give us the time integrating response equation for the lag time.

What doesn't make sense is that a gaseous molecule that makes up only 350 parts per million ( 1 part in 3000 approx) is thought to have any possible significant effect on climate


CO2 makes up 0.04 % of the atmosphere, AGW's never bring this up, the reason being that it has the appearance of looking too miniscule for the believability of their claims.

neilllusion
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2014
@benni perhaps you could give me the time integrating response equation for the CO2 if you're suggesting that rises first (which was clearly shown not to be the case in the climate scientists own hockey schtick graph( %$^%$% $% science) Mann/Gore etc. I have not seen a figure put on the lag time.

CO2 makes up 0.04 % of the atmosphere, AGW's never bring this up, the reason being that it has the appearance of looking too miniscule for the believability of their claims.

...good comment...

Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2014
@JohnGee

You have been spending all your time today cruising this website just looking for a post onto which to cast another one of those much feared one stars, I see.

I gave you some homework calculating & graphing some orbital mechanics this morning. Just wondering how you've been doin'? And the other's, they helping?

Maybe if you feel up to it, you can add to it the rate of reaction equations for setting up the the integral & differential equations we need for deriving the "time integrating response" for CO2 vs. Temperature for the past number of years.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
this has to do with the UN IPCC assessments of global warming consequences exactly how

It's called tilting at windmills.
JohnGee
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2014
The only quixotic quest I see is your mission to merge cryptofascism with anarcho-capitalism.
neilllusion
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
@benni John Gee? mmm
I've spent about an hour here all told I think. The article above is just incredible, inaccurate and contrived in language - quite clever language actually (pity the science was lacking) - suggest much without actually saying the words, political intellectual-type deceit.
I returned your homework to you so lets see who finishes first. Since those numbers mean so much to you perhaps I'll let you win, as long as the math works.
But seriously it does work both ways. And you haven't found fault with the main points I've made in this debate?
perhaps you're a troll bot, lot of them about.
What you have actually added to the debate has not had any interest/value to talk about.

Ok now i'm gonna google john gee, see who I have bin mistaken for.....
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
The only quixotic quest I see is your mission to merge cryptofascism with anarcho-capitalism.

How will UN AGWites persuade a socialist dictator like Putin to 'save the planet'?
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2014
The only quixotic quest I see is your mission to merge cryptofascism with anarcho-capitalism.

How will UN AGWites persuade a socialist dictator like Putin to 'save the planet'?


Global warming doesn't have national borders.
neilllusion
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
hwohot...

Global stopped warming you mean?
neilllusion
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
why is no-one discussing the bare faced lies in the article above?

who is richard ingham
Lex Talonis
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2014
I put it down to the fact - the scientifically proven fact, that Jesus is spending too much time with his 12 boyfriends, and not enough time on the weather management computer.
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
At JohnGee
Best post of the day!
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2014
Here ubbatuba, I corrected your graph for you.

http://www.woodfo...set:-340

You flateath deniers really want to see the earth bake, see people suffer famines and watch one of the largest mass extinctions from climate change. Koch really owns you.

One of the flatearth types asks "answer me this - how much temperature rise has occured in the last 10 to 15 yrs?" Depends on where you are at. Temperature rise hasn't been even. However, all you need to do is look at Greenland to see that temps there are extremely abnormal. But since you like numbers and figures, here is the temp measured from the lower troposphere imaged from satellite.

http://www.woodfo.../trend:1

It certainly shows a rise.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
The only quixotic quest I see is your mission to merge cryptofascism with anarcho-capitalism.

How will UN AGWites persuade a socialist dictator like Putin to 'save the planet'?


Global warming doesn't have national borders.

So?
How will you persuade socialist dictators they need to follow AGWites to 'save the planet'?
Chernobyl was under the control of a socialist dictator.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2014
Here ubbatuba, I corrected your graph for you.

http://www.woodfo...set:-340
What is it about the last 16 years that threatens you so that you feel the need to cherry-pick beyond it?

http://www.woodfo...set:-345

Oh, it's that it belies every claim you've ever made.

Howhot
4 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2014
Hay Ubbatubba you might like this one then. It fixes all of those issue by plotting everything since 1980. No cherry picking here;

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

It seems the flatearthers are going to eat crow for dinner. There is not a cooling trend at all. Actually if anything, it's accelerating when you get to the upper latitudes of the polar regions. I hope there are enough crows to go around.

Howhot
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
The only quixotic quest I see is your mission to merge cryptofascism with anarcho-capitalism.

How will UN AGWites persuade a socialist dictator like Putin to 'save the planet'?


Global warming doesn't have national borders.

So?
How will you persuade socialist dictators they need to follow AGWites to 'save the planet'?
Chernobyl was under the control of a socialist dictator.


It's your problem R2, you tell me.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
@benni John Gee? mmm

I've spent about an hour here all told I think.
I returned your homework to you so lets see who finishes first.


Not sure whose homework you're referring to here, but follow my next statement:

Since those numbers mean so much to you perhaps I'll let you win, as long as the math works.


Coming up with correlations of numbers in a math data set when the relationship for determining cause & effect are non-linear can be a daunting calculation. To do this requires a lot of calculus that would be a challenge to any math major, which I'm sure JohnGee is not or he would already be bragging about it.

A reliable "integrating response calculation" cannot be done with Temperature & CO2 ppm not exhibiting graphical correlation with one another, the case here. The problem being that Temperature data points are so close to random scatter points, in lieu of ppm CO2 which is steady & consistent in one direction.

JohnGee
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
Right, like I somehow never heard of orbital eccentricity even though I was the one who brought it up. You don't get to assign me homework.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
Right, like I somehow never heard of orbital eccentricity even though I was the one who brought it up. You don't get to assign me homework.


........now learn some calculus, you're gonna need it if you if you ever hope to prove the Mauna Loa data of CO2 vs. Atmospheric Temperature does or does not mean "global warming".

Were you able to follow Swindell's advanced grade school math last week when he posted his prognostications for the next 100 years? It was aimed right at you.....the mathematically challenged low information shlub.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2014
The only quixotic quest I see is your mission to merge cryptofascism with anarcho-capitalism.

How will UN AGWites persuade a socialist dictator like Putin to 'save the planet'?


Global warming doesn't have national borders.

So?
How will you persuade socialist dictators they need to follow AGWites to 'save the planet'?
Chernobyl was under the control of a socialist dictator.


It's your problem R2, you tell me.


You are the socialist AGWite. How do you plan to convince a socialist tyrant?
Sinister1812
3 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2014
I see I've been getting 1s from Howhot and Vietvet. I agree with you both, and I am ON YOUR SIDE. My first post was mocking the denialists (it was sarcasm). And I have been giving you both 5s for every post. So what the hell?
Osiris1
2.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
No one has ever 'repealed' the 'shepherder's motivation' to cheat, and our world is full of cheaters who would take someone else's well tended patrimony to flll in for their spendthriftiness. Such will have large military budgets, like China and Russia...and the USA and others. Any rules the UN tries to pass will be flouted by those who would veto any effective fairness plans in their cribs. The world is in for a verrrry baaadddd time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
No one has ever 'repealed' the 'shepherder's motivation' to cheat,

That's why fences make good neighbors.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2014
UN scientists see grim future if no climate action

Of course they do, but not for who they claim.
We are witnessing the last gasping lies of a deceitful cult, as their grand scheme crumbles beneath them. Only the few AGW Chicken Littles, blinded by their ignorance, will fail to see these doom and gloom preachings for what they are.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2014
Hay Ubbatubba you might like this one then. It fixes all of those issue by plotting everything since 1980. No cherry picking here;

http://www.woodfo...11/trend
Liar. Again, you have cherry-picked beyond the last 16 years. Why do you fear them so?

There is not a cooling trend at all. Actually if anything, it's accelerating when you get to the upper latitudes of the polar regions
Why are you denying the science?

Cooling trend for more than the last 12 years:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
My good friend R2 asks, "You are the socialist AGWite. How do you plan to convince a socialist tyrant?"

Actually not even close, but you never answered the question winky ... I mean R2. What is your point? It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the sciences, and you accusations (and that is what they are) are pretty much on edge of BOZOism. So Winky; Are you some neo-fascist being forced to deny global warming do to your bozo nature?

Two quotes from a classic sum up the deniers belief system.

"They yearn for what they fear for."

"There is no greater sorrow then to recall our times of joy in wretchedness."

― Dante Alighieri, Inferno
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
I see I've been getting 1s from Howhot and Vietvet. I agree with you both, and I am ON YOUR SIDE. My first post was mocking the denialists (it was sarcasm). And I have been giving you both 5s for every post. So what the hell?


Sorry, friendly fire. At least I didn't rip into you like I would for some quote like "Only the few AGW Chicken Littles, blinded by their ignorance, will fail to see these doom and gloom preachings for what they are." How many of these pea head deniers are there? None of these bozo's even talks about the points of the article.

We can expect, "FLOODING, DROUGHTS, RISING SEAS, HUNGER, and SPECIES LOSS". Some people are doing their bests in trying to stop AGW (the Prius driver, the solar home builders, the engineers that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, etc). But deniers want flooding, droughts .. etc. That is the best I can tell from there anti-science flatearther comments. And I guarantee they all vote republican.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
Seas will creep up by 26-82 centimetres (10.4-32.8 inches) by 2100.
This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
Seas will creep up by 26-82 centimetres (10.4-32.8 inches) by 2100.
This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

The problem with the above URL, is the ICE is going to melt, and that map will be true possibly within you lifetime. It depends on how fast ice melts. The fossil fuel CO2 that is causing all of this, last for 100s of years in the atmosphere so we are just building it up slowly, GIGA-TONS of CO2 per year that is just going to sit and linger, heating the world to its DOOM. Flooding it, baking it, transforming it until it's just a human made burnt umber of waste.

At that point Ubba, desperation rules. You deniers don't have the fore site to see that potential future coming, happy to accuse Obama of your own failings, but it is real scientific probability you choose to ignore with imaginary slopes.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
Ubbatubba, Your a lair, a propagandist, and a deceitful human. Deniers just can't stand the idea they took the wrong side of a position and now have to eat the crow they chose.

http://ngm.nation...lted-map

The problem with the above URL, is the ICE is going to melt, and that map will be true possibly within you lifetime. It depends on how fast ice melts. The fossil fuel CO2 that is causing all of this last for 100 of years in the atmosphere so we are just building it up slowly, GIGA-TONS of CO2 per year that is just going to sit a linger, heating the world to its DOOM.
You are doomsday cult crazed.

The only reason the Arctic sea ice isn't setting records this year is becase it is bounded by land (if North America wasn't there, record sea ice extents would cover the region, as evidenced by the unusal freezng of the Great Lakes). Even so, it's continuing to freeze much later in the season than normal:

http://arctic.atm...ive.html
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
Ubbatubba says;
You are doomsday cult crazed.


Really? I'm not the one that wants earth to destroy itself is a toxic wasteland of coal ash and fowled water combined with global warming of unprecedented levels not seen for millions of years! You keep sighting the forest from the trees website, that you abuse to lie to people. Liars often lie to themselves. Another Dante quote comes to mind;

"O conscience, upright and stainless, how bitter a sting to thee is a little fault!"

Meaning, it stings to be wrong and admit it. Fess up Ubba.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
Ubbatubba says;
You are doomsday cult crazed.


Really? I'm not the one that wants earth to destroy itself is a toxic wasteland of coal ash and fowled water combined with global warming of unprecedented levels not seen for millions of years!
Do you even have a clue how messed up you are?

You keep sighting the forest from the trees website, that you abuse to lie to people.
So providing real, scientifically collected, empirical data is "lying" now?

Liars often lie to themselves.
You would know.

Another Dante quote comes to mind;

"O conscience, upright and stainless, how bitter a sting to thee is a little fault!"
Pompous much?

Meaning, it stings to be wrong and admit it. Fess up Ubba.
Sadly, I was wrong in hoping you might see reason.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
"Energy products are not only commercial commodities but strategic ones. Indeed, energy is the life blood of modern societies and civilizations. Political and commercial interests will therefore continue to shape energy markets in tandem. This means that containing political disputes can substantially enhance energy security for both producers and consumers.

Despite successful efforts to improve energy efficiency the European Union's energy needs are projected to rise. As the recent Ukrainian crisis shows, Europe's over-dependence on Russian oil and gas supplies is risky and can lead to political intimidation."
http://www.isn.et...d=177912
AGwites, reality bites.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
"Brazil is fighting against time to avoid crippling power blackouts and electricity rationing as a drought prevents the world's most water-rich nation from recharging its hydroelectric dams."
" The situation is already testing the government of President Dilma Rousseff as October's presidential election nears.

The risks of rationing and costs associated with the drought threaten growth and investment in the country, Standard & Poor's said on Monday when it downgraded the credit rating on Brazil's foreign currency debt."
"Without the new gas, coal and oil capacity built since 2002, Brazil would already be turning off the lights."
""What should be a technical problem is now an economic and political problem,"
http://news.yahoo...nce.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
"The move comes in response to a shareholder resolution and as the nation marks the 25th anniversary of the Valdez oil spill that released 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in Alaska"
http://buzz.money...id=HP_LN

How do socialist 'shareholders' get their dictator to do what they want?
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
@Sinster182
Sorry I missed the sarcasm. It read like something ryggy aka WhiteBikerTrash would have written.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
@Vietvet, what side were you on, if you really are a Vietnam vet?
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
The @ubbatubba asks;
Pompous much?


Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
@ryggeson2
As a Marine I severed in Vietnam from Oct. 1966 to Dec. 1969.
Sinister1812
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
@Sinster182
Sorry I missed the sarcasm. It read like something ryggy aka WhiteBikerTrash would have written.


Yeah, my bad. It wasn't the best attempt at it. Sounded like something antigoracle would post here..
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
How do socialist 'shareholders' get their dictator to do what they want?

I don't know @R2. How do they?

Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2014
@ryggeson2
The last 23 months in Vietnam I was a member of 3rd CAG, a part of CAP. If your interested check out the link.
https://sites.goo...-history
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
"On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.

At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap."
http://www.spiege...69.html#
"The polar bears are fine." Freeman Dyson.

Veitvet, I don't understand how anyone who was in the military can support socialism. Maybe they like the socialist nature of the military and have had the independence beaten out of them?
But all officers take an oath to support and defend the US Constitution. Have you changed your mind?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
"Three European academics asked themselves recently how 19 United Nations summit meetings have been unable to produce a treaty on global warming. Why the cause of climate change has fallen apart is described in "Melting Summits," a paper and cautionary tale just published in the Academy of Management Journal by Elke Schüssler of Germany, Charles Clemens Rüling of France and Bettina Wittneben of the U.K."
"somehow, an idea with which "no serious scientist disagrees" has gone nowhere as policy. The collapse of the U.N.'s 2009 Copenhagen climate summit was a meltdown for the ages. "
" it's not about doing something serious about global warming. It's really all about them (a virus threatening American conservatism as well). The "them" at the U.N. summits included not just the participating nations but a galaxy of well-financed nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs. "
http://online.wsj...amp;url=
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
"Rather than resolve the complexities of public policy in the world we inhabit, the left's default is to simply acquire power, then cram down what they want to do with one-party votes or by fiat, figuring they can muddle through the wreckage later. Thus the ObamaCare mandates. Thus candidate de Blasio's determination, cheered on by the city's left-wing establishment, to jam all its kids through an antique public-school system. The ObamaCare mandates are a mess, and the war on charter schools is an embarrassment.

Making the unworkable work by executive decree or court-ordered obedience is one way to rule, and maybe they like it that way. But it isn't governing. "
http://online.wsj..._LEADTop

This describes the 'liberals' here who try to acquire power.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
R2 You are so full of crap, you must be a raving lunatic in a face to face political discussion. You say your other, but you have all of the positions speeches of a rightwing loon conservative. For example;
The ObamaCare mandates are a mess, and the war on charter schools is an embarrassment.

The onlything wrong with the Obamacare is that it's not single-payer (what most every other sane country in the worlds has). There are enough subsidies in the law to take care of anyone 130% of poverty. The rest of us 130% and above should already have it from employers, business expenses budget, or Medicare. Considering the disaster that existed before Obamacare; this is a major mile stone for the USA.

On that issue, its the raving made conservative puppet lunatic that screams when they speak that seems to be have the problem with law. The rest of us demand that government just do the right thing.


Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
However, lets bring the dialog back on topic. The IPCC predictions, or items to prepare the world for in the coming future are all man made caused, namely DROUGHT, SEA LEVEL RISE, HUNGER, AND SPECIES LOSS. James Hansen (famous NASA climate scientist) has also made the point, that at a 3C increase in global averages, we can expect a mass extinction of species comparable to a massive comet strike. We've already kicked it up 1C since then. I predict that by 2100 we'll be way past that and onto 4C.

Things will have to get drastic to avoid that, and in the US, it might even include outlawing COAL. For every ton of coal burned, 2.8 tons of CO2 are created!
Here is a good video that talks about this very subject. 11min.17sec long.
https://www.youtu...Y-jMrqaQ
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2014
I do agree that poverty IS 'man' caused, by socialists, and can be prevented.

SPECIES LOSS

What species loss? IPCC has no data to support that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2014
"With no power, the country would lose transportation, our food would go bad and we'd lose the communication tools we've come to rely on. To envision what that would look like, just picture New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Pry says.

The coalition estimates that we'd lose up to 90 percent of our population within a year.

But it wouldn't necessarily take a hostile foreign power's nuclear trickery to spark the downfall: The coalition claims American demise could come from the flares of a fickle sun."
http://www.nation...20140328