The Climate Change Debate
| Climate change not imminent danger, UN panel chief says There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Even so, it would be good for governments to go further with proposed cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions to deal with dire predictions made in a 2007 panel report, he told the Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday. "I don’t think we should jump to conclusions if we get material that is based on the last one or two years," he said. But governments should rethink their responses to the panel’s 2007 report, which predicted sea levels would rise by 40 centimetres to 1.4 metres even if drastic cuts were made in carbon emissions. Now he has warned that if gigantic ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica melt, the sea could rise even more, flooding coastal areas and islands and causing widespread environmental disruptions. The report recommended large drops in carbon emissions after 2015 to contain the changes, but governments should reconsider whether even those targets go far enough, Pachauri said. He made the comments at a meeting in Poznan, Poland, where more than 10,000 delegates and environmentalists are trying to hammer out an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases. It is intended to to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Pachauri is worried that the negotiators would leave the key decisions to the end of the meeting, producing "a weak agreement that doesn’t really address the problem." [ link ] |
Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong. Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same. His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them terrified. Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from the frontline of the war against climate change. Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control – far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad. "As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had got it completely wrong." Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and "dangerously misguided" at worst. [ link ] |
If you’ve ever wondered why people don’t seem to know what’s going on – here’s your answer…. who’s right?
The important question is how is this all Alberta’s fault and how can we shut down the tar sands?
Hmm, so we’re to decide between whether or not we’re already screwed versus we’re not doing nearly enough to prevent being screwed in the not-quite-imminent future? Nice choice.
I’ll say that I hope the first guy is right, even though I suspect it’s the second one, due to the fact that the prospect of our not being able to do sweet bugger all about the whole thing strikes me as defeatist.
If you want a real debate, find one of the folks claiming the whole Global Warming thing is a big hoax due to the fact that it got cold this winter. I’ve noticed they’ve become something of an annual tradition, so they shouldn’t be hard to find.
I have a head cold and feel about as sharp as a tennis ball.
Reading both articles I came away with;
“There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world”
However, even though global temperatures steadfastly refuse to increase in the face of carbon emissions that are ” soaring way out of control ” we are cautioned not to jump to any conclusions.
And in fact ” it would be good for governments to go further with proposed cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions to deal with dire predictions made in a 2007 panel report”
We should shut down China and India just to be on the safe side.
Is that about right?
@BJ – I’m afraid I join you in the “I think we’re screwed” category BJ, even if we were not (well) passed the tipping point (which I happen to believe we are) there are far too many @doug newton’s in the world who seem to want someone else to do something first for anything to ever get done – even were it possible at this late date to actually do anything.
In my short life I’ve seen the changes happening, and I know elders who have seen more – ultimately those changes will make themselves as evident in the south as they are in the north while I’ll get some satisfaction out of the “quit moaning, you was warned” comments I’ll get to use that’s not going to change the fact that the world our grandchildren inherit is not going to be a pretty one.
PS: Where did you get the idea that global temperatures have not risen Doug? Have you got a reputable source for it?
stageleft
I’m just trying to make sense of the two articles that you put up.
The UN panel chief says “There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world”
Mr. Anderson tells us “carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world.”
However, the average global temperature hasn’t risen since 2001.
Here is the first article that I could find on that topic.
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
I thought that this is what Mr.Pachauri was referring to when he said “I don’t think we should jump to conclusions if we get material that is based on the last one or two years”
Perhaps I’m wrong in that assumption but what do you make of his opening statement?
This is not to say that there haven’t been local changes. I have my own anecdotal evidence to support that. The gradual increase in the northern range of cormorants and the thickness and duration of the ice on the lake for instance. I certainly remember colder winters when I was a kid, but that could have been due to the fact that I had to walk uphill both going to school and coming home.
Nasty,
No one will have to shut down the tarsands, the price of il at $40 per barrel will do that, even with a Stephen Harper majority. I’d blame the Saudis.
doug newton – “I certainly remember colder winters when I was a kid, but that could have been due to the fact that I had to walk uphill both going to school and coming home. ”
Yes, but you obviously had boots so were part of the elite. I, on the other hand, did not, so was not.
And yes, I remember MUCH worse winters as a child (although I must say that the last 2 winters in Edmonton rivalled them, perhaps even record-wise – this year, the snow didn’t stay on the ground until late Nov/early Dec and may melt tomorrow). As an Edmontonian, I’m all about screw-the-world, give-me-a-livable-winter-already.
And on really cold days, I’m the first to ask Al Gore where the hell is he?
That being said, as per the post, there is a lot of conflicting info out there and without a related education or degrees or knowledge base to rely on, I can only go with anecdotal. And it, too, is conflicting.
I always try to look at the extreme positions, and ignore both. Then look at the middle ground. That’s where the truth usually lies. It’s served me well.
I would advise ‘don’t buy beachfront property’.
I plan to sell my cottage within 3 years because I believe it will be worthless in my lifetime.
I hope to sell it to a climate denialist.
Nastyboy: Not that I trust the US Senate for anything (’cause I don’t) but how generous to point you to 650 potential customers for your beachfront.