PDA

View Full Version : A Meeting of Minds -- Global Warming is Probably Caused By Humans



jillian
02-01-2007, 12:22 PM
Humans 'Very Likely' Causing Global Warming
(AP) PARIS Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-awaited international report will say that global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change conference said.

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday and is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide.

Three participants said the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.

"That is a big move. I hope it is a powerful statement," said Jan Pretel, head of the department of climate change at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute.

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance.

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over the "very likely" statement for man-made warming, said other countries' officials. However, several officials credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement in just 90 minutes.

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and Zimbabwe delegate Washington Zhakata.

China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels, which emit the greenhouse gases blamed for boosting Earth's temperature, to feed its huge and growing energy needs.

The report will also say that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean such as 2005's Katrina, according to Fields and other delegates.

They said the panel approved language saying an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming.

The panel did note that the increase in stronger storms differs in various parts of the globe, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

In 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

This week's report will also mark departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes said the new wording was "very important. ... Insurance companies watch the language too."

The delegates, staring at a countdown clock showing how little time they have left before Friday's deadline, went into Thursday's talks well behind schedule and planned a late-night session.

A draft of the report predicts a temperature increase of between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the year 2100, although that could be adjusted.

Another contentious issue is predictions of sea level rise. Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica.

In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 23 inches by 2100, but that does not include the ice sheet melts.

The report is being edited in English, then must be translated into five other languages. It will be a 12-15 page summary for policymakers in most of the world's countries.

As the delegates hold their evening session, the Eiffel Tower, other Paris monuments and concerned citizens in several European countries were expected to switch off their lights for five minutes to call attention to energy conservation, heeding a call by French environmental campaigners.

Some experts said that while well-intentioned, turning the lights out could actually consume more energy than it would conserve by requiring a power spike when the lights turn back on possibly causing brownouts or even blackouts.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_032100101.html

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 02:27 PM
Humans 'Very Likely' Causing Global Warming

<snip>

The obvious answer is to get rid of some people. Volunteers or suggestions ?

darin
02-01-2007, 02:29 PM
No need to quote the whole post for a one-line reply. :) Let's conserve space!

:D

stephanie
02-01-2007, 02:34 PM
The obvious answer is to get rid of some people. Volunteers or suggestions ?

We wont have to volunteer....

IT'S VERY LIKLEY.....Global Warming........Is going to KILL US ALL...:uhoh:

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 02:36 PM
The obvious answer is to get rid of some people. Volunteers or suggestions ?

We could put all the hardline conservatives onto a spaceship and blast them into outer space in search of another planet they could POLICE. :thumb:

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 02:40 PM
We could put all the hardline conservatives onto a spaceship and blast them into outer space in search of another planet they could POLICE. :thumb:

Who would be left behind to maintain any semblence of order ?

Hobbit
02-01-2007, 02:48 PM
Who would be left behind to maintain any semblence of order ?

Better yet, who would do all the work? On second thought, I'm all for colonizing a new planet if it means I get away from the libs.

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 02:52 PM
Who would be left behind to maintain any semblence of order ?

Who do you think man? The dolphins! http://www.zianet.com/msaxton/TX/seaworld/sw1.JPG

"Kneel before Zod! Ooh! anchovies!"

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 03:00 PM
Who do you think man? The dolphins! http://www.zianet.com/msaxton/TX/seaworld/sw1.JPG

"Kneel before Zod! Ooh! anchovies!"

Liberals would obey dolphins ????:lmao:

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 03:04 PM
Liberals would obey dolphins ????:lmao:

You wouldn't? You voted for Bush twice didn't you? :wink2:

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 03:37 PM
You wouldn't? You voted for Bush twice didn't you? :wink2:

I'm dead serious--who would liberals be willing to submit to if you shot all the conservatives into space? Who would draw lines and keep law and order ? Would all of America look like San Francisco?

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 03:39 PM
I'm dead serious--who would liberals be willing to submit to if you shot all the conservatives into space? Who would draw lines and keep law and order ? Would all of America look like San Francisco?

Yes. Seriously though, if not for cons the libs would have the country looking like a hippie commune and without the libs the cons would have the country looking like Germany circa 1941. I like the middle ground we live on now.

To answer your question in a more direct manner so that I am not accused of dodging, the Libs would use probably use Jeffersonian democracy like we do now and we'd vote our senators and representatives in like we do now. There would be a lot less spending on military, more on social programs, healthcare for everybody and nobody would mind being taxed to pay for those programs because all the hardline cons would be on a spaceship debating what level of opaque-ness should be tolerated in the female cons' space visors for the sake of modesty. And the president would be Lord Zod pictured above. :)

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 03:41 PM
Yes.

One question outta 3 aint bad !

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 03:55 PM
One question outta 3 aint bad !

One? I thought I answered all your questions. You can't seriously believe that the only reason we have laws and order in society is because of conservative minds! The founding fathers were liberal minds in their day. The United States is a liberal idea genius!

If you were wondering, the part about libs using the same type of government we have now is the part that answers your question about "who" would maintain law and order when the Cons were blasted to Uranus.

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 04:01 PM
One? I thought I answered all your questions. You can't seriously believe that the only reason we have laws and order in society is because of conservative minds! The founding fathers were liberal minds in their day. The United States is a liberal idea genius!

If you were wondering, the part about libs using the same type of government we have now is the part that answers your question about "who" would maintain law and order when the Cons were blasted to Uranus.

It was the timing of the posts that led to the misunderstanding--so sorry.

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 04:04 PM
Yes. Seriously though, if not for cons the libs would have the country looking like a hippie commune and without the libs the cons would have the country looking like Germany circa 1941. I like the middle ground we live on now.

To answer your question in a more direct manner so that I am not accused of dodging, the Libs would use probably use Jeffersonian democracy like we do now and we'd vote our senators and representatives in like we do now. There would be a lot less spending on military, more on social programs, healthcare for everybody and nobody would mind being taxed to pay for those programs because all the hardline cons would be on a spaceship debating what level of opaque-ness should be tolerated in the female cons' space visors for the sake of modesty. And the president would be Lord Zod pictured above. :)


Surely you realize that the new ruling libs would be called nazi consevatives by those even further to the left.

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 04:07 PM
Surely you realize that the new ruling libs would be called nazi consevatives by those even further to the left.

But everyone would know that they were just being dramatic because all the real cons would've been blasted into space.

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 04:10 PM
But everyone would know that they were just being dramatic because all the real cons would've been blasted into space.

:lmao: dramatic despotism----I love it !!

Gaffer
02-01-2007, 04:24 PM
Well if all the cons left the libs would reduce the military start a bunch of socialist programs they can't pay for and be invaded and conquored by the first country to get a fleet together.

The founding fathers were not liberals. liberals are socialists. If the founding fathers had been liberals we would not have a Constitution, we would have a politibureau.

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 04:35 PM
Well if all the cons left the libs would reduce the military start a bunch of socialist programs they can't pay for and be invaded and conquored by the first country to get a fleet together.

The founding fathers were not liberals. liberals are socialists. If the founding fathers had been liberals we would not have a Constitution, we would have a politibureau.

No, they were progressive thinkers. If they had been conservative, they would have "conserved" the old ways of England by crowning a king instead of electing to form a representative democracy, which had never before been seen in the world. A new, hence "progressive" idea. Progressive thinking is associated with "liberalism." The founders' ideas were progressive and leftist. They were not on the right side of the political spectrum.

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 04:41 PM
No, they were progressive thinkers. If they had been conservative, they would have "conserved" the old ways of England by crowning a king instead of electing to form a representative democracy, which had never before been seen in the world. A new, hence "progressive" idea. Progressive thinking is associated with "liberalism." The founders' ideas were progressive and leftist. They were not on the right side of the political spectrum.

Anyone who associates true progressive thinking with todays' liberals is goofy.
The "progressives" of today are nothing more than anti-establishment rebels.

avatar4321
02-01-2007, 04:44 PM
oh wow people agree... thats science.

People agreed that the world was flat at one point. Does that mean its science?

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 04:51 PM
Anyone who associates true progressive thinking with todays' liberals is goofy.
The "progressives" of today are nothing more than anti-establishment rebels.

No, you're equating leftist and fringe radicals with well-meaning, temperate left-minded thinkers. I'm not anti-establishment, but I'm not a war-mongering flag waver either. Aren't there any sane people on this forum who fall into the "gray" category? Or is everybody either a hippie-anarchist or a retired-NAM Vet die-hard conservative? The founding fathers WERE progressive thinkers in their day. If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have been able to come up with a novel idea like representative democracy!

Dilloduck
02-01-2007, 04:55 PM
No, you're equating leftist and fringe radicals with left-minded thinkers. I'm not anti-establishment, but I'm not a war-mongering flag waver either. Aren't there any sane people on this forum who fall into the "gray" category? Or is everybody either a hippie-anarchist or a retired-NAM Vet die-hard conservative? The founding fathers WERE progressive thinkers in their day. If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have been able to come up with a novel idea like representative democracy!

I agree with your assesment of our founding fathers being progressive. They were also creative thinkers and actors as opposed to whiney obstructionists. I don't see any creative solutions coming from the liberals here but I assume there are some just as there are some moderate conservatives.

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 05:00 PM
I agree with your assesment of our founding fathers being progressive. They were also creative thinkers and actors as opposed to whiney obstructionists. I don't see any creative solutions coming from the liberals here but I assume there are some just as there are some moderate conservatives.

Agreed.

TheSage
02-01-2007, 08:07 PM
Liberals would obey dolphins ????:lmao:


And conservatives would obey dolphins, if they were jewish dolphins.