Statements like "there are very likely to be major changes," become "there are projected to be major changes," and "likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction," becomes "there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and species' ecological reactions."
SOURCE: DeSmogBlog: Unedited IPCC draft reveals censored science
--------------------------------------------------------
SELECT EXAMPLES:
Throughout the report:
... high confidence ...
-BECOMES-
... it is likely ...
... are very likely to ...
–BECOMES-
... is projected to ...
REMOVED: Chart linking the causes of climate change to observed effects in natural systems.
REMOVED: entire section (page 15) on specific sectors and regions likely to be especially affected by climate change (with high confidence).
It is likely that corals will experience a major decline...
–BECOMES-
Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity...
Glacier melt in the Himalayas is virtually certain to increase...
–BECOMES-
Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase ...
For Arctic human communities it is virtually certain that...
–BECOMES-
For Arctic human communities ... are projected to ...
Side by side comparison: before and after WG2 negotiations.pdf
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 12, 2007]
Note: The side by side before...
here (pdf.)
writes in his column to...
DeSmogBlog: Unedited...
Side by side comparison...
Stumble It!
<a href="http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/</a><br />
<br />
The politics of Global Warming(TM) has overwhelmed whatever real science may still be going on. The whole thing is just a big circus with two powerful factions fighting it out for mind share however they can get it.<br />
<br />
I don't believe either side in this debate - no one should!<br />
<br />
Me, I'm just looking at whatever makes the most sense. It makes no sense to pollute our world with impunity, nor does it make sense to fabricate an apocalypse to justify imposing a bizarre global system of taxation when there are much more effective and meaningful ways to do the job. Basically the largest polluters (those wealthy enough to afford the tax) will keep on polluting, while the poor will be forced to stop. It is an unfair concept that makes no sense at all.<br />
<br />
Not only that, but the science behind the justification has been fabricated to make it appear that the problem is far worse than it actually is and the certainty surrounding the science has been fabricated to make it appear more certain than it actually is.<br />
<br />
The other side in this battle, wants us to think that we can breath directly from a smoke stack and become more healthy for it. <br />
<br />
Both sides are liars with their own respective agendas, The bottom line is that we the people are being shafted yet again.
<br />
I realized that when nobody would listen to the knowledge base of the planet regarding this issue, that it was pointless to argue with an uniformed superstitious mindset. Below are quotes from the statement released by scientists after the 1992 Rio summit. That’s 15 years ago. <br />
<br />
Oh, that’s right, they’re all is this together to pull the wool over our eyes so they can ……. What exactly?!!!<br />
<br />
<br />
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) <br />
________________________________________<br />
Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors. <br />
<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
<br />
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.<br />
<br />
<br />
WARNING<br />
<br />
We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The entire statement can be read here:<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://dieoff.org/page8.htm">http://dieoff.org/page8.htm</a><br />
<br />
Correct, no one should BLINDLY believe what they are told without some supporting evidence or secondary sources.
”Me, I'm just looking at whatever makes the most sense.”
Yes, but does not COMMON SENSE tell us that our industrial and personal activities that consume oxygen and release CO2 and pollutants in large quantities MUST have an adverse affect upon our atmosphere.
“Basically the largest polluters (those wealthy enough to afford the tax) will keep on polluting, while the poor will be forced to stop.”
Given the current power that corporations have verses the individual, that well be the way it may go but does that mean that we as individuals should not try to “do our share” irregardless, whist pressuring governments and corporations to do more.
“Not only that, but the science behind the justification has been fabricated to make it appear that the problem is far worse than it actually is and the certainty surrounding the science has been fabricated to make it appear more certain than it actually is.”
Can you provide any evidence to show that the science used to formulate the report from Brussels has be “fabricated” or even “made to appear more certain”. It would seem that, due in part to political pressures this report is if anything is somewhat conservative in its language.
I will admit to be very confused by the responses to the several threads on global warming posted in the last few days. It seems that we have those here that think everything is a conspiracy including the measured increase in CO2 in our air over the last few decades. It matters not whether or not the cause is scientifically proven, it is clear that out atmosphere is changing. There is increased CO2, there are increased pollutants, it does affect life on this planet. To what level human activities contribute to this or whether it is a natural cycle may be debatable but surely you can all see that it does no harm to reduce these emissions and may in fact be essential.
So you can join Bush, Harper and the Corporations in their “it isn’t happening, we need do nothing for years” mantra OR you can believe 1000s of scientists across the world from multiple countries each with separate but similar results.
I know which I am inclined to “believe”!
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
<br />
Common sense tells me that this is true at a local level, but at a global level common sense tells me global warming is a scam.<br />
<br />
I've been in polluted cities and I know how bad it is, but with only a few km travel I can get to amazingly fresh air. The earths atmosphere is enormous and unless there's massive amounts of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere, we don't have to worry about it in terms of a global issue. Certainly the amount of CO2 being released annually is minuscule and may be ignored, especially since most of it is reabsorbed back to where it came from.<br />
<br />
At a local level, common sense tells me that we must reduce pollution for the obvious reasons that it is very unhealthy and unpleasant to the ecosystem in general which includes the people who are exposed to the pollutants.<br />
<br />
When I say pollution, I mean ALL pollution, not just atmospheric pollution. The toxins released onto our land and water are just as bad as what's being released into the air.<br />
<br />
"Given the current power that corporations have verses the individual, that well be the way it may go but does that mean that we as individuals should not try to “do our share” irregardless, whist pressuring governments and corporations to do more."<br />
<br />
The global warming scam has at least two sides, and neither of them has our best interests in mind. I'm all for reducing pollution (all pollution) but the I hate being lied to, and I'm sick and tired of those who use baseless fear mongering as a means to frighten the people into agreeing with dubious schemes to save the world. The War on Terror(TM) and other scams show clearly that those who use lies to sucker a population into going along with some large scale scheme NEVER have our best interests in mind.<br />
<br />
"Can you provide any evidence to show that the science used to formulate the report from Brussels has be 'fabricated' or even 'made to appear more certain'. It would seem that, due in part to political pressures this report is if anything is somewhat conservative in its language."<br />
<br />
Right here:<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070409033337721">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070409033337721</a><br />
<br />
"It matters not whether or not the cause is scientifically proven, it is clear that out atmosphere is changing. There is increased CO2, there are increased pollutants, it does affect life on this planet. To what level human activities contribute to this or whether it is a natural cycle may be debatable but surely you can all see that it does no harm to reduce these emissions and may in fact be essential."<br />
<br />
I agree, we should demand that pollution levels be reduced, but I always hate being lied to and made to feel afraid when there's no good reason to be afraid. I also do not like being coerced into paying for problems that I had nothing to do with. I can easily spot where all the main sources of pollution come from, and they sure as hell don't come from me, yet it will be innocent people like me who will be forced under threat of punishment to pay for the mess a few elites have created on their own.<br />
<br />
"So you can join Bush, Harper and the Corporations in their 'it isn’t happening, we need do nothing for years' mantra OR you can believe 1000s of scientists across the world from multiple countries each with separate but similar results."<br />
<br />
I don't believe anything that does not have credible evidence to back it up. The evidence indicates that the world appears to be warming up, but it is clear to me that we have no idea how much impact if any that human activity is having on the warming trend. The evidence at hand indicates that no matter what us humans do, the world will probably continue to warm up anyway, and there's no way of knowing if the warming effect will a major problem or not.<br />
<br />
"I know which I am inclined to 'believe'!"<br />
<br />
We all have to believe in something, but it's always a good idea to try and see through the fog before you make a leap of faith. <br />
"The earths atmosphere is enormous and unless there's massive amounts of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere, we don't have to worry about it in terms of a global issue. Certainly the amount of CO2 being released annually is minuscule and may be ignored, especially since most of it is reabsorbed back to where it came from."
I gess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because to me there ARE massive amounts of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere and the amount of CO2 released is NOT minuscule and cannot be ignored!! Further the main reasbsorbtion of CO2 is plants, most notably trees and in particular Tropical forests which are constantly being reduced. At what point would YOU "become worried about it"?
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
<br />
You should get that capability because you're missing out on a lot.<br />
<br />
Try this instead, not the same thing but it shows how the IPCC is intentionally messing around with the numbers:<br />
<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/ipcc-co2/ipcc-co2.htm">http://www.john-daly.com/ipcc-co2/ipcc-co2.htm</a><br />
<br />
"I gess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because to me there ARE massive amounts of pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere and the amount of CO2 released is NOT minuscule and cannot be ignored!!"<br />
<br />
It's a very good idea to put things into perspective since words such as "massive" and "minuscule" are relative terms.<br />
<br />
The earth's atmosphere is (approx) 5,000 trillion metric tons, of that only 0.035% is carbon dioxide, which is about 1.75 trillion tons.<br />
<br />
The annual global emissions are estimated at 24,126,416 thousand metric tons, or 0.024126416 trillion metric tons, which represents about 1.38% of the total atmospheric CO2 levels, which needless to say is a small number, especially when knowing that CO2 is reabsorbed through various means, such as through consumption by all forms of life on the planet, and through absorption by the oceans.<br />
<br />
Should we cull the human population to prevent global warming?<br />
<br />
Human breathing produces about 1 kg a day of CO2, multiplied by 6.6 billion people normalized to trillions of metric tons per annum = 0.002409 trillion metric tons, or 0.138% of the total volume of earth's CO2. Imagine the amounts of CO2 what all life and other natural processes produce each year, the number must be many times greater than those produced by industrial processes.<br />
<br />
Most important of all is knowing that the amount of CO2 concentrations is meaningless with respect to global warming unless you assign a value to its effect as a greenhouse gas relative to other greenhouse processes. As it turns out, the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor, of which almost all of it is produced through processes beyond human control (i.e., by nature).<br />
<br />
When water vapor is taken into account (something the IPCC intentionally ignores), the CO2 produced by human activity (excluding breathing) is minute at best.<br />
<br />
For the math and reasoning, go here:<br />
<a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html">http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</a><br />
<br />
Finally, we're told that fossil fuel reserves are being depleted at a rate that will begin to decline in the next 50 years or so (or even sooner). That time frame is so small that even if we assume that burning fossil fuels will raise the earth's temperature, nothing that we can do today will make any difference on global warming since the supply of fuel will run out well before there's any noticeable effect. Once the fuel supply begins to run out - the problem is solved!!!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory</a><br />
<br />
Note: of course we don't know what the alternatives to oil will do in terms of CO2 production and other negative environmental effects.<br />
<br />
"Further the main reasbsorbtion of CO2 is plants, most notably trees and in particular Tropical forests which are constantly being reduced. At what point would YOU 'become worried about it'?"<br />
<br />
Absorption of carbon is done by all forms of life, not just plants, as you must know all life on earth is carbon based. The oceans are the largest carbon sinks, the depletion of natural stocks of life forms (forests, fish, etc) is no doubt a much more serious problem than CO2 emissions in terms of its effect on the health of the worlds environment.<br />
<br />
All the fuss about CO2 emissions seems to do nothing but serve as a distraction away from much more serious and pressing environmental problems. For example, who cares about CO2 if our forests are being destroyed into extinction? If anything, a warmer climate will increase the levels of forestation which is a good thing!<br />
Some factions would insist that it's about carbon.
Others insist that it's fully something else.
Myself, I suspect that the real truth is somewhere in the middle, and that we've only been told those facts make things the most convenient for supporters of the most popular theories being bantered around.
If my assertion that EVERY POSSIBLE CAUSE of global warming should be examined with an unbiased eye is somehow wrong, please explain to me just how ruling out every other conceivable cause is a bad thing?
I'd rather put my money into dealing with the real causes of global warming (assuming it's even possible) than pour it down the drain for the sakes of someone's pet theory.
I expect the carbon only squad will be pounding on my door accusing me of being a climatological philistine because I dare not believe as they do.
Too bad, I believe in the Scientific Method and not politically charged stampede science.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
But, for what it's worth, I agree with you 100 percent.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
For example the global warming fear mongering brought back memories of the "ozone hole" scare that happened a few years back (turns out there never was a hole, just a thinning of the ozone layer). At the time the "hole" fear mongering was raging on I was in sleep/TV land, and like many people at the time I got very concerned about it. Now that I know better, I've been looking at the claims, and of course there is some doubt that any of it was a real concern. The ozone layer is not something that remains constant, and historically we only know how much it fluctuates since measurements have taken place - which is a blink of the eye in geological terms. I have not yet come to any conclusion about it being a scam or not. I like to keep an open mind and assume (despite the evidence) that not everything governments do is complete bullshit.
All for fun, otherwise it's not worth doing!
“If my assertion that EVERY POSSIBLE CAUSE of global warming should be examined with an unbiased eye is somehow wrong, please explain to me just how ruling out every other conceivable cause is a bad thing?”
This has been done, which is why I included a link to the 15 year old Rio Summit statement. An all encompassing approach needs to be taken. If a person has just become aware of climate change, global warming, environmental degradation, whatever you want to call it, in the last few years, then they would be missing the history of the research on this subject. Now that politicians are forced to act we can look for solutions that play into the current business as usual format. (Fossil fuels, nuclear power, fuel form grain crops, etc) These will fail.
The fact of the matter is that early adopters of efficient energy technologies will make more money than the business as usual crowd. This is already well documented by the authors of books like “Natural Capitalism”. The Exxons of the world may have a problem with this but there are enormous savings and lots of money to be made by incorporating energy efficient technologies in agriculture, building construction, manufacturing techniques, power plant construction and the list goes on. It’s just business smarts. As the cost and availability of energy and products increases these changes are inevitable, aside from the widespread environmental destruction as ecosystems collapse.
To coin a phrase: Resistance is futile
<br />
Just so you know exactly where I stand on this (and I do not for one moment believe I will change your opinion any more that you will change mine) I will post my final rebuttal.<br />
<br />
Is the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere small and the increase (as a % of the total atmosphere)“ minuscule”, yes.<br />
Is the amount put out by vehicles, power plants and other industrial operations “miniscule”, not in my opinion.<br />
Will it affect life on this planet as we know it if it continues to rise, I don’t want to find out the hard way.<br />
Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, yes. <br />
Is that entirely due to human activities, probably not. <br />
Is a large part of that increase due to human activities re fossil fuels, almost certainly yes, but not fully proven. The decrease in % of CO2 13 and 14 would seem to show that it is. (Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 13 (13C) than air.) <br />
Is a long term global warming taking place, impossible to tell. <br />
Is a short term warming taking place, yes. <br />
Is any measured warming entirely due to increased CO2, almost certainly not. <br />
Is the measured increase in global temperatures due in part to the measured increase in CO2, almost certainly yes. <br />
Will anything we do now have any measurable effect in the short term, no.<br />
Is debate and arguing who is right and who is wrong going to have any effect, no. Apart from all the extra hot air exhaled!
<br />
One of many sites giving details of CO2 OBSERVATIONS spanning the last several decades and results of tests of ice cores spanning the last 1000 years and more……………………<br />
<br />
“ As measured in air samples collected from over 60 sites in NOAA’s Global Cooperative Observing Network, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by nearly 5 parts per million (ppm) between 2001 and 2003. The increase in 2002 was 2.43 ppm; the increase in 2003 was 2.30 ppm. In other words, more than two additional carbon-dioxide molecules were added to each million molecules of air each year during that period. The annual increase was higher than the long-term average annual CO2 increase of approximately 1.5 ppm……………………………<br />
Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.<br />
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.<br />
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent. (In the last 200 years)”<br />
<a href="http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2005/mar05/noaa05-035.html">http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2005/mar05/noaa05-035.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
Is the earth warming up? Probably, but no one knows what the trend will be because historically temperatures always go up and down.
As the earth warms up, are we all going starve, drown, and die? No, of course not. Why should that happen?
Is there anything we can do to stop the warming trend? Perhaps we can slow it down a little, but stop it - NO!
The ice age may be over, and we may as well just get used to the warming and work on some real issues, such as deforestation, reducing localized sources of pollution that are making people sick TODAY, you name it, there's so much of more importance that should be done other than chasing down a highly questionably "maybe" scenario. For all we know the only reason for CO2 increases is deforestation, or perhaps the warming causes more plant growth, which causes a rise in CO2.
I know you want to stop debating this, and I agree. However, if you don't mind doing a little more honest inquiry (with no intention to change minds), then I do have an unanswered question I've been digging into. Perhaps you'll help research this one:
Q: Are oxygen levels going up or down, and how do oxygen levels correlate with CO2 levels?
The reason I have this question, is that as fossil fuels are burned, oxygen is consumed. Every molecule of CO2 contains 2 atoms of oxygen, so we should see a decrease in oxygen levels that are about twice as much as the increase in CO2 levels.
If oxygen is stable, then how is that possible? If it is increasing, then how is that possible?
If you or anyone can help answer these questions, I'll appreciate it greatly. Again, I'm just asking a question out of curiosity rather than trying to make a case.
Cutting emissions has never in my opinion been a bad idea.
I just just don't buy the theory that global warming is is wholly the result of CO2.
Global deforestation, for example. Fewer trees means more solar warming of the ground. The heat that would normally be returned to the atmosphere by tree respiration is staying in the ground.
If you ever get to see a satellite image of just how much forest has been destroyed globally, and it doesn't scare the hell out of you, then something's wrong.
Regarding the following:
"The reason I have this question, is that as fossil fuels are burned, oxygen is consumed. Every molecule of CO2 contains 2 atoms of oxygen, so we should see a decrease in oxygen levels that are about twice as much as the increase in CO2 levels.
If oxygen is stable, then how is that possible? If it is increasing, then how is that possible?
If you or anyone can help answer these questions, I'll appreciate it greatly. Again, I'm just asking a question out of curiosity rather than trying to make a case."
Best guess: phytoplankton in the earth's oceans have been able to break down the CO2 absorbed by the oceans back into carbon and oxygen.
However, that comes with a cost. An excess of carbon in the earth's oceans is the leading cause of the increase in pH currently proven to be slowly taking place in our seas.
My biggest concern isn't global warming. My biggest concern is what's going to happen if the acidity of the world's oceans gets to the point where the phytoplankton begin to die off.
phytoplankton are plants.
No phytoplankton = no oxygen.
There is no theory involved here.
We kill the plankton, we die.
End of story.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
What I disagree with is the current carbon fixation that governments and people everywhere seem to have suddenly developed over the last couple of years to the apparent exclusion of every other environmental crisis we have going on.
Concentrating all our resources on one single item is rather like treating a multiple stab wound victim with four stitches and a band aid, and then expecting them to live.
That only happens in the movies.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.