[lit-ideas] Re: The end?
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:42:10 -0000
Paul,
The whole gist of your message is that you don't trust the scientists (and I'm
90 per cent confident of that statement). When they - the scientists - define
their use of certain statements such as 'extremely likely' down to 'extremely
unlikely' in terms of percentage probabilities surely that's a good thing.
They're making an effort to make the science understandable rather than filling
their sentences with impenetrable percentages.
That said, bear in mind that what you've read is the work of 'Working Party I'
relating to 'The Physical Science Basis'. Working Party II is concerned with
"Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (Due in April) and Working Party III is
concerned with "Mitigation of Climate Change" with a final draft report due on
12th February. It seems to be WPIII that would concern you most - you can see a
chapter outline here: http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg3outlines.pdf
It's interesting that Brian hasn't contributed to this discussion. No doubt
he'll believe it to be a UN conspiracy.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stone" <pas@xxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The end?
> At 11:06 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote:
>>Paul, why don't you just read the report?
>>http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
>
> When people use a term like "likely" to mean >66% and they are making
> policy decisions based on that, I have to scream "bullshit!" There are so
> many tenuous definitions -- obviously based on statistical grouping
> cutoffs, 95, 90, 66 etc -- that one gets lost in what it is they are really
> trying to say. Oh right, the message is clearly "run for you lives!"
>
> Listen, I have no doubt that there is climate change. As I said a few weeks
> ago, that's what climate DOES, it changes. That's what makes weather,
> weather. But the 21 page summary that I read is just full of alarming
> things, not because of what they claim, but because they ARE claiming them
> and with such ridiculous, broadly defined phrases as "very likely" and
> "likely" etc. They actually want to adversely affect the whole of the
> world's status quo because of conclusions based on assumptions based on
> extrapolations based on varying data that gives them a +/- error of as much
> as 14%?
>
> Sorry, but I need more definite statements.
>
> Has the IPCC ever really taken a look at what NEEDS to happen to quell the
> emissions of CO2? There are perhaps 1 billion people who are living in very
> developed communities and they are "spewing" disproportionate amounts (per
> capita) of "greenhouse" gases into the environment. So... what do we tell
> the other 5 billion? "Um, sorry, we know you are developing, but would you
> kindly stop it? We already have way too much pollution from these annoying
> billion who evolved last century!" Are we going to nuke China and India for
> having the effrontery for using too much energy as they move up? Surely,
> morally, for the love of Mother Earth we should, right?
>
> There are numbers thrown about that the developed nations need to sacrifice
> something like 20% of their present "lifestyle". Until when? Until the rest
> of the world catches up and then we have to sacrifice 100% of our life? I'm
> not sure what the implications of this report are? Is it to use less
> energy? No energy?
>
> The Earth will survive. We might not and that's really what the big furor
> is about. "Environmentalists" don't really care about the Earth and all her
> children -- read: animals -- they care about how comfy humans can have it.
> The stark, naked fact is that the world is vastly overpopulated for
> advanced human activity -- consumption of non-renewable resources and that
> horrible meat-eating behaviour that us heathens partake -- and we have to
> do something about that. And... if we don't, then SHE will. "Global
> warming" is the least of our problems. We have to get a political action
> plan, because if everyone "develops" the weather is going to get very
> nasty. Just my prediction. Probability: very likely.
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
