UN Panel: Global Warming Is Threat To Earth (UPDATED)
Apr 6th, 2007 | 10 responses
A UN panel has issued one of the bluntest warnings on global warming yet — indicating that it is indeed a threat to earth and in some ways many people do not usually realize:
Climate experts issued their starkest warning yet about the impact of global warming, ranging from hunger in Africa to a fast thaw in the Himalayas, in a report on Friday that increased pressure on governments to act.More than 100 nations in the U.N. climate panel agreed a final text after all-night talks during which some scientists accused governments of watering down conclusions that climate change was already under way and damaging nature.
The report said warming, widely blamed on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, would cause desertification, droughts and rising seas and would hit hard in the tropics, from sub-Saharan Africa to Pacific islands.
“It’s the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“This does become a global responsibility in my view.”
The report indicates that up to 30 percent of the earth’s specifices could face a higher risk of vanishing if the temperatures continue to rise.
And note that this is what some consider a watered down version of the conclusions. Even these conclusions are likely to be disputed by some in the U.S. who continue to assert that global warming is simply a creation of a liberal agenda (even though there are Republicans who also feel it is a vital issue).
And according to the AP, the report was watered down at the insistence of three countries. The United States was one of them:
Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.
There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. “For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models,” Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.
The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections. The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.
Reuters includes this FACT SHEET on global warming.
The Australian’s science writer offers more details on how the panel’s conclusions were watered down:
This week, as a working group meeting in Brussels thrashed out the final wording of the summary for policy-makers, extinction became a topic of heated debate between government officials and scientists such as Australian David Karoly, now with the University of Oklahoma.
Dr Karoly — who will move to Melbourne University later this year — and other lead authors claimed diplomats attempted to water down their warnings.
They said officials, presumably from the US, forced last-minute changes. US officials were reported to have argued to reduce “quantification”, while the Europeans sought to send a strong message about the impacts of climate change.
A final draft, obtained by The Australian, showed the phrase stating that 20-30 per cent of species “will be committed to extinction” had been softened by inserting a reference to species “assessed so far”.
Retired scientist Ian Burton — attending the meeting on behalf of the Stockholm Environment Institute — said the section had been “diluted”.
But Australian lead author CSIRO scientist Kevin Hennessy disagreed with Dr Burton’s claim. “In any process there will be differing opinions,” he said. “(US officials) simply wanted to ensure the report conveyed the most robust science, if it needed to be defensible.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave those concerned about the global warming issue what they considered to be a major victory in a ruling. President George Bush later indicated that it doesn’t mean the U.S. government’s going to dramatically change its often-criticized policy. The Los Angeles Times:
President Bush, acknowledging that humans are at least partly responsible for global warming, said Tuesday that he took “very seriously” the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as pollution.However, the president attached two conditions that appeared likely to retard EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat at the Earth’s surface: He said that any regulatory program should not slow economic growth, nor should its benefits to the atmosphere be offset by mounting emissions from China, India and other growing economies.
Bush’s stance sets up a potential conflict with the Democratic-controlled Congress, which wants stricter regulation of greenhouse gases.
“The president still doesn’t get it,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled on Monday that the EPA was required by law to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants. The administration, siding with automakers, had argued that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act, but the court held that it was merely a different kind of pollutant.
Look for the issue to remain at center on the world stage — and in the U.S. political arena, where some will continue to dismiss this issue that is of increasing concern to scientists and a growing number of Republicans as the creation of liberals who are “tree huggers.” And the U.S. Congress will (once again) face off against the Bush administration.
UPDATE: The New York Times weighs in:
Earth’s climate and ecosystems are already being affected, for better and mostly for worse, by the atmospheric buildup of smokestack and tailpipe gases that trap heat, top climate experts said today.And while curbs in emissions can limit risks, they said, vulnerable regions must adapt to shifting weather patterns and rising seas.
The conclusions came in the latest report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has tracked research on human-caused global warming since being created by the United Nations in 1988. In February, the panel released a report that for the first time concluded with 90-percent certainty that humans were the main cause of warming since 1950. But in this report, focusing on the impact of warming, for the first time the group described how species, water supplies, ice sheets, and regional climate conditions were already responding.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “UN Panel: Global Warming Is Threat To Earth (UPDATED)”
Looks like Exxon- Mobil needs to up the ante at AEI. The $10,000 they are offering scientists to combat global warming theories, won’t be nearly enough to create sufficient warming denial theory!
Since there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do to stave off the extinctions, it seems to me the next-best course is to encourage gloobal climate change, in the hopes that it will sharply reduce the number of humans on the planet, and even more sharply reduce the number of large metropolises.
Which means, oddly, rooting for the deniers. The longer they’re in control of policy, the more likely we are to see the human population suddenly drop by the end of the century.
Except that it will also affect the poorer nations much more harshly than the rich ones, meaning that those most likely to suffer are those in Africa, where drought and disease will be more rampant. Look at Katrina, where those in the trendy parts of N.O. had less damage than those in the 9th ward, where the challenges of rebuilding have been daunting.
The UN?
That ought to convince the dittoheads!
On torture and prisoners per capital we rank at the top with the likes of China and Iran. Looks like were in good company once again. Geogre Bush has taken us where no President has…
We will all be dead but the republicans will have all the money, so they win.
Well, technically it’s a threat to life on Earth. This giant ball of hot rock has seen worse than melting Himalayas.
Truthfully (coming from a centrist, middle-class, non-evil, Independent, non-industrialist, but a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism), I feel that the entire global warming issue should be reexamined from a scientific perspective. Everyone must agree that the entire issue has become way too political, and that skews data and scientific papers. The truth is that for every global warming activist, there is a Stephen McIntyre (who runs the blog Climate Audit- I suggest you read it order to get another viewpoint that is backed up with data).
There is a field of study called political climatology, which is literally climatologists who are also teach politics. That should be a vey overt warning that the science has become corrupted.
The United Nations is biased. Sorry to say it, but it is absolutely true. There are more than 100 nations vying for a voice, and it gets chaotic. A great deal of them would have a lot to gain by environmental “sanctions,” much of it not at all environmentally-oriented. Even though the IPCC is made up of scientists, not politicians, it can be very leaning. Recall Stephen McIntyre. He found that a section of this new report (which actually doesn’t come out for another month-and-a-half; what everyone has talked about is merely the Summary for Policymakers. What does that say?) was based on data that wasn’t publicly availible. So, he tried to gain access to the data, as he was part of the IPCC panel. The IPCC actually threatened to “kick him out” of the IPCC panel if he kept attempting to gain access.
The above is just one reason why I feel that global warming science and data should be reexamined. Another is that movies like “The Day After Tomorrow” and, to some extent, “An Inconvinient Truth,” are twisting the public’s perception of global warming. Climatologists who attempt to say something contrary to the “unanimous consensus” opinion are silenced.
In the 1950′s, leading up to the 1970′s, the media propelled fears about an impeding ice age and about how the earth was going through a swift “global cooling”. We know now, in our infinite wisdom, that they were incorrect. The earth’s temperature is not cooling- rather, it is warming, and it is our fault. However, it seems like the same panic is around. OBVIOUSLY, their science was flawed and that their models were far from perfect. We didn’t get anything out of that little escapade except that, once again, hindsight is 20/20. And it appears that foresight is as well.
One more thing: In reality, science is NOT fact. Science is the ever-changing system of hypotheses and theories about the world around us. Those theories are critically analyzed by other researchers and other scientists critcally analyze the critical analyses. Only politics and the media dwells in “fact.”
Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, …
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store … ffxi gil buy euro gold wow wow gold–buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold–cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super …
We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Cheap WOW Gold …
Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, …
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store …
ffxi gil wow gold–buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold–cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super …
Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: …wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: …
We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold …
Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store …
OK…I don’t know what happened to my earlier post. Arius, the politicians of the U.N. are the ones who watered the statement down from what the scientists wanted. Sorry, but your statement flies in the face of truth. While there were some articles about cooling due to fears concerning particulate pollution and other pollutants that reflect sunlight they never ever reached the level of scientific consensus surrounding AGW. It’s a tired old argument that’s been trotted out again and again and still doesn’t persuade anyone who really looks into the facts.
No scientists who disagree have been silenced. That’s a lie. They have been challenged to prove their reasoning for going against the consensus. So far nothing they’ve produced has stood up to examination. Stephen McIntyre is not a member of the IPCC panel. He is not a scientist. He is a former mining company executive. A simple quick search shows that “political climatology” is not considered by anyone to be a field of scientific study. There are references on the internet but they do not even consistently refer to the same thing. Do some more research on less biased sites before tossing around your own accusations of bias and simply inaccurate statements.