by frog
World Environment Day has bought the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri, to New Zealand. Pachauri is moving the IPCC beyond stating the science in ways that have allowed climate change deniers to obfuscate and confuse the message. He is now using much plainer language. Famously, this now widely quoted statement a few months ago:
If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.
And then this today in the Dominion Post.
Please read the science. I think the evidence is so strong we would be ignoring it at our own peril and the peril of all living species.
Unfortunately while the climate change denial debate that we have on a regular basis here at frogblog has been a fun way to pass the time, passing time is increasingly exactly the problem. It’s a shame that scientists like Pachauri need to step beyond their role as scientists and instead play advocates for the science that so many politicians are failing to act upon. But it does indicate that the clear gravity of the story science is telling us.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, June 5th, 2008
Tags: climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, science, World Environment Day
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
yah. Provide your reasons please. One would think...
>>a shame that scientists like Pachauri
Is this he same guy who allegedly compared author Bjorn Lomborg to the leader of the runners-up in World War 2?
>>Please read the science
Few would understand it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“read the science” was “a simple message for climate change sceptics” – presumably the scientists (and Lord Monckton) who vehemently disagree, as opposed to people who are just plain sceptical about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Please read the science
Few would understand it.
Yet there’s no shortage of lay people who insist that the vast majority of experts in the field are wrong. Funny, that.
See also: antievolutionists, antivaccinationists, 9/11 truthers, and many, many others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe you forgot people who don’t believe in the moon landing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Any answers why the earth is cooling in 2008 and CO2 is still increasing?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/
This is not what was in the script.
Is this bogus or is the science wrong? Maybe the sun has a big influence after all.
No ETS required it seems.
Also, with electricity in short supply and prices to rise I reckon house holders in Christchurch shoud say ‘fuck off’ to council by laws and light the fire. It will help the National Grid and keep them healthy (via warmth). Pity the wood is tax free, esentially giving ‘free warmth’. Bit of a caveman attitude but that is where the Greens want to send us ah.
On another note, I met a customer yesterday who said the world has 3 bn more people than it requires. Soon shut up when I offered him the chance to comitt Hari Kari.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What script ? You think maybe there’s no variability? You think it is all monotonically increasing?
Get real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is this bogus or is the science wrong?
Hmmm, could it be that yet another denialist blog written by a non-climatologist who doesn’t do peer-reviewed work is actually in danger of overturning climatology as we know it?
Er, no.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
GW Denier,
I don’t have an answer for why the global temperature variation is going down in recent years, but I did post this in another discussion a while ago.
The problem with an AGW sceptic is that they are usually more concerned with pointing out that something doesn’t add up, rather than trying to figure out why it might not be adding up.
The problem with an AGW believer is that they are usually more concerned with pretending that something doesn’t add up, rather than trying to figure out why it might not be adding up.
It’s impossible for anyone to find out the truth when they have already decided that they already know the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Marohasey is presumably a fine biologist, but an unpublished climatologist. Sunspots can affect temperature too, they just haven’t done so for about 30 years:
http://tinyurl.com/2mhgpb
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT – using Wlkipedia is not the best rebuttal. I am only pointing out fact from data on the www.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Denier
Real Scientists to blogosphere “wanna bet?”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/
Note the qualitative difference between this and the bloggers…
—–
More to the point here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Cooling appears to be pretty localized… and what is happening to Antarctica? Ahhh… no blogger lives there… so it isn’t happening.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
I suggest, with no small amount of annoyance, that you do as Pachauri says and read the SCIENCE, not the bloggers. Yes… it IS harder to understand and yes, if you go to the scientists you will find that their opinions don’t have anything to do with how much money goes to research or how many of them are Democrats or Republicans…
… I worked with them…. LOTS of them are conservatives… except on this issue.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The US agriculture secretary, Ed Schafer, stirred controversy on the eve of the Rome summit with his defence of corn ethanol, arguing that biofuel production only contributed “2 to 3%” to the recent dramatic rise in global food prices.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/biofuels.energy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
I wonder what is being said in their neck of the woods?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry GW Denier, I didn’t realise you thought so badly of the articles in Wikipedia.
Do you disagree with these guys too?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and-climate-models/
Unfortunately Global dimming is not a “fact” because there is still little known about how it all works, which is probably why it was pushed aside when it was first theorised.
The climate models haven’t taken into account the effect of global dimming on climate change, so if global dimming does have an effect then it would stand to reason that the modeled projections would be wrong.
Sometimes the biggest problems are not the ones the scientists do know, but the ones they don’t.
Anyway the idea I was putting forward was based on what has happened, and how they might fit together.
Like I said before, I could be wrong.
And about your Hari Kari retort to concern about overpopulation, I wrote this in another post too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)