Scientists meet in Japan to discuss climate change

Picture expired. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra Pachauri speaks at the 10th plenary of the IPCC Working Group II in Yokohama on Tuesday. AFP

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -1

    Strangerland

    And let the flood of climate change denial begin.

  • 2

    FullM3taL

    Their report, set to be released on March 31, is part of a massive overview by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.

    I somehow doubt this part. The Oil companies lobby has far too much money, and they will block any attempt at bringing legislative change in most countries.

  • 0

    Abhorsenaube

    “While the IPCC report will make grim reading, the key message here is choice,” said Greenpeace campaigner Kaisa Kosonen. <

    I think that's something to really keep in mind.

  • 4

    zurcronium

    It is just remarkable and truly sad as well that the coal and oil lobby can confuse so many about the facts of climate change and the threat we all face. No major country doubts the effects of climate change other than the USA. It is indictment of USA democracy and a demonstration of the incredible gullibility of a large segment of the US population. Why do these know nothing people enthusiastically support their own demise?

  • -5

    psychopathsareincontrol

    StrangerlandMar. 26, 2014 - 07:50AM JST

    And let the flood of climate change denial begin.

    Yeaaahh.... there's really not many people on the planet that actually deny climate change. You're falling for the marketing trick when they swapped out the words "global warming"

    What that "denial" is about is that rate at which IPCC claim it is changing and which direction it is changing - and the amount of influence humans can have on it.

    AhollMar. 26, 2014 - 10:39AM JST

    to tax it seems outrageous way of making money

    Exactly. They are basically taxing the production of carbon dioxide.

    When a business have increasing cost inputs it raises prices on it's output. Thus the consumer pays for this tax increase, not the business. The business is still producing the same amount of CO2 - status quo....

    SO what it really boils down to is that humans are being taxed for breathing out carbon dioxide.

  • -7

    Thomas Anderson

    Obviously the American (corporations) have an incentive to deny global warming. Even if it destroys us all. It's just like the nuclear power village in Japan.

  • -5

    gaijinfo

    The only people that believe in MAD MADE climate change are people who want OTHERS to somehow pay for it.

    Western societies are going to collapse under their own debt long before any alleged climate change has any noticeable effect.

  • 2

    Laguna

    The only people that believe in MAD MADE climate change are people who want OTHERS to somehow pay for it.

    Uh - no. We will all pay for it, one way or another.

  • 2

    zurcronium

    I want to thank the above posters for making my point about denying science by many in the conservative bubble abundantly clear. Somehow they believe that floods and drought only effect others, not them. It is mass delusion. Like believing the earth was created in six days. And the coal industry marketing hacks should be so proud of themselves for making people think and act so stupidly.

  • 3

    p6642

    If the attendees of this conference were genuinely concerned about global warming/climate change or their carbon footprint it would have been a tele conference.

  • 0

    itsonlyrocknroll

    Clearly public concern and political enthusiasm have not kept up with the science. Apathy demonstrating a complete lack of interest tinged with outright denial are even more widespread than they have ever been. One of the problems is IPCC itself, it lacks strong leadership and has succumbed to vested interests. Climate policies such as the regulation of industrial emissions in China, India and the US are so often clash with conservative political views which will result in rebuttals, aggressive counter-arguments in fighting and vague policy statements, followed by ignorance and finally downright refusal for change.

  • -2

    bass4funk

    Climate change, give me a break. This planet is billions of years old, this would not be the first time, the Earth went through something like this, for every moon bat that screams that the polar caps are melting, there are a lot of scientists that can prove otherwise. It depends on what you believe. For me, I think it's all a big money making hoax. There, I said it!

    Now y'all can go ahead and thumb me down.

  • 0

    John Galt

    Yes, the climate changes; from ice age to very warm periods, back to ice age, and back to warm period, ... and possibly back to cooler period again.

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Yes John it does. However it changes very slowly over a relatively long time. What we are seeing now is a very fast change in temperatures, something that hasn't happened in the past.

  • -4

    John Galt

    " What we are seeing now is a very fast change in temperatures, something that hasn't happened in the past."

    Right, that's why wooly mammoths are found quick-frozen with undigested food in their stomachs, because it happened very slowly. Look, human understanding of past changes are at best just guestimates with regard to whether changes occurred suddenly or slowly, some of both seems more reasonable.

  • 0

    Strangerland

    Right, that's why wooly mammoths are found quick-frozen with undigested food in their stomachs, because it happened very slowly.

    The freeze happened slowly, but deaths in storms would come quick. The above comment is not proof whatsoever.

    Look, human understanding of past changes are at best just guestimates with regard to whether changes occurred suddenly or slowly, some of both seems more reasonable.

    No, no they aren't.

  • -1

    LostSoul45

    The "deniers" are the ones who still cling to the wholly unscientific claim that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change in spite of the facts:

    There is no evidence that humans are causing more frequent or severe floods or droughts. Science and historical records show no trend in extreme weather.

    Globally, there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html

    No signifcant trend in global cyclone landfalls since 1970 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf

    Peer-reviewed research shows no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behaviour. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.2005.50.5.797

    Peer-reviwed study in Nature shows no correlation between temperature changes and long-term drought variations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/491338a.html?lang=en

    And again: there is no scientific evidence that the rise in global temperature since 1850 (which is still only 0.8 degrees C) is causing more extreme weather.

    The is also no evidence to back up the claim that the "coal and oil lobby" has caused confusion about the "facts" of climate change. From 2001 to 2007 the US government alone spent over 37 billion dollars on climate change activities http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/fy08climatechange.pdf , wheras Exxon-Mobil funded 16 million dollars in research by skeptics from 1998 to 2005 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/globalwarming/exxonreport.pdf

    US government funding of the manmade climate change scare (to say nothing of total UN, etc. international funding) dwarfs fossil fuel industry funding.

    And even with all that funding, the CAGW propadanda machine still can't prove manmade CO2 causes dangerous climate change.

    (I would humbly request that any counter-arguments be backed up by factual evidence, not dogmatic emotion)

  • -1

    Strangerland

    The "deniers" are the ones who still cling to the wholly unscientific claim that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change in spite of the facts

    No, no we're not.

    There is no evidence that humans are causing more frequent or severe floods or droughts. Science and historical records show no trend in extreme weather.

    Yes, yes there is.

  • 0

    LostSoul45

    Hello Strangerland.

    You say "yes there is" evidence for humans causing more frequent and severe floods and droughts. Could you please present that evidence? Or in fact evidence of any trend in extreme weather over the past century?

  • 2

    itsonlyrocknroll

    The IPCC and Chairman Rajendra Kumar Pachauri urgently needs to divest themselves from the lobbyists:

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace..

    And Timothy Wirth...

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    And especially this bunch Club of Rome........

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

    IPCC must base their research solely on the science, and be clear on the difference between human and natural influences on the environment, most of all distance themselves from hype and spin, because there are genuine health concerns, UK suffered the worst flooding in 150 years. Population displacement (deliberate impact building on flood plains) is the climate change I am referring too. The dense smog blankets in Beijing (23,000,000), Shanghai (18,079,000) , Guangzhou (12,385,000), Shenzhen (12,337,000), Chongqing (11,054,000), Wuhan (10,256,000), are prime examples of the sort of population displacement that are responsible for extreme health hazards. The IPCC should be concentrating on these issues.

  • -2

    Strangerland

    You say "yes there is" evidence for humans causing more frequent and severe floods and droughts. Could you please present that evidence? Or in fact evidence of any trend in extreme weather over the past century?

    I don't need to, because every climate change scientist out there says that it's happening as a result of human activity, and everyone who says it's not a result of human activity has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which is ironic considering that the status quo will kill itself due to the climate change.

  • -3

    John Galt

    Strangerland sez:

    " No, no they aren't." "No, no were not." "Yes, yes there is."

    Well, that's convincing.

    Can't argue with those facts.

  • -2

    Strangerland

    Climate change deniers have already proven that they are too stupid to argue with by virtue of the fact that they don't believe the scientists who study climate change. Therefore trying to explain it to them logically isn't worth the time it would take, as they don't have the intelligence to be able to understand the explanation.

    But we can't have them spread their hogwash without a comment. So I give it all the comment it deserves.

  • 1

    LostSoul45

    Strangerland,

    You say "every climate change scientist out there says that it's [human activity causing more frequent and severe floods and drought] happening."

    That argument has absolutely zero factual basis.

    Unlike the dogmatic climate change alarmists, I will provide actual facts to back up my assertions. I quote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims to consist of and represent the foremost climate scientists in the world.

    -"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (ie intensity, frequency, duration)."

    Source: IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-19 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREXFullReport.pdf

    • "no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century".
    • "confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low"
    • "lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale"
    • "there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century"
    • " [Previous] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated."
    • " [Although] it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950."

    Source: IPCC, 2013: Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5 WG1) http://www.climatechange2013.org/

    In addition, accredited climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, and Nils Morner are among the numerous scientists who do not say "it's happening as a result of human activity".

    You are superbly representative of the knee-jerk climate alarmists who willfully ignore facts and when challenged resort to clumsy hand waving and blundering ad hominems.

    Please note that, unless you have been (in your words) "too stupid" to notice, every one of my assertions is backed up by a factual source. Until you likewise respond with factual evidence, i will completely ignore you as I am not so cruel as to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed "opponent".

  • 0

    itsonlyrocknroll

    Climate Change policy expenditure must be focused on the environment we live in, an example would be full on research into providing cheap clean sustainable alternative renewable energy sources, to replace the worlds dependency on nuclear fusions Pandora's Box.

    Obama proposes $1 billion to prepare for climate change (Washington Post), a huge chunk of this new money will be spent on mathematical computer modelling to predict extreme weather scenarios.

    The IPCC won't release in the report how much tax payer money the 209 leading scientists, from 39 different countries, using 50 review editors, has committed to the existing computer modelling. One project modelling the expansion in ice formations in both poles, and the effect of continued global cooling since 2002 to explain the absence of global temperature increases over the past 15 years.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/india-s-diesel-subsidy-spurs-pollution-worse-than-beijing.html

    IPCC get a grip!!!!!!!

  • 1

    Toby Smit

    As for the people that think we are an influence on the weather re CO2 your are kidding right less then 2000 years ago there was a warm period (during the Roman empire) then there was a cold period before the industrial revolution. The whole thing is a cycle and we puny humans no matter how powerfull we think we are have very little influence!

  • -1

    sfjp330

    China’s air quality crisis is now a topic of international concern.The rising levels of pollution, up to 24 times the WHO recommended limits, creates long and short-term health risks including high infertility rates, and threatens both the global economy of Chinese cities. With the economic progress, China is adding 18 million cars a year and there is a Rising fears over the effects of increase pollution and what the Chinese goverment is going to do about it. Most of the water in China is also polluted.

  • 0

    LostSoul45

    sfjp330,

    You are correct that pollution (particularly air pollution) is a real problem that needs to be addressed. However, pollution has nothing to do with climate change or extreme weather events.

    Everyone here should be aware that CO2 is not pollution. It is an odorless, colorless trace gas that (as fundamentally plant food) is absolutely essential for all life on earth.

    (I find it interesting how my above posts have all been thumbed down when all they do is present facts and ask for claimed evidence to be presented. It just goes to show how much true believers of man-made climate change hate facts).

  • -5

    Heda_Madness

    CO2 is not pollution

    It is a pollutant though - by definition "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon Dioxide is a by product of burning fossil fuels. That's a man made waste and yes we breathe it in but we also breathe in water. Water is essential for all forms of life.

    Too much of it will kill you though won't it?

    I guess the reasons why people haven't posted peer reviewed articles on Man Made Climate Change is there are simply too many to choose from.

    What's your opinion on the quotes from Michel Jarraud?

    > It just goes to show how much true believers of man-made climate change hate facts

    The facts are that Global Warming is a phenomenon. The facts are it's been made worse by man kind. And the facts are the nay sayers are in a very small minority.

  • 0

    itsonlyrocknroll

    There are undeniable links between rapid industrialisation, unsustainable population grow and 'climate change' , China is the largest producer of pollutants that present an extreme global health risk.

    Where in the IPCC report is anything critical about China, USA, and India, the world's key polluters, China's 10 most populated city' s house the equivalent of Japan's entire population, it is totally unsustainable.

    Policy makers must have understandable science coupled with unanimous agreement, followed by concrete proposals.

    It is extremely unhelpful when these scientists start to back track and U turn, Harvard University physicist Mike Stopa mused, "It is possible that CO2 has effectively no influence on global climate, suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the Earth's climate, how will the history of this colossal mistake be written?"

    Then we have Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark's National Space Institute, is one of several scientists investigating the effects of the sun and cosmic rays on our climate, comes out with this pearler, "World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more" suggesting a recent cut in the sun's output could soon reverse any man-made warming. AHHHHHHHH! who do we believe?

    Then the SPM for Policymakers quants accompanying the computer modeling predictions use abstract terminology...... high confidence, virtually certain, medium confidence, low confidence, followed by various flavours of 'likely'. We need to be inspired not feed bucket loads of confusion and doubt.

  • 0

    psychopathsareincontrol

    REAL pollutants that we should more concerned about.

    http://oem.bmj.com/content/59/12/855.full

    Big business gets away with pumping all manner of these into the environment with nobody watching coz everyone's too busy banging on about "man-made global warming" (although this marketing terminology has been replaced)

  • 3

    Alphaape

    I saw a special on "global warming" and the melting of the snow in Greenland. You know what they are finding as the glaciers retreat, old farms. So at some point in time, long before the rise of industrialized China, India, and other 3rd world nations that are mass producing the products that we use daily, the climate changed and some farmers in Greenland lost their homes due to glaciers moving in.

    Now I do believe that we should be more careful of the environment, and try as much as we can to cut down pollution and stop cutting down the rainforests and save as many animals as we can, but I don't think that buying a certain type of light bulb (that by the way gives off mecury vapors) and making people pay a "tax" is the key.

  • -3

    LostSoul45

    Heda_Madness

    CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas comprising 0.0397% of the earth's atmosphere. It is emitted not only by fossil fuel burning, but by volcanoes, outgassing of the oceans, and decay of animal and plant matter, etc. It is not toxic and the only way that "too much of it will kill you" is if it's percentage of the air we breath were too high, like Venus' atomsphere which is more than 96% CO2, but only because then we wouldn't get enough oxygen, not because it CO2 is harmful. Again: as plant food, CO2 is absolutely essential for all life. And BTW, the current concentration of 400ppm is historically low. Farmers pump greenhouses up to 1,000ppm to promote better plant crop growth.

    If by quotes from Michel Jarraud you mean statements such as: "A rise in sea levels is leading to increasing damage from storm surges and coastal flooding, as demonstrated by Typhoon Haiyan, Jarraud said." ...then my opinion is that it's mostly propaganda. Tide gauge records show sea levels in the Philippines have only risen by about 330mm since 1950 with no acceleration (https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/informationandinventories/gloss_handbook/stations/72/plot/522/)

    Jarraud also needs to read his organization's own publications:

    -"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

    • "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical [winter] storms and tornadoes"

    "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

    Source: IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-19 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREXFullReport.pdf

    The facts are that Global Warming is a phenomenon.

    True. So is global cooling (1945 to 1979, etc.)

    The facts are it's been made worse by man kind.

    No. That is not fact. If you can refute me, please quote just one of the alleged "too many" peer-reviewed studies that prove that claim.

    And the facts are the nay sayers are in a very small minority.

    Not true. "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

  • -1

    bass4funk

    I don't need to, because every climate change scientist out there says that it's happening as a result of human activity, and everyone who says it's not a result of human activity has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which is ironic considering that the status quo will kill itself due to the climate change.

    Oh, so that means, because you have a doctoral degree, there is NO Way that you can be wrong or be challenged on a theory? Why do Scientists always say these causes are LIKELY? Which implies a possibility, but NOT certain. Again, for every Scientist you can throw at me that screams there is such thing a global warming, I can show you a slew of Scientist that will say otherwise. You're not scoring points here. It all depends on what you believe, as for me, I think these Ivy League Professors and Scientists have hijacked and milked this issue for far, far too long and many people are waking up and finding out this is all nothing but over exaggerated BS.

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    Again, you're right by saying that CO2 is natural. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased massively due to man. This, again, is without question.

    Oil is regarded as being a pollutant, however it naturally occurs in the ocean where it leaks. So presumably you would say that the Exxon Valdes wasn't an environmental disaster? Because Oil in the ocean is natural. Just like CO2 is naturally occurring. It's the amounts that cause the issues.

    "A rise in sea levels is leading to increasing damage from storm surges and coastal flooding, as demonstrated by Typhoon Haiyan, Jarraud said." ...then my opinion is that it's mostly propaganda. Tide gauge records show sea levels in the Philippines have only risen by about 330mm since 1950 with no acceleration

    Sea temperatures have increased globally - thus leading to increase of tropical storms.

    Comparing climate model simulations with and without human factors” they concluded “shows that the record hot Australian summer of 2012/13 was about five times as likely as a result of human-induced influence on climate, and that the record hot calendar year of 2013 would have been virtually impossible without human contributions of heat-trapping gases.” Yesterday.

    "A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last 20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it."

    From your link, he basis his article on a recent survey. The recent survey said the following:

    A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is
    happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they
    “don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is
    happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority
    indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in
    more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warning is caused primarily by natural causes
    (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet know to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

    6% of scientists think that global warming is caused primarily by natural causes. And that's supposed to prove your point.

  • 0

    realist

    There has been NO global warming for almost 18 years. None this century. Time to expose the Scam that is "global warming/climate change."

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all