U.N. panel: 8 reasons to worry about global warming

Global warming is real, but humans - including scientists -- are notorious bad at predicting the future. Humans nearly always find ways to adopt. Eskimos should have never been able to survive, according to the mindset above.

Ironically, one prediction is that the warmer and moisture climate will make rice and other crops easier to grow, especially in arid regions where starvation has been a problem.

If you want a real laugh, Google "earth day 1970 predictions" .

Kind of a silly question, but why is the fact that the report uses roman numerals even worth mentioning? And is it really necessary to give an example of a roman numeral to illustrate that fact?

Other than that, seems like an accurate list.

All these things are happening already.

Someone at the UN didn't get the memo; it's called "climate change" due to the lack of consistent warming.

Eskimos should have never been able to survive, according to the mindset above.

How convenient that you just forget about those who died prematurely. They did not exactly survive did they? Neither will those people who die prematurely as a result of global warming.

Global warming is real, but humans - including scientists -- are notorious bad at predicting the future. Humans nearly always find ways to adopt. Eskimos should have never been able to survive, according to the mindset above.

Except that unlike the Eskimos of centuries past we now live in a complex global economy with 7 billion people to feed. Most of our food sources are based on large scale investments we have made which assume a given climate pattern and if that gets disrupted the cost of adopting to the new climate will make us all worse off, and possibly lead to millions of deaths.

While it might make rice easier to grow in some places, the consensus seems to be that the net effects of climate change will be quite negative on our ability to produce food, particularly in the tropics.

So just saying "we can adopt" is not a particularly useful observation. Of course we can, the question is how we can adopt in a way that will minimize those human and financial costs associated with adoption.

"So just saying "we can adopt" is not a particularly useful observation."

It sure is. In my lifetime, I've been taught as gospel truth (in schools, etc) about a dozen doomsday scenarios, from the world's petroleum running out (by the late 80s), to acid rain destroying half our forests, to famines throughout East Asia. This was taught as truth, not speculation, either. We were actually tested and graded on these subjects!!!

Anyway, not a single doomsday scenario...not one....has ever occurred. That's pretty compelling evidence, wouldn't you say?

"It sure is. In my lifetime, I've been taught as gospel truth (in schools, etc) about a dozen doomsday scenarios, from the world's petroleum running out (by the late 80s), to acid rain destroying half our forests, to famines throughout East Asia. This was taught as truth, not speculation, either. We were actually tested and graded on these subjects!!! "

Me,too.

"Anyway, not a single doomsday scenario...not one....has ever occurred. That's pretty compelling evidence, wouldn't you say?"

Yes!

A boiled-down version of what the scientists say the warmed-up future holds for Earth if climate change continues:

Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.

Except that there has been no accelleration of sea level increase. There is an old photo of a tree by the seaside in the maldives which was taken half a century ago, and one taken a few years ago showing no change in the location of the tide line. Global warming activists from Australia cut down the tree. I own a home on the gulf coast which was built back in 1950, the water level has not changed since the house was built.

Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.

This migh make sense if there had actually been any warming, but there hasn't been any warming, has there? Severe drought and downpours have occurred regularly since the time of Moses, without any help from industrial emissions od Co2.

Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.

See number 1. If people are talking about Bangladesh, the land area there is actually increasing due to river sediment.

Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.

Paying more for energy will make people poorer much more quickly.

Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.

Last year's IPCC report specifically said that it did not predict any increase in storms, period, whatsoever. There has been no increase, the number of deadly tornadoes and hurricanes is at a multi-decade low. The prophesizing of increased storms is a baldfaced lie, and is not supported by the "concensus" of scientists who wrote the latest global warming report.

Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.

These are already in trouble, but not from climate. Over-fishing has been hurting these communities, and little has been done to address this problem.

Some land animals won’t do much better and that’s not good for people who depend on them.

Exactly what does "some" mean? The polar bear population exploded over the last century. No one mentions that polar bears survived the last interglacial period (past period when there was no sea ice at all ) just fine.

Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.

Cold winters kill hundreds of thousands each year, heat waves kill just hundreds. This argument actually supports global warming as a beneficial occurrence.

The goal of global warming politics (it is not really science) is too fleece the many for the financial benefit of the few.

*It sure is. In my lifetime, I've been taught as gospel truth (in schools, etc) about a dozen doomsday scenarios, from the world's petroleum running out (by the late 80s), to acid rain destroying half our forests, to famines throughout East Asia. This was taught as truth, not speculation, either. We were actually tested and graded on these subjects!!!

Anyway, not a single doomsday scenario...not one....has ever occurred. That's pretty compelling evidence, wouldn't you say?*

So because you have in the past been told that bad stuff would happen which did not occur you feel you can logically deduce that every time someone says something bad will happen it will not?

That isn't actually compelling evidence of anything.

"So because you have in the past been told that bad stuff would happen which did not occur you feel you can logically deduce that every time someone says something bad will happen it will not? That isn't actually compelling evidence of anything."

@senseiman.

Rather, I think it is evidence that some of us folks who grew up in the 70's and 80's remember all the panic surrounding the events mentioned by JeffLee that never happened. We learned from these events that science is not exact and hardly objective.

Why climate change deniers have no credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming http://desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists including all the most credible scientists, believe that human induced global warming is an extremely serious problem that must be addressed urgently to avoid catastrophic consequences. It is the responsibility of governments and relevant international institutions to seek out the best available credible advice, determine the possible consequences of human induced global warming and to undertake the most appropriate preventative measures. I would recommend that interested persons seek out the recent report by James Hansen and his associates released on December 3, 2013 for a credible summary of the danger imposed by human induced global warming.

Nearly all the disinformation constantly repeated by climate change deniers should be treated with contempt as not only is it almost universally incorrect but what is worse this disinformation is predominately funded by special interest groups such as the fossil fuel industry and acts to frustrate the implementation of the most timely, appropriate and cost effective measures to protect the worlds people, the economies of nations and the natural world.

Rather, I think it is evidence that some of us folks who grew up in the 70's and 80's remember all the panic surrounding the events mentioned by JeffLee that never happened. We learned from these events that science is not exact and hardly objective.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s too but it seems ludicrous to me to base your opinion on issues of global concern on the fact that as a child somebody told you something would happen and, in the end, it didnt. This is literally as sophisticated as the argument you are putting forward goes and it really sounds less like an actual argument to be taken seriously than it does some dismissive talking point intended to obscure the fact that the person making it really doesnt understand the substance of the issue being debated.

To the extent that the argument is worth refuting (and really it isnt, but Ill bite anyway) its worth noting that one of the reasons some of those scenarios didn`t come true (ie dire predictions related to the hole in the ozone layer) is that people actually took the science seriously and took measures which prevented them from happening.

JeffLeeMar. 30, 2014 - 10:35AM JST It sure is. In my lifetime, I've been taught as gospel truth (in schools, etc) about a dozen doomsday scenarios, from the world's petroleum running out (by the late 80s), to acid rain destroying half our forests, to famines throughout East Asia. This was taught as truth, not speculation, either. We were actually tested and graded on these subjects!!!

Anyway, not a single doomsday scenario...not one....has ever occurred. That's pretty compelling evidence, wouldn't you say?

Well, I grew up a bit earlier than you, with global nuclear war looming over our heads, and documents finally being leaked now show that we came terribly close to the real deal on several occasions, and that the threat was very real. Just because global nuclear war didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't a real thing or that if the public hadn't been so active in opposing it that it wouldn't have happened.

This brings me to my point. In the 1980's there was strong pressure from the public to cut down on acid-rain producing pollutants, to produce cars that used less petroleum, and GM crops are a direct result of famine concerns. Isn't it a far more reasonable argument that, precisely BECAUSE the public was made aware of these concerns we took actions that prevented these apocalypse scenarios from taking place.

The attitude to global warming, on the other hand, has consistently been one of denial and confusion. The simple truth is that there is way too much pollution, anyone who has felt the effects of 2.5 from China should be in complete agreement. We NEED a global agreement on limiting pollution of all types.

"So because you have in the past been told that bad stuff would happen which did not occur "

Never mind my past, but throughout human history. There have been thousands of apocalyptic predictions, every era has them...and none have ever materialized. That's, erm, pretty convincing, if you ask me.

The reason? Functional societies have the ability to adapt and change. We live in cleaner cities, breathe cleaner air and live healthier lives than before. I remember when a few hours out in central London would turn my snot black. We were told it would only get worse; in fact, it got better. People are catching salmon in the London stretch of the Thames.

I do believe that global warming is happening. But the problem with the predictions is that they don't account for countervailing factors. The scientists who predicted famine in Asia, for instance, never foresaw the benefits globalization, making their predictions irrelevant.

Unanimous scientific agreement, less jargon and buster, sound and clear proposals.

There has been no "global warming" since 1997. That is why the alarmists have changed the terminology to "climate change." More and more people have caught on to the giant scam. The fact is that science has nothing to do with. "consensus," which is a political term. Environmentalists with a Marxist agenda are the biggest threat to the planet at the moment. There is absolutely nothing to fear from "climate change," since it has been around for a very long time. The Earth has been through countless climate changes, and has survived, without our help. I love the environment, and hate to see it being destroyed by useless, unreliable and extremely expensive Wind Farms, which I am being forced to pay for through "Green" taxes. The IPCC is a political, rather than a scientific organisation. You need to take what they say with a large pinch of salt.

Never mind my past, but throughout human history. There have been thousands of apocalyptic predictions, every era has them...and none have ever materialized. That's, erm, pretty convincing, if you ask me.

So you live in a world in which all those people who (for example) warned of the dire consequences of allowing Fascism to spread unchecked in the 1930s were proven wrong? Ditto for the people who warned of the impending financial crisis in 2007? 1929?

You are staking out an extreme position for yourself if you are actually saying that terrible predictions never come true.

I do believe that global warming is happening. But the problem with the predictions is that they don't account for countervailing factors. The scientists who predicted famine in Asia, for instance, never foresaw the benefits globalization, making their predictions irrelevant.

Are you saying this because you have actually read the scientific papers and know that they have excluded these variables or is this just some hunch you have? Because the works I have read do take into account such factors and find that even in the best case scenarios are quite concerning.

You are correct that we live in a society which is capable of adapting and changing, but there are limits to our ability to do so. It really depends on what type of change you are talking about. If we are talking about making changes now that will allow us to avoid the worst effects of climate change by reducing our emissions, unfortunately the nature of the problem and our institutions makes that very difficult.

If on the other hand you are talking about changes after the effects of climate change have already manifested themselves we can probably make those simply due to the fact that we are forced to. But the costs of doing so at that point will be much higher than they would be if we were to act now.

We might not in the end be faced with a doomsday scenario involving the end of civilization, etc, but in all likelihood this will be a harmful experience for a lot of people if something is not done. Hence my comment that the dismissive meh, well adaptisnt a particularly useful observation.

The UN wants their global taxation, and they want it now. That is all there is to this ongoing push for action to combat a fictitious enemy.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy". (Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

This planet has been going through climate change for millions of years and taxation will not stop the natural evolution.

Most dangerous is Man. Fukushima is a danger. War is a danger. Political corruption is a danger. Much of humankind's misery is brought on by humans. Quite sad we can never seem to get it right. But that is the truth. Humility, with feedback from the populations effected, is needed to stop an elite using any excuse such as global warming to enslave us all. Freedoms of speech, assembly, press and religion are so important because those voices can bring us to our senses when we error. The current fade may have many errors that deceive people.

JeffLeeMar. 30, 2014 - 12:18PM JST Never mind my past, but throughout human history. There have been thousands of apocalyptic predictions, every era has them...and none have ever materialized. That's, erm, pretty convincing, if you ask me.

Your grasp of history is sorely lacking. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Roman Empire, the Jutes, the Native American Indians... I could go on. There are literally dozens of well-documented examples of civilizations that had a fairly good idea that they were headed for catastrophe, but failed to heed the warning signs and were destroyed. Of course they're not around to say, "Hey, when someone warns you about a catastrophe it might just be a good idea to listen", and you'd need to actually study a little history to find out about them. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So, with all due respect, you're mistaken. Just because the first guy who said, "Hey everyone, it seems like a bad idea to have our toilet upstream from our well", isn't around today doesn't mean he was wrong, just that everyone died and proved him right.

The reason? Functional societies have the ability to adapt and change. We live in cleaner cities, breathe cleaner air and live healthier lives than before. I remember when a few hours out in central London would turn my snot black. We were told it would only get worse; in fact, it got better. People are catching salmon in the London stretch of the Thames.

So you're citing one city in one place as a universal example of how everything gets better? What about the air in Delhi, or Beijing, or even New York? And just because the pollution is less visible in London doesn't mean it isn't there. Sure there's less coal dust in the air (the cause of your black snot), but there are other, less visible, pollutants in the air. Most of London's air is moderately to highly polluted (http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/PublicEpisodes.asp).

I do believe that global warming is happening. But the problem with the predictions is that they don't account for countervailing factors. The scientists who predicted famine in Asia, for instance, never foresaw the benefits globalization, making their predictions irrelevant.

So your argument is that because people got off their lazy butts and did something to stop the problem we don't need to get worried about global warming because someone else will do the work for us? ... and what is a sufficiently large number of people share your apathy and nothing gets done? Will you be there when things get really bad shouting, "Why didn't anyone do anything?!".

Nearly all the disinformation constantly repeated by climate change deniers should be treated with contempt as not only is it almost universally incorrect but what is worse this disinformation is predominately funded by special interest groups such as the fossil fuel industry and acts to frustrate the implementation of the most timely, appropriate and cost effective measures to protect the worlds people, the economies of nations and the natural world.

What disnformation? The 1996 IPCC report on global warming predicted "siginificant" temperature increases by 2010, there were none. Was this disinformation? We were told that there would be no more ice in the arctic by 2013, was this disinformation? The Met office in the UK predicted a warm winter, and the entire country was covered with snow. We were told that there would be more deadly tornadoes, hurricanes, and other weather events, but the numbers of these events have actually been decreasing. There is plenty of disinformation being spread around, but it seems to have come mostly from proponents of climate change.

Do people not realize how irrelevant man and mankind are in a world that is billions of years old? Humankind's existence on earth amounts to only a second of a 31 day month. The earth has dealt with far greater forces than anything man has been able to create. Mankind can easily destroy itself, but the earth would never notice. More species have gone extinct over the billions of years the world has been around than exist today, and no species which exists today will be around a billion years from now.

Climate change is just another politically generated fear to keep the top 1% in control, and the other 99% under their thumb.

sangetsu03Mar. 30, 2014 - 08:57PM JST What disnformation?

Disinformation like this.

The 1996 IPCC report on global warming predicted "siginificant" temperature increases by 2010, there were none.

2010 was the hottest year (at the time) since record keeping started in 1880. Denialists like to average the temperature, using the colder winter to balance out the hotter summer and say, "Hey, look, no change!", but that is just bad statistics. It is like looking at a see-saw with two kids playing on it, going up and down and saying, "Statistically that is a boring ride because on average it doesn't move.".

Was this disinformation?

Yes, and so is the rest of your post.

As for the irrelevance of man and mankind... well, you may consider yourself irrelevant, but I'm quite fond of living and breathing, and would very much like to continue to do so for quite some time.

Sangetsu03

Do people not realize how irrelevant man and mankind are in a world that is billions of years old? Humankind's existence on earth amounts to only a second of a 31 day month. The earth has dealt with far greater forces than anything man has been able to create. Mankind can easily destroy itself, but the earth would never notice. More species have gone extinct over the billions of years the world has been around than exist today, and no species which exists today will be around a billion years from now.

Sure, the blip in climate we are making now may not be noticable in the far future, but still - I prefer as comfortable world as we can possibly make for myself and my descendents.

Andreas Bimba is correct in saying regarding climate change "disinformation is predominately funded by special interest groups such as the fossil fuel industry and acts to frustrate the implementation of the most timely, appropriate and cost effective measures to protect the worlds people, the economies of nations and the natural world."

I would add that the massively funded disinformation campaign denying global warming is having the effect of causing the scientific consensus it is opposing to speak very cautiously, and to minimize the potential for catastrophic change. There is good reason to believe the UN report is describing the best possible scenario for the future of our world, and the reality of what's coming is going to be much worse, and one governments and people will not be prepared for.

"So you're citing one city in one place as a universal example of how everything gets better?"

No, I've cited several examples on this thread illustrating how problems have been successfully tackled. You should read my arguments before criticizing them.

(BTW, I hope that yesterday's acid rain didn't burn a hole through your umbrella.)

It sure is. In my lifetime, I've been taught as gospel truth (in schools, etc) about a dozen doomsday scenarios, from the world's petroleum running out (by the late 80s), to acid rain destroying half our forests, to famines throughout East Asia. This was taught as truth, not speculation, either. We were actually tested and graded on these subjects!!! Anyway, not a single doomsday scenario...not one....has ever occurred. That's pretty compelling evidence, wouldn't you say?

As far as acid rain is concerned, the reason that "doomsday scenario" didn't pan out was that governments and industry realized the problem and worked hard to change it. There were about a dozen air quality treaties and industry agreements that came into force in the late 80s and early 90s that dealt with high sulphur emissions. The result: acid rain in the USA is 65% lower than it was in the 1970s. The problem isn't solved, but it is a lot better than it was. It wasn't magic, it took a lot of investment and hard work for that problem to cease being an immediate threat.

You're saying that humans will adapt to climate change. With acid rain, we did adapt, and we are continuing to do so, and the threat is decreasing as a result. With climate change, there isn't a fraction of the political will or industry acceptance of the problem, let alone the mechanisms for fixing the problem.

hokkaidoguyMar. 31, 2014 - 09:08AM JST As far as acid rain is concerned, the reason that "doomsday scenario" didn't pan out was that governments and industry realized the problem and worked hard to change it. There were about a dozen air quality treaties and industry agreements that came into force in the late 80s and early 90s that dealt with high sulphur emissions. The result: acid rain in the USA is 65% lower than it was in the 1970s. The problem isn't solved, but it is a lot better than it was. It wasn't magic, it took a lot of investment and hard work for that problem to cease being an immediate threat.

Exactly.

JeffLeeMar. 31, 2014 - 06:41AM JST No, I've cited several examples on this thread illustrating how problems have been successfully tackled. You should read my arguments before criticizing them.

I did read them, and they're all erroneous. I just chose a couple of examples to point out the errors in your thinking, because I'm not going to waste my time debunking every bit of nonsense, it simply encourages you to spew more nonsense knowing that I'm going to waste time responding to it.

I note with interest that when scientists fail to accurately predict every single change bought about by global warming the denialists leap up and down and shout that the scientists are frauds, but when denialists make mistakes they just move on to their next point. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Either apply the same standards to yourself that you do to the people you're criticising or just admit you're a hypocrite and go away.

Well put Frungy!

I note with interest that when scientists fail to accurately predict every single change bought about by global warming the denialists leap up and down and shout that the scientists are frauds, but when denialists make mistakes they just move on to their next point. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

"there isn't a fraction of the political will or industry acceptance of the problem, let alone the mechanisms for fixing the problem."

Oh, the irony. Do you realize that commentators of years past said the exact same thing about all the other problems.

Here's a small sampling from 1970:

*"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation. -Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Air pollution,,,is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone. -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years. -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." -Harvard biologist George Wald

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation. -Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist*

There's more. A lot more.

There's more. A lot more.

More quotes without context? I don't doubt that.

Seems like your point is: Scientists have been wrong in the past, therefore all science is wrong in the present.

"More quotes without context?"

You don't understand the context? Well, OK, then google is your friend. I know the context because in elementary school in the 1970s, these issues were incorporated into our coursework and class discussions. The world running out of petroleum by the late 80s was the truth after all, and not idle speculation. Don't you forget that!

"Scientists have been wrong in the past, therefore all science is wrong in the present."

Not quite. The science is right, I believe, but predictions have the potential of being very wrong, due to their omission of counteracting factors that tend to crop up later on (fracking, offshore drilling, etc.). If there's a breakthrough with hydrogen power, for example, then bang, the warming trend is set to be solved.

Humans have the gift of intelligence and creativity. But they lack the ability to foretell the future.

JeffLee,

Oh, the irony. Do you realize that commentators of years past said the exact same thing about all the other problems.

Here's a small sampling from 1970:

*"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation. -Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

Oh, Denis Hayes, with a History degree from Stanford.

The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Kenneth Watt, with a PhD in Zoology. Getting climate science from him is like asking a Vet's Assistant about neurosurgery.

"Air pollution,,,is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone. -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

And air pollution takes millions of lives annually.

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years. -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

Obviously wrong, he failed to see that population rates could decrease. He is correct in his view that overpopulation would stress the ecosystem severely.

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." -Harvard biologist George Wald

Best known for his work on the retina, got a Nobel for it. Nothing on ecosystems.

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation. -Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist*

And again, he was wrong about that.

If you had similar statements from professional scientific bodies, perhaps you would have a case - but you have some statements from people getting wrapped up in the ecological doom hype of the late 60s and 70s, some of which have no qualifications in the subject, and none of whom have the overview to make definitive statements. This is not the case with current Climate Science.

Star-viking

Kenneth Watt, with a PhD in Zoology. Getting climate science from him is like asking a Vet's Assistant about neurosurgery.

ROFL That is hilarious! Thank you sir for making me smile.

JeffLee I would point out that these alarmist quotes are famous because they're so alarmist, and even though they were dead wrong they produced positive changes. Sadly most people can't understand experts, who will tend to ring what they say around with "caveats and uses lowercase Roman numerals", as a result you end up with non-experts making extreme pronouncements being quoted more often than people who actually know what they're talking about. It doesn't mean that scientists were wrong, just that our media system leans towards giving undue amounts of time to non-experts.

Frungy,

ROFL That is hilarious! Thank you sir for making me smile.

No problem, thanks for your great effort in this thread!