Report Warns About Global Warming — What do we have to do to stop the reports? They are making me woozy. I can’t take it anymore.

Introducing the report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would eventually cost the world between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year.

And if you dig into this you find Al Gore again. Will someone slap him? Besides, China is the real long-term culprit and they are going to do what they want to do.



  1. YeahRight says:

    Besides, China is the real long-term culprit and they are going to do what they want to do….

    And what about the U.S. ?? Are you saying that you have nothing to do with climate change ??

  2. Peter Rodwell says:

    What do we have to do to stop the reports?

    Burn them!

  3. JimR says:

    The human population (6.5 billion) is directly responsible for greenhouse gas because of our food sources. One sheep expels 20-30 litres of methane each day and 1 cow expels 200-300 litres. People expel 2 litres per day. There are about 1.2 billion cattle on the earth expelling an average of 300 billion litres of fart a day. Canada produces 19 million tons of the gas alone. 12-13 % of Australia’s greenhouse gas is from sheep and cattle. What about chickens.. do they fart? Is the world population going to decrease? Either we engage negative population growth, and stop eating meat or go along for the ride. Pointing fingers won’t make any difference. It’s a life cycle I don’t think we can control.

  4. rctaylor says:

    It’s all a moot point. By the time you would convince the skeptics it would be too late. The fact is it’s probably already too late, unless some new technology become available to sequester the carbon. I’m not referring to seeding the Antarctic Ocean with iron either. These technologies would take enormous amounts of energy also. Humans have repeatedly demonstrated disastrous results when trying to repair environmental damage.

  5. plankton says:

    The real cause for global warming is the decrease in the number of pirates. We need more pirates.

  6. Jonathan Summers says:

    YeahRight is quite right.

    Currently the US is contributing 25% to global polution. Being a world power means you, the US, have to do something more than charging around the world annoying people – we have a global responsibility.

  7. 0113addiv says:

    I think global warming comes from bodies and machines that produce heat. That is, the main problem is the vast population of human beings in the world (the average temperature is going to increase because the number of bodies generating 98.7 degrees keep increasing– much like the average age that increases on Myspace.com by those that put in “100 years old”), and the ever-increasing number of computers that generate tremendous heat from the processors (temperature reaches 150 degrees F) and hard drives. From what I see we have to limit population growth or live in subterrean cities where the Earth’s temperature is around 55 degrees, AND use nanotechnology to build non-heat producing CPUs. Some would say shutting John C. Dvorak’s mouth is also helpful, but I beg to differ.

  8. Sounds The Alarm says:

    FOR THE LAST TIME!

    dubya says there is no global warming. Why can’t just believe him and the republican party – they been right about so much else.

  9. Peter says:

    [violation of posting guidelines]

  10. Peter says:

    [violation of posting guidelines]

  11. Peter says:

    [violation of posting guidelines]

  12. This is most in reply to the poster 6. 25% is wrong figure.

    First, one should not exadurate figures. By World Resource Institute study at the end of 2005 USA contributes about 20% of world polution. China 30%. India nad Russia additional 20%. Rest is dominated by few countries like Brazil, Mexico, Korea Pakistan, EU…

    Now, having that corrected, most important figure reported by them is estimate of the growth of these numbers. China, India, Russia and Mexico are expected to increase their contributions by 200% by 2025. There are a number of other countries where the number will be over 100% increase (ex. Brazil, S.Korea). US contribution increase: 25-50% at max. Now, you can calculate this in detail but very quick rough estimate is that in 2025 by this independent source estimate, total polution will be dominated as follows: China 37%, Russia and India 25%, USA 13%, rest of the world 25%….

    All this said I’ll repeat some of my previous posts on this topic: In last 10-20 yrs. it have been observed that the temperatures on such planets as Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. have suddenly risen significantly. At the same time Sun activity is highest since Gallileo (earliest direct measurement), rising during these two decades. Second this with the studies that show that the particulate matter we polute with actually decreases amount of Sun energy we receive…

    My opinion is that the two types of polution we produce actually cancel each other vs. impact on the climate and that the net increase in temperature is from the same source as for other planets: Sun…

    My concern about the polution is not so much in climate area but in ruining ecosystems (altering pH levels, poisones chemicals, …). And, again, there the “third” world leads as a source. That is where the battle should be. And it is particularly good for the local population of those countries. Unregulated coal burning in China or reckless dumping of heavy metals in India first affect people there (and than us…). But, it is not pc to critique developing world, they can’t do wrong.

  13. TJGeezer says:

    #11 – I’ve seen a report that opaque particle pollutants actually decrease surface heating and efforts to eliminate them could bounce back at us. But I hadn’t seen reports of other planets have seen a rise in temperature over the past decade or two. Could you provide a link?

  14. DeLeMa says:

    No scientist me but, I thought if you throw a bunch of stuff in the atmosphere that stays in the atmosphere for extended periods of time and said stuff reflects sunlight it also has the effect of reflecting or trapping the crapola beneath ? Last I “heard” China was building around 4 or 5 coal fired electrical generating plants each week and was planning to continue building these things for a few years into the future. Sorry, can’t give a connect just something I remember reading. Hopefully, it was just an urban legend kinda thing ?

  15. tallwookie says:

    lovin the acronym there!!

    lol

  16. RonD says:

    The general manager of two TV stations in Maine has put out the word that they will not air any more stories on global warming. http://tinyurl.com/t777u
    Michael Palmer, the general manager of television stations WVII and WFVX, ABC and Fox affiliates in Bangor, has told his joint staff of nine men and women that when “Bar Harbor is underwater, then we can do global warming stories.”
    “Until then,” he added. “No more.”

    Well, it’s a start.

  17. RBG says:

    C’mon baby. Just a little more and Daddy’s got tropical beach property here in the frozen North.

    RBG

  18. Max Bell says:

    The truth of the matter is that there’s a lot of noise in the news industry — global warming stories are selling well at the moment and as such, it’s to be expected that there will be a steady supply of them.

    Serious question — does anybody know anything about science reporting? Care to share links/lay explanations? Caught part of a panel discussion on the state of science reporting the other day, and I knew it was pretty abysmal, but outside of the lack of investigation, fact-checking and professional training, what really came forward was the effect of how stale some of our information ends up becoming and how this becomes exacerbated by repetition.

    I generally respect the associated press; they seem pretty consistent and don’t miss a great deal. But one has to keep in mind that the bulk of the article is fulminatory rhetoric issuing from British politicians, who know a thing or two about fulminating. Yeah, yeah, yeah, “… Besides, China is the real long-term culprit and they are going to do what they want to do…” is a bit like saying “we torture less than Saddam” (if, indeed, this is even true anymore; maybe we simply torture more nicely or something).

    But China DOES look to continue expanding it’s role as the elephant in the room, and it seems like this is more about labour scoring rhetorical points with the hoi polloi by giving the yanks what-for, like they don’t know full well that’s as useful as giving a hen a flag.

  19. tallwookie says:

    personally though, I’m all for global warming (which is offset by global-dimming, as some of you may know) – up here in seattle, the junk downtown would flood (again, no issues with that here) – but it’s be a lot easier on us here (aka no sleet or hail like yesterday…

  20. GregA says:

    Smith,

    How is that? Do you have some evidence that disproves global warming theory? Last I checked there is lots of evidence that global warming is happening… Say for example for the last 30-100 years the temperature has increased, an indisputable fact. Also in the last 30 years the rate of change is increasing, another indisputable fact. Those figures certainly seem to corolate with green house gas emissions, which are also increasing. If there is a causal relationship, it should be testable to predict the increase in temperature year to year, from the predictions of green house gas output. AFAIK, those predictions have been remarkably consistent for the last 15 years or so. Do you have some evidence to dispute this? If so, you could win the nobel prize for enviromental sciences for overthrowing the reigning scientific dogma for the last 30 years. You obviously are onto something, you should write a paper.

    Other things…

    The amount of green house gasses emitted by cows and humans per day are insignificatnt to the tens of liters of green house gas emitted per minute from a single car engine. It was worked out for me once, your 40 minute commute to work and back is as damaging (even thouth methane is a better green houes gas than co2) than a 1000 cows. Personally, I would rather give up my car than the occasional tasty steak, and cup of milk. A ride on a train is worth steak rather than your own car isn’t it?

    Also, the amount of heat given off by humans is nearly irrelevant. The real heating culprit is the kilowatt hour of energy hitting each and every square meter of sunlit earth every day. The greenhouse gasses (get it?) dont let that heat escape. That heat was already here anyhow, we are just using it.

    I personally don’t think global warming will be all that bad, but I live in Michigan. If we were to get the climate of say Atlanta, I would say that would increase the value of my property quite nicely. On the other hand, if you live on a place that is going to be underwater, or a desert, well, you will probably think it is a bad thing. On the other hand, I could be wrong, and Carl Sagan could have been right, and the earth has no significant self righting mechanism, and the earth will start to resemble Venus in a 1000 years or so. Here is hopeing Carl was wrong, because I don’t see anything significant happening in the next 50 years to mitigate the effects of global warming.

  21. Smith says:

    #21 “If there is a causal relationship, it should be testable to predict the increase in temperature year to year, from the predictions of green house gas output. AFAIK, those predictions have been remarkably consistent for the last 15 years or so.”

    Those “predictions” never occurred. The only thing that has been happening is “adjustments” to models to better correlate modeling output to observed data. And then they do stupid shit like taking the output from several of their “best” models and averaging them together. Then they overlay this average “prediction” with actual measurements, highlight any points of agreement (downplay any disagreements) and sing their praise to the heavens.

    In all of the hype by global warming modelers, not a single year-to-year prediction for the next ten years has ever been posted for public consumption. And yet we hear doom and gloom predictions about how if we wait ten years to stop driving SUVs, it will be too late. Pure hyperbole.

    They don’t even have a theory because they refuse to perform an honest test of their hypothesis.

  22. JimR says:

    The amount of green house gasses emitted by cows and humans per day are insignificatnt to the tens of liters of green house gas emitted per minute from a single car engine.

    GregA #21, yes but methane is 16 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2 from burning gasoline.

  23. Smith says:

    Oh wait, they did make one prediction last year. They stated that the ’06 hurricane season would be a repeat of ’05, if not worse.

    Oops. I guess that’s why they don’t make predictions that can be verified/refuted in our lifetime.

    Oh, #22, I guess under the proper use of the scientific method, any single failure of the model to match observation means the hypothesis must be rejected. And since the hypothesis is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions is responsible for global warming (and hurricanes), then we can reject the hypothesis and send the climatologists back to their computer labs.

    Climatologist don’t have a theory, just opinion. And that is why they fail to satisfy the requirement of science and adhere to the scientific method.

  24. tallwookie says:

    Max Bell – thats a very vaild point, I’d forgotten about the algae – i guess it just doesnt get enough attention these days – what with it being voting season and whatnot…

  25. 888 says:

    Goddamn cavemen must have had much better technoloy than we do, since they had few giant global warmings and ice ages – and there was very little of them :/

  26. AB CD says:

    >did away with most of the clean air and environmental restraints on polluters.

    Stop listening to Bobby Kennedy and the envirocrazies. Air is cleaner, including new rules that went into effect under George Bush, such as reduction in pollution for heavy diesel trucks and off-road vehicles.

    John’s got it right. China will be the largest greenhouse gas emitter very soon, and even faster if Kyoto-style limits are passed on the US. There’s a reason the Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify Kyoto unless China and INdia were included.

  27. wyth says:

    Yeah, and while we’re at it, when are those negative reports from Baghdad gonna end? GAARRRGGHH I’ve had enough Sunni-Shi’ite-U.S. soldier damage reports already. Am I right or am I right? And what about those irritating Darfur reports that pop up every month or so? And I am so sick of hearing about how poorly New Orleans has recovered since the hurricane. I mean, who hasn’t?

    Cripes, why won’t these persistent negative aspects of our world just go away like good little blurbs when I don’t want to face them? Don’t they get it, we don’t want to hear about it!

    (Dvorak, you’re welcome to use any of the above to generate a few more blog hits. Others that may work: Women get raped because they dress in a way to invite it, homeless people are just too lazy to get jobs, and boy-buggering priests are just republicans in training, and we’re al a little tired of hearing about it.)

  28. AB CD says:

    By the way, people used to say that the US was responsible for 40% of the world’s resource use/ pollution/ etc. So now, the US number has dropped down to 25 or 20, and is still dropping.

    Blair should note that the cost of complying with Kyoto and successor treatie4s would be 5-20% of GDP.

  29. Mark says:

    30. Its Per Capita. We have 300 million, China in the billions. Their 30% pales in Per Capita comparison.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 8777 access attempts in the last 7 days.