U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-20-2007, 07:36 AM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,407,694 times
Reputation: 2996

Advertisements

The UN is a political organization. Any group they organize is organized by politicians, and their efforts and work is all overseen and directed by politicians. The work of the scientists in the IPCC is edited by both scientists and politicians. I'm not sure how anyone could think of the group as not being political.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2007, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,396 posts, read 7,056,240 times
Reputation: 1197
No argument there. But what I do not understand is - the IPCC states that their research goes through several layers of review by different scientific teams. Governments are allowed to comment on the results, not change any results of the scientists.

Are you suggesting the actual scientific results are being changed by politicians reviewing those results? Is there any evidence of this? Again I am asking in all honesty. And the end game is to what? Unduly alarm the world?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 07:57 AM
 
114 posts, read 124,000 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
No argument there. But what I do not understand is - the IPCC states that their research goes through several layers of review by different scientific teams. Governments are allowed to comment on the results, not change any results of the scientists.

Are you suggesting the actual scientific results are being changed by politicians reviewing those results? Is there any evidence of this? Again I am asking in all honesty. And the end game is to what? Unduly alarm the world?
The final draft of the Summary for Policy Makers is approved by Politicians and is released BEFORE the scientific report. And yes it is designed with Alarmism in mind. The Scientific "Consensus" from the participating scientists on this summary is non existent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:10 AM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,407,694 times
Reputation: 2996
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4 View Post
No argument there. But what I do not understand is - the IPCC states that their research goes through several layers of review by different scientific teams. Governments are allowed to comment on the results, not change any results of the scientists.

Are you suggesting the actual scientific results are being changed by politicians reviewing those results? Is there any evidence of this? Again I am asking in all honesty. And the end game is to what? Unduly alarm the world?
What we are constantly fed by the media is the "Summary for Policymakers" written by guess who? Policy makers and influencers, with some scientists contributing.

The last 2 or 3 installments of the 2007 IPCC You Are Going to Die Summary for Policy makers has been repeats with a few new twists and screams thrown in, but basically just a press magnent so they can get a fresh round of media coverage on their political assessment of the reports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,565,820 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
What we are constantly fed by the media is the "Summary for Policymakers" written by guess who? Policy makers and influencers, with some scientists contributing.
True, but it's also reviewed extensively by scientists to make sure it complies with the actual report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 09:39 AM
 
114 posts, read 124,000 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
True, but it's also reviewed extensively by scientists to make sure it complies with the actual report.
Who has final say on the summary? The politicians. Who funds and runs the IPCC? The UN. But the most obvious question is why is the Science Report released MONTHS after the summary? Do you not find that suspect? I sure do and when I read both reports, the scientific one is much less alarmist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,396 posts, read 7,056,240 times
Reputation: 1197
I still don't get it though. I just wikied this, so let's get that out of the way, and if something is not right please correct it. But it seems like the politicians (including U.S. and China) were lobbying more to decrease the alarmist language of the scientists than increase the alarmist language.

I can understand why politicians would want to decrease the alarmist language...that way nothing needs to be put in place to limit current manufacturing processes and this can keep businesses operating at maximum profits. But why would politicians want to increase alarmism? That does not make common sense to me. Why would politicians want to handicap their national manufacturing capabilities? And if there is actual evidence of a political body adjusting the scientific language to increase alarmism can this be provided by anybody?


U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a news conference that the report was "sound science" and "As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is contributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."

U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, according to Patricia Romero Lankao, a lead author from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." The second sentence does not appear in the final version of the report.[16]

China objected to wording that said "based on observed evidence, there is very high confidence that many natural systems, on all continents and in most oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." When China asked that the word "very" be stricken, three scientific authors balked, and the deadlock was broken only by a compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.
At the full IPCC meeting on May 4, agreement was reached by the larger gathering of some 2,000 delegates. One of the key debates concerned a proposal to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to between 445 parts per million and 650 parts per million to avoid dangerous climate change, with pressure from developing countries to raise the lower limit. Despite this, the figures from the original proposal were incorporated into the Summary for Policymakers.[22] The Summary concludes that stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations is possible at a reasonable cost, with stabilization between 445ppm and 535ppm costing less than 3% of global GDP.[23]


IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 10:36 AM
 
114 posts, read 124,000 times
Reputation: 28
First of all Wikipedia is a really a poor resource since anyone can edit it.

But as for reasons to increase the alarmist language it is very simple: Anti-Capitalism. Any CO2 regulation is going to negatively effect the largest capitalistic economies the most AKA the US. China and India is irrelevant since they are excluded from treaties like Kyoto. But China knows it is now out producing the US in CO2 emmissions which is why they made the statement that they did.

Ask yourself why you hear no demands to force China or India to drop CO2 emmissions.

What this does is "level the playing field" for nations competing with the US. Press any environmentalist and find out what their political leanings are and you will find them to be socialist. All the extremist left-wing democrats (this is not all Democrats) in this country are as well.

It is no coincidence that Earth Day [April 22] falls on Vladimir Lenin’s Birthday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,565,820 times
Reputation: 590
So... not only are you inundated by WorldNetDaily/talk radio propaganda, but you're also a conspiracy theorist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2007, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,396 posts, read 7,056,240 times
Reputation: 1197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
First of all Wikipedia is a really a poor resource since anyone can edit it.

But as for reasons to increase the alarmist language it is very simple: Anti-Capitalism. Any CO2 regulation is going to negatively effect the largest capitalistic economies the most AKA the US. China and India is irrelevant since they are excluded from treaties like Kyoto. But China knows it is now out producing the US in CO2 emmissions which is why they made the statement that they did.

Ask yourself why you hear no demands to force China or India to drop CO2 emmissions.

What this does is "level the playing field" for nations competing with the US. Press any environmentalist and find out what their political leanings are and you will find them to be socialist. All the extremist left-wing democrats (this is not all Democrats) in this country are as well.

It is no coincidence that Earth Day [April 22] falls on Vladimir Lenin’s Birthday.
Iknow, I know, that is why I said if you have a problem with the wiki go ahead and correct it. I didn't feel like trolling for the original sources. Forget Kyoto for a second... that was put together before China became a manufacturing global power. If we agree on a treaty today it will be updated and modified, and of course China would be included in the verbiage. You will note China also was trying to downplay the language of the scientists.

If your contention then is China and India are the ones purposefully influencing the verbiage of the report so they can tie up the U.S. and gain an unfair competitive advantage, I think that is a little farfetched and unrealistic. I am sure a global environmental agreement would include these countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top