"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote...
>
> Sorry, but the fast is that you didn't give me "hundreds". What's more -
> if you bothered to actually read the scientific papers cited in the IPCC
> you'd be surprised that most of them make NO CLAIMS about anthropogenic
> global warming.
(emphasis added)
"The Panel's role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and
transparent basis the best available scientific, technical and
socio-economic information on climate change from around the world. The
assessments are based on information contained in peer-reviewed literature
and, where appropriately documented, in industry literature and traditional
practices. They draw on the work of _hundreds_ of experts from all regions
of the world."
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC Introduction.pdf
HUMAN AND NATURAL DRIVERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed
pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure
SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due
primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and
nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (p. 2)
It is _very likely_6 that the observed increase in methane concentration is
due to _anthropogenic activities_, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel
use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well
determined. {2.3, 7.4} (p. 3)
etc., etc.
> Hmm, let's be frank about this CO2 has increased in the atmosphere at the
> same time man has been generating energy. Of course the rise started in
> 1780 or so which doesn't fit very closely with the fact that man has only
> been generating enough CO2 since about 1950 to even consider as part of
> the problem.
Citation?
>> What does it mean for me in practical terms? It boils down to more
>> energy efficient light bulbs, a push mower, and riding my bike more, plus
>> a few others. So I save a few hundred dollars a year, and am healthier.
>> Gee whiz, I guess those tree huggers sure snookered me.
>
> Well, that's fine - but as I pointed out - if EVERYONE in the world more
> than met the Kyoto Protocols the IPCC estimates that the temperature would
> change only .07 degrees C.
But you deny there's a problem? You deny an anthropogenic primary role in
the creation of gerenhouse gases?
> The USA is the ONLY country in the world that is actually reducing it's
> CO2 generation and that is because we're rich enough to afford alternate
> methods and to pay for less efficient but less poluting energy sources.
> But no need to worry, with the present "environmentalism at any cost"
> idealism, it won't be long before we can't afford those less poluting
> sources. The Pacific states have already said they intend to limit the CO2
> generation they cause which has already started the few remaining
> industries looking for a new home. It is likely that they will move
> completely out of the USA and into some country where sanity of a sort
> still rules.
The american automaker's cries remind me of their predecessors.' They lay
off hundred and thousands of workers because they can't compete with the
japenese, and tell them the guy with mouths to feed that he has to adapt to
a changing economic reality. But when someone comes into their bedroom, and
tells the automakers to adapt to a changing reality, like a horsedrawn
carriage manufacturer to henry ford, they fight progress.
