The IPCC Climate Consensus


B26268 / Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:40:14 / Environment

What the U.N. through the I.P.C.C. is pressing for is a controlled power down of industrialized society in an orderly and agreed upon fashion by virtue of a binding international agreement, as opposed to hitting the wall of limited supply and growing demand that will soon face a burgeoning population and will eventually be the cause of rapidly declining standards of living and environmental degradation, especially if the chaos of market forces and supply chain breakdowns are not avoided.

Meeting theese reductions of CO2 emissions recommended should help to avert this chaos, whether or not these CO2 emissions are the direct cause of “global warming.”

How much of the one degree rise in global temperature can be accurately assessed to the increase of atmospheric CO2 and how much is attributable to other causes remains a contentious issue, even among climate scientists.

To be sure, it is but a percentage of the total rise.

No credible source will try to tell you that emissions of CO2 and the other “trace” GHG’s are the entire problem.

The actual consensus among the scientific community is that if humanity continues down the current path of unrestricted use of fossil fuels and material resources to fuel industrial growth for the dual purpose of increasing standards of living and continued population growth, that anthropogenic climate influence will continue to grow and the Earth’s climate will continue to get warmer.

On that I can only concur; regardless of my fundamental argument that anthropogenic alteration of the hydrological cycle is principally responsible for the documented warming, not simply the increased percentage of CO2 and other “trace” GHG’s in the atmosphere.

You’ll be hard pressed to find official statements that don’t carefully hedge on this issue.

Most of the I.P.C.C. conclusions and U.N. statements are very carefully worded.

An anthropogenic influence on the climate is now a 90% certainty.

An abatement program of CO2 emissions reducing them below 1990 levels will slow the growth of this anthropogenic impact and hopefully prevent it from becoming more than a two degree rise, but we must act quickly.

So in that regard the “consensus” is being quite forthcoming.

The media portrayal of the I.P.C.C. consensus fueled by the illusions of Gore et al, that atmospheric CO2 levels alone are the central issue, along with the popularized misconception that we can or could continue to increase our standards of living and rates of consumption and population growth so long as we can find a way to do so while meeting the abatement of CO2 emissions is the lie.

Many other limiting environmental factors are already at work and will then come into play.

The bottom line is that these “scientists,”

(The quotes aren’t there to detract from their credentials but rather to emphasize that their roles in this I.P.C.C. decision making process entails more than just the application of academic science.)

are now able to clearly see that mankind’s only hope of averting an environmental catastrophe ultimately leading to economic collapse is a binding international agreement to curtail CO2 emissions that will throttle back and then curtail both the current pace of growth of our global industrial civilization and in the foreseeable future, human population growth as well.

That is the Truth of this matter.

terrible bad average good great


So the Truth does suck?

GWHunta @ 12/13/07 23:08:04

Just have to agree 100%.

Watson @ 12/14/07 00:04:55

bro, this is quite a summary of the situation…but one might hope that curbing emissions could have the sort of “brake” affect that you describe…even when tools for curbing emissions such as trading credits also promote climate/hydrological cycle changing activities such as hydropower development…so curbing emissions may not even be enough to bring about this slowdown you speak of….

cumulative impacts, that is the issue, not any one issue in particular…but slowing down the machine needs to happen somehow…that is if we do not want it to crash…


i think the global shrinkage has to be seen as an opportunity or there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

manyhues @ 12/14/07 01:28:33

Thanks Watson.

i think the global shrinkage has to be seen as an opportunity or there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

I concur, and many do see it as an opportunity and are taking full advantage, but not ethically, to wit the current terror/energy war.

That is the challenge. Reducing anthropogenic impact in an ethical fashion that preserves not only biodiversity, but human sociological and genetic diversity as well.

True economic and social justice has always been an elusive goal historically and whatever gains that have been made in this arena are easily lost in crisis situations.

No matter the technological advancements in the field of energy conservation and efficiency, population stabilization and reduction has to become an immediate priority regardless of the current state of wellbeing of the nations involved.

Therein lies the core of the problem.

Today Russia is enjoying a relative resurgence in economic vitality due to rising energy prices and its position as an bulk energy exporter and trader. This has led to a national impetus and government incentives to spur increasing fertility amongst the Russian population, in spite of the fact that globally we have surpassed the ability of the biosphere to absorb anthropogenic impact.

China and India both have large populations with continued population growth and rapidly increasing living standards along with their increasing anthropogenic impacts on the environment.

These nations are all already nuclear armed and also advancing rapidly technologically and militarily with a renewed emphasis on conventional as well as deterrent forces.

It should be becoming increasingly clear that a natural alliance is forming on the Asian continent and that the current “western” view of climate change as the limiting factor on national and global growth may not be shared universally.

This growing global bipolarity and simple geography regarding the location of the known remaining hydrocarbon reserves may dictate how successfully adaptive change is negotiated.

The U.S. has already failed in the first rounds, by a steadfast “refusal to negotiate” and its brazen declaration to the world in the opening years of this new millennium that, “You’re either with us, or against us.”

Setting such precedents as a global leader is a privilege unique to a lone global superpower and this legacy could soon become a curse upon not only the U.S. but the European powers that have aligned themselves with us.

Sometimes no Peace

GWHunta @ 12/14/07 06:44:53

We must deal with reality before reality deals with us.

Sometimes no Peace

GWHunta @ 12/14/07 20:42:24

Just because you’re not interested in politics doesn’t mean politics isn’t interested in you.

~Ralph Nader

Sometimes no Piece

GWHunta @ 04/01/09 21:54:47

How much of the one degree rise in global temperature can be accurately assessed to the increase of atmospheric CO2 and how much is attributable to other causes remains a contentious issue, even among climate scientists.

Fact: Only anthropogenic alterations to the natural hydrological cycle can explain this increase in global temperature.


GWHunta @ 04/02/09 20:17:40

3 Responses to The IPCC Climate Consensus

  1. GWHunta says:

    Myths about industrial agriculture
    (Rainfed) Organic farming is the “only way to produce food” without harming the planet and people’s health.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s