On Sep 12, 5:29 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Is that a garbled recant of her earlier denial?
>
> She's clearly not an expert on climate change. Maybe she would have
> been better off learning the relevant passage in the IPCC summary for
> policy makers by heart:
> 'Most of the observed increase in global average
> temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
> likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
> greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an
> advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of
> the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely
> to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
> concentrations”.'
>
> The IPCC don't use the word certain and they say "most of the observed
> increase". And they refer to global average temperatures. The beauty
> of that is it's a lot more precise than "Climate change is man made."
>
> Let's look at foot note one of the IPCC AR4 summary for policy makers:
>
> "Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over
> time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human
> activity. This usage differs from
> that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
> where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed
> directly or indirectly to
> human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere
> and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over
> comparable time periods."
>
> Taking the IPCC usage, I think you'd have to say something like
> "Climate change can be man made or natural.", which also says nothing,
> really you'd have to say "For some aspects of climate attribution
> studies have found a discernible signal from anthropogenic causes over
> and above natural climate variability."
>
> And to be honest, I don't particularly like that either. The fact is
> scientists believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because its radiation
> properties can be measured in the lab. That much is certain. It's also
> certain that the vast majority of the recent increase in CO2
> concentration is due to anthropogenic emissions. We've emitted more
> than has accumulated in the atmosphere. That is also 100% certain.
>
> It's when it gets to question such as whether hurricane damage would
> be higher in 2100 if we emitted enough to have a CO2 concentration of
> 550 ppm compared to 350 ppm where things begin to get murkier.
>
> Now, I am biased, I like Sarah Palin, I think she'll take a pragmatic
> line, I take her statements to mean that she is sceptical of some of
> the doom mongering language, but convinced some action should be
> taken. Or in other words, I think she'd sign sensible climate change
> legislation from Congress. She'll certainly be happier with oil
> drilling than Democrats and I suspect she'd sign off nukes more
> happily than the average Democrat. If I was an American (which I am
> not), and she was the candidate for President (rather than just VP),
> I'd vote for her over Obama or Biden or A Generic Democrat, even if
> the only topic American Presidents had any say in was climate change.
> There's a near 50/50 split in the American electorate and while in the
> centre the differences aren't large, I do usually tend towards the
> Republican viewpoint on energy and environmental policy. Though not
> always, I'd be happy enough with 10 Dollar a gallon gasoline and
> automatic speed limiter enforced speed limits of 20 miles per hour in
> cities, but then again I haven't heard many elected Democrats push too
> hard for those kinds of position either... And if it was Hillary
> Clinton rather than A Generic Democrat, I might actually go for her;
> at least her husband seemed quite pragmatic to me as a President
> (don't forget I am not an expert on American politics and I can't vote
> anyway).
I will improve your expertise on American politics by informing you
that less than a month ago Palin sat calmly through a talk at her
church where the speaker said that the recent random killing of Jews
with a bulldozer was a judgement from God.
Anyway, I can't tell if you got my earlier point: She literally
admitted that man's activities can be attributed to climate change,
not that climate change can be attributed to man's activities.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
