Hi autoengineer, I am electroengineer ;-)February 7, 2007 at 4:59 pm | Posted in 2007, Answer, Climate challenge, Climate change, Climate preparedness, Climate Reports, Engineering, Environment, Global warming, IPCC, Irresponsible, NERC, Royal Society, Science Education, Unequivocal | 10 Comments
Thanks for your reply. I am an engineer too.
- Q. Do you know what “unequivocal” means?
- A. There is no doubt.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.
That’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated on Friday after an extensive and thorough analysis of climate change research over the past six years.
They also stated the cause of global warming:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
There are 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries, who have worked for 6 years to produce 4 volumes (of which the recent report released in Paris is the first) which will be combined into a single IPCC report “Climate Change 2007” later this year. This larger assessment report is the fourth to be produced by the IPCC and is referred to as AR4.
These climate experts convened by the UN state that global warming is unequivocal, and human activity—especially fossil fuel combustion which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—is very likely the main driver. All our governments have approved this document. That is as authoritative as you can get.
Yet, curiously, you still ask:
how authoritative is it really?
More commentary on that is in my recent post. You are welcome to comment here, but please remember that my blog is read by schoolchildren on both sides of the Atlantic 🙂
Your definition of common sense is not the same as mine 😉 There are many different ways of viewing the world. Perhaps you will recognise the wisdom in this story, though:
Solomon famously gave two women a choice over the destiny of the child they both claimed. When he threatened to kill the baby, the women’s responses revealed which was the true mother. The true mother would save the baby’s life at all costs—even by giving her own baby to the other woman. The false woman had her lies exposed when she told Solomon to go ahead and divide the child. The false woman didn’t care about the child: she was jealous of the true mother.
There is no party line.
The media does not insist we follow anything.
I think my own thoughts.
Brainwashing of the general public in America (not in Europe or Japan, thankfully) is another issue. Americans have been provided a steady diet of doubt over the past decade as far as global warming is concerned. That doubt prevented action to combat climate change early on. As a result, the actions we need to take personally, locally and globally now are more extreme than they would have been if global warming sceptics had not sown doubt, manufactured debate, and derailed talks on this subject for at least ten years.
Actually, I did look at sitewave.net yesterday and have seen the petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) before, but I did not click on the links above directly from within your post, so I admit you could not see that I had visited those links if you checked your WordPress Clicks in your Blog Stats. Sorry for inadvertently misleading you there.
Frederick Seitz is a well-known global warming skeptic, who wrote the cover letter to people to encourage them to sign a petition against the Kyoto Protocol that was organised by the OISM. Furthermore, Seitz has links with another global warming skeptic: Fred Singer. Seitz is 95 years old. Singer is 82 years old. I respect elderly people, especially when they have made a positive contribution to people’s lives and life on Earth.
Anything written by named individuals who are well-known global warming skeptics, such as Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, I consider not authoritative on climate change. Sceptics have succeeded in delaying positive action to combat climate change long enough.
In summary, for authoritative information on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the greatest credibility worldwide, and the recent Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was approved by representatives of world governments — including the United States, China and India — line-by-line. No other organisation in any branch of science goes through a similarly rigourous process before releasing an assessment report, as far as I can tell. This SPM is the first of several IPCC reports to be released this year on various aspects of climate change including: the physical science basis; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and mitigation of climate change.
Beyond IPCC assessments, I look to NOAA, NERC, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Met Office Hadley Centre, and The Royal Society for authoritative scientific information on climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists has recently completed an investigation into political pressure on climate scientists which may be worth reading if you are interested in the so-called brainwashing aspects of this controversy.
As far as your quote is concerned:
the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real
- Scientists and engineers do not prophesy. (You should know that if you have studied engineering at University. Elementary school kids know that scientists and engineers are different from prophets.)
- I did not know there was a “climate modelling industry”. Interesting.
- “not scientifically real” is a pretty vapid phrase. Here’s a better one, from the President of the Royal Society who made a three paragraph statement (in response to the release of the IPCC SPM last Friday in Paris) concluding with:
“We need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Those who would claim otherwise can no longer use science as a basis for their argument.