world

U.N. report on global warming carries life-or-death warning

41 Comments
By SETH BORENSTEIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


41 Comments
Login to comment

The theory of human-caused global warming is one of the biggest pseudoscience scams in history.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

The theory of human-caused global warming is one of the biggest pseudoscience scams in history.

Funny how its only people with no experience or qualifications in the field who say that.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

cla68

The theory of human-caused global warming is one of the biggest pseudoscience scams in history

Okay good sir, let me explain it to you. Global warming or climate change as it is the more logical name to give it does happen with or without human intervention. That is true. Climate change would occur whether we're involved or not. However we, with our massive carbon footprint are speeding up the process of climate change. We're lowering the years we have to live just so rich a-holes like the Koch brothers can be even more rich. So yeah, climate change would happen regardless of how we behave but we can at least try to delay it as long as possible by reducing our carbon footprint

6 ( +11 / -5 )

we need a WWII-like mobilization to stop and convert our collective polluting energy and businesses to green zero emission and even emission absorbing systems. We can do it, it would be interesting and many lessons around the world can be shared because we are all in it together. There would be no losing sides. Businesses lost will be replaced by businesses found and we can all cry on the way to the bank afterwards.

Meanwhile the ignorant keep electing right wing pollution friendly governments and we can never get started.

There's no way out

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Going to require a huge global effort to maintain a 2c limit. I think it can be done. We should simply do the absolute best we can given the limits and polical realities.

Dont agree with Trump or the GOP on Paris or climate science and even less so their general environmental stance. Their attitude to the commons, to America"s magnificant and unique national parks/federal lands is extremely worrying.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

We're at 409 ppm now. We can't wait.

We need a hero

Going to Mars isn't going to save us

Getting racist isn't going to save us

We can't run away from the problems we're created, nor away from each other.

We're going to have to put aside all the BS for the moment, and tackle this problem

Today, Now.

The nice thing at least is it will give everyone something to work towards and be a part of. To take practical ideas and put them into motion. To stop ruining the landscape and air and water.

We're going to have to support those displaced by the change, in hopes they can contribute to a green transition (they can)

We're going to have to believe in tomorrow instead of throwing it away

4 ( +7 / -3 )

we're / we've

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Human-caused global warming/climate change is not a pseudo-science. It, in and of itself, is not a scam. Humans have an impact on the earth's climate. To what extent is still uncertain but we do have a negative impact. The earth has oscillated back and forth between cold and hot for long before humans were here. The Vostok ice core samples demonstrate also the oscillation of the CO2 concentration over time.

I would consider myself an engineer/scientist. I have 2 very very good friends at UC Berkeley studying climate change (it is essentially their life's work). They both agree, without a doubt, humanity is certainly contributing to climate change. They disagree on to what extent.

One other thing they both agree with (without a doubt) is that the politicization of their work makes their life harder. They see Trump's comments and approach to climate science as ignorant and offensive. They also see the ultra wealthy left wing approach to be equally offensive such as Hollywood stars and certain politicians travelling the globe on private jets, yachts, etc. and telling all the "little people" how we must all live. They also see "end of the world" proclamations as counter productive (claims made 10 years ago have not come to fruition). Their point of view is to state clearly what is known and verifiable and avoid radical predictions or proclamations to bring as many people "under the tent" as possible and achieve change by a slow and gradual reduction and transition. According to them their feeling echoes what most of the actual scientists (not those out in the "limelight" feel about this issue). These two are pretty hard core into this.

Interestingly enough, the U.S. leads all countries on the reduction of carbon emissions (granted the U.S. was starting from a higher level so the percentage decrease may not be as high as others). This was followed by the United Kingdom. The EU was grouped in this study. The biggest increase in Co2 emissions was China followed by India. (For example from 2005-2017 the US emissions decreased by 758 million metric tons while China increased by 3 billion metric tons).

Technology is not yet available to provide the amount of energy needed without the use of fossil fuels. However very year progress has been made, slowly and gradually.

As an engineer/scientist I am fairly confident this issue will be solved. I also agree with my two friends at Cal. To both sides of this issue: please stop with the politicization and radical projections. Really good progress is being made and I think based on what is going on recently with the weather and late season typhoons, etc. people are realizing that this is indeed an issue.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If you don't believe in science then get out of the way. You have your freedom to believe in fairies or whatever you want, just stop being in the way of those that don't.

Your ignorance does not equal my knowledge (to paraphrase Asimov)

4 ( +7 / -3 )

One large volcano puts out more carbon than all human activity since the dawn of man, including the dreaded SUV.

Gee, for a guy who prides himself in being able to ferret out poor measuring skills, you really haven't got a clue.

Emissions of biggest volcanic eruption of the past century (Mt. Pinatubo, 1991) = 42 million tons of CO2

Man-made CO2 emissions in the same year (1991) =23 billion tons

Average emissions of ALL volcanos per year = 645 million tons

Manmade emissions per year (2013)= 29 billion tons

The scientific "community" has been wrong countless times in history, and they're wrong again.

And the science-rejecting lunatic "community" has also been found to be wrong on occasion.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Give more local taxpayers money to a massive global bureaucracy to help solve local problems? Sounds like a GREAT idea! ...sorry. It sounds LIKE A SCAM!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Many like myself would love to become an engineer and take part in saving the world. (Anyone willing to pay for it?)

Make some CO2 scrubbers into an anoxic municipal waste boiler and see if we can fix carbon into a compost or biomaterial for farmers for improved soil, or enough graphine for tennis rackets since playing golf will be officially land-waste stupid.

Worth trying and seeing what's possible and being a part of it all

It's not because we don't have ideas, it's because we're not allowed to have them. Fight the Cons

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Give more local taxpayers money to a massive global bureaucracy to help solve local problems? Sounds like a GREAT idea! ...sorry. It sounds LIKE A SCAM!

1) Nothing in the article is about local tax revenue or how it is to be spent.

2) The Paris Agreement is to be implemented by national governments and not any international body, so there is not massive global bureaucracy at work here.

3) Climate change is not a local problem.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The arguments of whether this or that or not is irrelevant to those who are actually living within that change.

It would be much more meaningful if the UN and other research institutions would spend some of their research Dollars or Yen or Mark, from all sciences (sociology, psychology, physics, mathematics, etc.) to share all of their knowledge and technologies and come up with simple ways (hopefully no more than 7) that everyone, every institution, every company, and every government can share and act upon to "lesson" the "negative" effects of the change in climate (we label global warming) can be "endured", "accommodated", and "survived" while taking action to reduce or slow down this apparent rapid change which may make it impossible for many organisms, including human organism (us) to survive.

Much will depend on the ability and willingness of those involved and affected to actually take action by spending the time, effort and money to accomplish that. However, science for identifying and defining anything must now change to how to "apply" what was identified and defined without producing negative and detrimental side-effects. In other words we need the surgery and the medication to help us survive.

It is not the question of "stopping" as much as to "lessen" the effect. So far as far as I know, science have not found a way to stop or change the "flow" of nature. (That is except nuclear power which may actually destroy all, forcing nature to "change" drastically in unknown and unpredictable way.)

Climate change that have occurred in the past and now occurring have gone through cycles by some effect unknown. For now our efforts most probably should be to "change ourselves" and prepare for what is forecasted and determinable.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Burning Bush writes

The scientific "community" has been wrong countless times in history, and they're wrong again.

And you are right because...? Sorry, but denial is not a rational and evidence based counter-argument. Nor is an appeal to tradition (wrong in the past so wrong now) acceptable as it is acknowledged as one of the most common logical fallacies. So what is your argument? Why not point out specifically where these 6,000 members of the scientific community have got it wrong and offer proof, and not just that from a handful of scientists flush with fossil fuel company money.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

we don't have time for any of the nonsense now. 10 years is a crash course sudden change. We were warned before and prevaricated too long. Let the trolls and arts and liberal majors have tea, the science supporters, engineers, and scientists have a lot of work to do.

The best thing you can do is hold our beer

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

 Climate change is not a local problem. (@Rainyday)

Indeed, it can even a local large adavantage (Ask Siberians or Canadians...).

Know that any current effort to limit CO2 equivalent emissions will not stop global temperature rise for the few next decades so it is too late for many. Some countries need to acknowledge that and act rather than plead mediatically.

Moreover, many countries blaming the nuclear energy have switched to fossil fuels. Not the greatest ideas of all time (the dear Germany after 11/3 Fukushima).

What about the billions of Earth inhabitants who struggle just to survive and barely know how to count and read, do you expect them to be concerned by your Global warming temperature challenge LOL.

Being realistic gets your wit far more impact on that challenge.

Human race has survived for long enough to tackle this issue and survive again. Maybe some loss on the way but that is nature after all (same as when you buy your stuff for 2 cents instead of 2 dollars/euros/pounds..., which provides much higher chance for a kid to die because of work abuse).

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

No advantage for Canadians if it means Americans will be crossing the border

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Let the trolls and arts and liberal majors have tea, the science supporters, engineers, and scientists have a lot of work to do.

I don’t think that’s where the division lies. I have a physics degree and reasonable knowledge of mechanical engineering, but I probably know as much as someone with a PhD in gender theory or theology who’s read the same papers as me on climate change.

What I do respect is the scientific method and a consensus. It’s not always correct, but I’d take it anytime over conspiracy theorists or people who’ve swallowed a political package whole.

I think the people who read from the list of articles of faith put out by their tribe are the real problem.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Indeed, it can even a local large adavantage (Ask Siberians or Canadians...).

I'm Canadian and my country hasn't seen any benefit. British Columbia and Alberta have been scorched by record forest fires over the last couple years, while my hometown in Ontario was torn apart by unprecedented tornados just a few weeks ago. Dozens died in the heat wave in Montreal this summer, again unprecedented. Infestations of bugs that are no longer killed by the not so cold anymore winters have devastated the rest of our forests. If that is how it looks in a country that is supposed to be advantaged by climate change when the effects are barely beginning to be noticeable, I truly dread what will happen in hotter countries 20 years from now.

What about the billions of Earth inhabitants who struggle just to survive and barely know how to count and read, do you expect them to be concerned by your Global warming temperature challenge LOL.

You mean what will happen to poor people currently struggling for food when our agricultural system is turned upside down by climate changes that make crops harder to grow and reduces yields? Yeah, I guess it will be pretty devastating for them. Not sure why you find that funny.

It is not the question of "stopping" as much as to "lessen" the effect. So far as far as I know, science have not found a way to stop or change the "flow" of nature.

It is framed by policy makers, sensibly, as both mitigating and adapting to climate change. Mitigating means reducing emissions to reduce the rate of climate change and halt it at some point before we reach a point of no return. Adapting means accepting the inevitability that some change is already baked in and we have to cope with that somehow.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Let the trolls and arts and liberal majors have tea, the science supporters, engineers, and scientists have a lot of work to do.

I am a professor in a social sciences discipline. As the scientists in the article clearly state, this is a problem that can't be solved by engineering alone, otherwise it would already have been solved. The tools exist, but our institutions haven't been able to figure out how to implement them, which is fundamentally a question (how to make our institutions work) that engineers and those in the hard sciences aren't able to answer, but hopefully those of us you accuse of having tea can.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I will wander in the desert, actually , knee deep in a quagmire and wait for gods wrath to subside as the waters do. Or trust science? It might take thousands of years but in the end my skeleton will be found with a big red republican button on my Brest hugging my grandchildren with a note telling them trust big business not science.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

this is a problem that can't be solved by engineering alone, otherwise it would already have been solved. 

Actually if it had gone like the 1987 Montreal Accord on the ozone layer, which was more a simple engineering solution and less a social issue just like now, which was also solved in an age before the oil and gas industry had bought out politicians, we'd be just fine. Thus I find that assertion to be incorrect. Take the money out put the emissions targets in place, and the reductions would have been occurring years ago with the social studies in tow.

As a Canadian also, we just had the Green Act repealed in Ontario and our agreement with Quebec and California for the successful Cap and Trade system that was paying for retrofitting and emissions reductions also rescinded by the new Conservative government. New Quebec government also, but not sure of its current stance. On top of that nationally the buying of a pipeline and enacting LNG is just the end of any hope. Our promised end to FPTP elections that maintains this facade also rescinded.

Brazil might be going back to a dictatorship and if so will abandon the Paris accord. Many countries are going or already gone authoritarian at the worst possible time thanks to decades of neglect on local issues including USA, UK Brexit, Hungary, Poland, Turkey etc. The world is not in a good place and steering for the cliff or possible climate change wars for resources.

It's true we can't get it all done by one group, it certainly would have been easier if none of the above is happening. But it looks like we'll have to do whatever we can, since this group has gone out of its way to be in the way.

By the report of 10 years, Canada might only be coming around by then. So we're not involved in any solution. They have abandoned their responsibilities. We simply don't have any more time. The only people left are in the STEM community.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The theory of human-caused global warming is one of the biggest pseudoscience scams in history.

“Funny how its only people with no experience or qualifications in the field who say that.”

Or his job(in the auto industry maybe?) depends on him not understanding.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The theory of human-caused global warming is one of the biggest pseudoscience scams in history.

Yeah because, for example, the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels in internal combustion engines and in power plants are naturally occurring!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

There are two types of posters here: those that reject science and those that accept it. Those that reject science aren't worth the effort to educate.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Chip StarToday  08:12 pm JST

There are two types of posters here: those that reject science and those that accept it. Those that reject science aren't worth the effort to educate.

While completely true, there are more of them, and they keep electing themselves into office due to their numbers. It's like a math teacher failing a class but every student giving themselves an A

0 ( +2 / -2 )

actually if it had gone like the 1987 Montreal Accord on the ozone layer, which was more a simple engineering solution and less a social issue just like now, which was also solved in an age before the oil and gas industry had bought out politicians, we'd be just fine. Thus I find that assertion to be incorrect. Take the money out put the emissions targets in place, and the reductions would have been occurring years ago with the social studies in tow.

No, my point is that the failure to deal with climate change is fundamentally a failure of human institutions and their decision making processes. It isn’t a failure of engineering or scientific knowledge - we have the technology and means available to us right now to solve it. It is our inability to create institutions that can avoid the power of vested interests and make decisions that benefit us all, including future generations, that is holding us back. Understanding how to overcome that is going to require the work of economic, legal, political science and other research (whose work was vital to getting the Paris Agreement BTW).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't know what you're arguing, I already stated the politicians are useless. As long as their money relies on oil and gas there is nothing to stop whatever policy emerges. Change the money and markets will have to change all around us.

Alberta industry will have to be cratered by world markets before changes happen in Canada. We're held up until then.

Meanwhile at some point a nuclear power will ponder pulling a Thanos to bump back world population particularly in Asia to the 1960's

1 ( +2 / -1 )

One large volcano puts out more carbon than all human activity since the dawn of man, including the dreaded SUV.

This one post by Burning Bush shows the anti-science idiocy in all its glory. Completely inaccurate claim yet he has the gall to then go on to attack real science not made up nonsense.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There are two types of posters here: those that reject science and those that accept it. Those that reject science aren't worth the effort to educate.

There are two types of posters here. Those that believe that the climate always changes but don’t think the government should micromanage their lives because of it. And those that believe the climate changes and seek to impose their socialist controlling ideology on everyone regardless of their Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.

If the climate is being destroyed to the detriment of mankind why would they be hypocrites and travel on private and commercial aircraft generating tons and tons of CO2? Why would they drive SUV’s, minivans or any non-public transportation? Why would they live in houses larger than their minimum needs? Why would they oppose the only proven technology that emits zero CO2 - nuclear power? Even a full meltdown is only a local or regional disaster whereas global warming is considered a global catastrophe. Why would they use so many electronic devices that consume massive amounts of power mostly generated by fossil fuel power plants.

Its simple. Those that enjoy these privileges will not have to bear the brunt of the costs. The poor and impoverished, whose energy costs consume a large share of their income, are the ones that will suffer the consequences the most. Al Gore could care less. He owns three mansions and flies around the globe on a private jet financed by selling his media company to the owners of massive oil fields.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There are two types of posters here. Those that believe that the climate always changes but don’t think the government should micromanage their lives because of it. And those that believe the climate changes and seek to impose their socialist controlling ideology on everyone regardless of their Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.

Well that last sentence shows you are clueless.

Most of us here are not American, do not care about your 'constitutional rights', and do not have that constitution as our own, to 'guarantee' us those rights.

So no, there are not the two types of posters you try to use your reductionist philosophy to try to describe.

You would be more accurate if you said "there are two types of posters here, those who believe reality, and those who are morons who have let themselves be brainwashed by corporate ideologies".

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The world has already warmed 1 degree C since pre-industrial times, so the talk is really about the difference of another half-degree C or 0.9 degrees F from now.

Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. Actually, global warming occurred between every ice age. Almost as if it's a natural cycle or something.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil crowd hasn't been able to do is convince the many non-believers that the MMCO2IE claims are convincing, credible, warranted, justified, and convincing. If you want to change the status-quo, you need to be convincing. Name-calling, and insults, hasn't changed anyone's mind yet.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's side-splittingly hilarious that climate change deniers attempt to denounce climate change with the already-factored-in aspect of the natural changes in climate.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

those who can, will not

tragedy of the commons

those who will, cannot

gomenasai, 季語 がない

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. Actually, global warming occurred between every ice age. Almost as if it's a natural cycle or something.

Technically we are in an ice age now which started 2.6 million years ago. We currently exist in an interglacial period within the ice age. The ice will come back in about 50,000 years or so, regardless of what we do to the atmosphere.

But of course its not particularly helpful to say that we should just ignore what is happening before our eyes right now because of natural background cycles that play out over tens of thousands of years. Human civilization has only existed during a very narrow band of natural climate conditions that have existed over the past 10,000 years or so. In just over a century we have already moved ourselves out of that band and if we keep on that course we'll have moved ourselves into absolutely dangerous territory in which our entire systems of agriculture, and the sedentary non-nomadic civilization that depends on it, is placed in danger.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil crowd hasn't been able to do is convince the many non-believers that the MMCO2IE claims are convincing, credible, warranted, justified, and convincing. If you want to change the status-quo, you need to be convincing. Name-calling, and insults, hasn't changed anyone's mind yet.

Well, if you aren't going to read the science then I guess you aren't going to be convinced. I have read it. It is convincing and credible. I have a Phd and am able to discern between alarmist nonsense and actual problems which are quite serious. This is not alarmist nonsense.

I agree though, name calling and insults don't change minds.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don't know what you're arguing, I already stated the politicians are useless. As long as their money relies on oil and gas there is nothing to stop whatever policy emerges. Change the money and markets will have to change all around us.

Just to be clear, I am taking issue with you inanely lumping non STEM majors in with the "trolls" and implying we have nothing to offer. If the politicians are useless, as they have proven themselves to be, then we need to understand why that is (just saying they are in the oil industries' pocket isn't enough of an explanation, its way more complicated than that) and how to change that. STEM people can't help us with that, but researchers in the social science/humanities fields can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland - "Most of us here are not American, do not care about your 'constitutional rights', and do not have that constitution as our own, to 'guarantee' us those rights."

As a long expatriated American I understand your post. However along those lines I find it fascinating how many non Americans are so passionate about the internal political workings of the U.S. (i.e. Kavanaugh, etc.) and also seem to take sides or claim they are of a certain side. But this is a right of free thought and expression.

I do in fact believe humans contribute to climate change. I also am quite happy the U.S. does have a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Strangerland: Most of us here are not American, do not care about your 'constitutional rights', and do not have that constitution as our own, to 'guarantee' us those rights.

You are right I got carried away a little there. I keep forgetting that most of the world doesn't believe in the rights of individuals. I hope that in America people are never stripped of the individual humanity and subject to the will of their ruling class betters without recourse.

You would be more accurate if you said "there are two types of posters here, those who believe reality, and those who are morons who have let themselves be brainwashed by corporate ideologies".

The statism of UN bureaucracies is a lot closer to corporatism than is the belief in the natural rights of all living human beings to freedom.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's side-splittingly hilarious that climate change deniers attempt to denounce climate change with the already-factored-in aspect of the natural changes in climate.

If you listen to some people (Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama) you would think that humans are the sole cause of climate change. Humans likely do contribute to some extent but to what degree it is not known with any specificity. Therefore it is not possible to determine if any changes made to rectify the perceived negative consequences will do any more good than harm. Is there a consensus on what percentage of the change in climate is caused by man and what percentage is natural? 50%-50%? 90%-10%? The facts matter. Scientists can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to a specific parts per million. But they cannot say how much of the change in the current climate is due to man made factors or to natural variation. They can only guess. Changing policy that can affect the lives of billions of peoples lives on a guess isn't good enough.

I also pay attention to the behavior of those that are pushing the fear of climate change. Are they making the sacrifices that are being asked of others? Have they profited from climate change fear mongering?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites