Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:03:13 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.

The reports are he
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
I've only read the one on the physical science basis.

The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013
thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous reports.
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml
"...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what to
do. I can't wait.

**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
appropriate course/s of action.

True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:
http://woods.stanford.edu/?q=research/surveys-climate-energy/climate-views-elections

They are not likely to be pleasant and will
be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry.

Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the
issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.

There is
certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on
the way to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If
we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution
sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.

Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
action will be too little too late.

As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that
the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will
certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human
activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very
appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an
end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding
reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that
we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it
today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular
concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing
quite nicely.

Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
the ability of the population of this planet to pay.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au