According to time.com
According to drafts and participants, the document says it is "very likely" - which means at least 90% certain - that climate change is caused by humans burning fossil fuels, and will result in a temperature increase of between 2.5 and 10.4 Fahrenheit by the year 2100.
Some participants apparently want to change that wording to "virtually certain," which connotes a 99% likelihood. "People seem to be feeling, let's make sure that the text actually means something and makes sense to the people it's intended for," Catherine Pearce of Friends of the Earth, who is observing the talks, said Wednesday night. "Some are saying there's no point in having texts that ... don't say anything, that are so watered down," she said.
On a side note I think it is ridiculous that the French turned off the Eifel tower lights for five minutes to call attention to energy conservation. I think it is way past the time when symbolic gesture liek that even matter. Five minutes, couldn't it at least have been an hour, a day or a week. Five minutes almost seems like a joke. Okay, now back to the story.
So what do all you nah-sayers have to say about humans causing global warming now (e:ejtower,31)or (e:joshua,1717)
Sir Nicholas Stern, author of a major report on the economic impact of global warming, says the latest review of the scientific evidence by United Nations' experts has demolished the chief argument of so-called climate sceptics. . . You can read the whole article here .http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/we've-wrecked-the-weather/2007/02/03/1169919583022.html
At this point a huge majority of the worlds climate scientists agree. Humans are greatly accelerating global warming and unfortunately, we are waiting too long to really do much about it. In fact they stated, "Global warming is "unequivocal" and "very likely" - to a 90 percent or more certainty - caused by human activity. "
I tend to believe them. I grabbed this data from an article about the summit
According to an article,
The United States emits the most greenhouse gases of any country - more than 6.5 billion tons per year, or about 22 percent of the world's total. But it will be surpassed in coming decades by fast-growing China, which is now building on average one coal power plant per week. India isn't far behind; like China, its population has surpassed 1 billion and keeps rising at a fast clip.
The scientists suggest the US develop environmentally energy production methods as soon as possible and share those technologies with developing nations. I would liek to see something along the lines of Open Source energy production technologies but you know it will most likely not be like that and devloping nations will not be able to afford the technology resulting in more coal burnig power plants.
FInding in the report
The cause
Global warming is "unequivocal" and "very likely" - to a 90 percent or more certainty - caused by human activity. Fossil fuel consumption has generated much of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century.
Temperature changes
Average global temperatures could increase by 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. By comparison, temperatures have risen 1.5 degrees over the past century.
Sea levels
Ocean levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by 2100, and will continue to rise for 1,000 years or more. Projections do not include contributions from melting polar ice.
Water shortages
Heat waves, droughts and other kinds of extreme weather will become more frequent. In California, warmer weather will shrink spring snowpacks in the Sierra, reducing a major source of water in the summer and fall.
We should start making making greenhouse gas emission laws stricter. Liek who the fuck needs an escalade. Maybe we should just illegalize huge SUVs, non-energy efficient light bulbs, and promote forms of cleaners energy. It seems to me like cars must be a huge part of it. All it takes is one visit to LA to see what cars do to the atmosphere.
Imagine how much worse it will get when everywhere is as capable of being as wasteful as we are.
According to fox news
Present Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming but strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.
I ask too costly for who?
Many people say that the transition to cleaner technologies will be bad for business. Whose business? Think of all the new, high-paying, highly-skilled positions that will be needed for R&D, conversion, and training - not to mention the workforce required for all the new manufacturing and specialized disposal that will be needed. It will be a huge economic boon and competative advantage to anyone who takes the initiative, and I believe it will likewise be economically devastating to those who drag their feet. The oil companies may not like this, but this doesn't have to destroy their business either. They place all these ads about how they're researching alternative fuels - now is the perfect time for them to reinvest their unusually high profits in all this research they say their doing, so that they can be the first to market, buck obsolescence, and stop spending so much money influencing government - because they won't care anymore.
That doesn't even mention moral necessity, because I don't think it has to. This is a huge business opportunity for anyone who sees it, regardless of whether they care about the Greater Good, or even if they still think global warming is hogwash. Money talks and I am telling you that environmental engineering is where the smart money is at.
- Z