<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Summarizin’]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by AlGoreBuddy http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:16:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/1 CO2 an Temperature Correlation

Come on guys. Get with the program. We know about the close correlation of rise and fall of CO2 levels with those of global temperature.  The lead-lag issue doesn't matter. We can apply the same cause-effect logic to other closely correlated data, and of course, we naturally conclude that:
Lung cancer causes people to smoke
Death due to overdoses leads to drug abuse
Teen pregnancy increases sexual promiscuity
The obvious consensus among researchers on these well-known axioms should make the whole global warming debate a real no-brainer.



]]> CO2 an Temperature Correlation

Come on guys. Get with the program. We know about the close correlation of rise and fall of CO2 levels with those of global temperature.  The lead-lag issue doesn't matter. We can apply the same cause-effect logic to other closely correlated data, and of course, we naturally conclude that:
Lung cancer causes people to smoke
Death due to overdoses leads to drug abuse
Teen pregnancy increases sexual promiscuity
The obvious consensus among researchers on these well-known axioms should make the whole global warming debate a real no-brainer.



]]> Comment #2 by rcmarcus http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:43:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/2 Conflicting Views

What do people make of Roy W. Spencer's  19 March 2007 Statement to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives in which he expresses great skepticism of the conclusions reached about global warming and its causes?

]]> Conflicting Views

What do people make of Roy W. Spencer's  19 March 2007 Statement to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives in which he expresses great skepticism of the conclusions reached about global warming and its causes?

]]> Comment #3 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:20:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/3 Significantly Better

Wow...there's a kludge.

What does "significantly better" mean?  1%?  5%?  10%?

Just that it's barely outside the range of statistical probability if you leave off the Anthropogenic influences?

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com

]]> Significantly Better

Wow...there's a kludge.

What does "significantly better" mean?  1%?  5%?  10%?

Just that it's barely outside the range of statistical probability if you leave off the Anthropogenic influences?

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com

]]> Comment #4 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:22:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/4 The greater question should be

The greater question should be, "What do you make of Roy Spencer"

I'd call him a Tobacco Lobbyist who still to this day claims that "There is no scientific link between lung cancer and tobacco smoke"

Who previously said "There is no scientific link between CFCs and Ozone depletion"

Who now says "There is no scientific link between CO2 and Global Warming"

What do I think of Roy Spencer?
Well, how about you watch this and find out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52278449904586781 ...

]]> The greater question should be

The greater question should be, "What do you make of Roy Spencer"

I'd call him a Tobacco Lobbyist who still to this day claims that "There is no scientific link between lung cancer and tobacco smoke"

Who previously said "There is no scientific link between CFCs and Ozone depletion"

Who now says "There is no scientific link between CO2 and Global Warming"

What do I think of Roy Spencer?
Well, how about you watch this and find out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52278449904586781 ...

]]> Comment #5 by Mmimika http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:33:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summary-of-the-ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-part-i/5 sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m,

scariest words I've heard.

I wish we could take, "the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet ," off the table.

Simple question: what needs to happen to keep that water frozen?

]]> sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m,

scariest words I've heard.

I wish we could take, "the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet ," off the table.

Simple question: what needs to happen to keep that water frozen?

]]>