http://news.yahoo.com/un-2013-extreme-ev...
http://news.yahoo.com/big-climate-report...
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-not...
Note that the first AP headline reads: "UN: 2013 extreme events due to warming Earth" while the first line of the article itself says "The head of the U.N. weather agency said Monday that recent extreme weather patterns are "consistent" with human-induced climate change..." Shortly thereafter, Michael Jarraud is directly quoted as saying: "Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change,"
The second AP article is headlined: "Big climate report: Warming is big risk for people" and goes on to say in the first paragraph: "..In fact, they will say, the dangers of a warming Earth are immediate and very human." (related to a reference to polar bears future prospects.)
It is interesting that this second article seems less science oriented and more alarmist as well as quoting Michael Mann, who didn't work on this assessment. Mann says: Past panel reports have been ignored because global warming's effects seemed too distant in time and location, says Pennsylvania State University scientist Michael Mann. This report finds "It's not far-off in the future and it's not exotic creatures ― it's us and now," says Mann, who didn't work on this latest report.
Deeper in the article, it says, "According to the report, risks from warming-related extreme weather, now at a moderate level, are likely to get worse with just a bit more warming. While it doesn't say climate change caused the events, the report cites droughts in northern Mexico and the south-central United States, and hurricanes such as 2012's Sandy, as illustrations of how vulnerable people are to weather extremes. It does say the deadly European heat wave in 2003 was made more likely because of global warming."
The Reuters article headline reads thusly: "Global warming not stopped, will go on for centuries: WMO"
...and analyzes Jarraud's comments as follows: Natural phenomena like volcanoes or the El Nino/La Nina weather patterns originating in Pacific Ocean temperature changes had always framed the planet's climate, affecting heat levels and disasters like drought and floods, he said. "But many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," declared the WMO chief, pointing to the destruction wreaked by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
*******
None of the three articles reference the report's reassessments of species extinction or biofuels, and one might presume media bias in terms of what I would consider the alarmist headlines compared with what Jarraud actually said; there is a difference between saying that extreme weather events are due to a warming earth vs. such events are consistent with predictions made. Nuanced, yes, but nonetheless...
Furthermore, the most alarmist article, deep within the text, says that risks are now 'moderate' but likely to increase, and goes on to cite prior critics more thoughtful responses to the newest assessment.
So on the one hand, we have mainstream media emphasizing the risks reinforced by the latest assessment-perhaps reflecting the outlook of the 200 countries that have agreed reductions in CO2 are needed, and then other sources in at least the blogosphere focusing on reassessments on species extinction, biofuels and the inability of conferences so far to reach agreement on HOW to reduce CO2 levels or whom is going to do what.
It seems to me that in many of your questions, you are asking for counterpoints to positions taken by various skeptical outlets, from the standpoint of rejecting alarm, which is reasonable enough from my point of view. Realists (warmists, proponents) object to the bias of the blogosphere, while rarely referring media based reports, preferring instead to go directly to the scientific research, studies and reports themselves. My opinion is that those of us who rely primarily on the media for updates and information are ill-informed if we look only at the headlines or read the releases from outlets who tend to only reflect and reinforce our beliefs and ideology or fail to understand that the headlines and articles themselves are actually marketing to specific audiences in order to generate advertising revenue. The common link is emotion; concerns for the future-or here and now-are emotional; ideology is emotional; wants and needs are emotional; consumer goods purchases are, by and large emotional. Advertisers recognize this and link their products to the message(s) most likely to appeal to their target audiences, and we are all foils for this media thrust and parry. This is, at least indirectly, one of the last vestiges of the free market and unfettered, unregulated capitalism.
It does reflect the democratic principle of freedom of the press and free speech, but compromises the principle of the 'fourth estate,' the media which is intended to report on government activities without restriction. However, this principle has been demeaned and compromised by the consumer goods economy, which desires only to sell products and is little more than a paid outlet for advertisers, publishing whatever it takes to generate revenue from them.
Therefore, it seems that there is less happening with the IPCC itself as data and research unfolds and more happening in the world of selling products.
http://news.yahoo.com/un-2013-extreme-ev...
the real issue is not about extinctions of species due to climate change, for the demise of some species will give rise to other species and so on, but which species is more affected and in danger ? ANSWER : HUMANS , the correct issue on climate change is not about whether its natural or man made, but that how destructive man made activities can adopt and survive in a changing climate that threatens our food chain, the very most limiting form of ENERGY= FOOD. Climate Change will be there, will we? humans?
The IPCC has already reversed course on the global warming has caused record hurricanes idea. Now perhaps they will reverse a few more. But they still haven't walked back their claims to high amount of warming. The key studies came out a little late, but there is room for correction.
No trick is another BS denier site and the link to speigel is in German and won't translate to English for me
Plus i have never seen IPCC or any legitimate climate scientist say that a little warming will cause mass extinctions. Sounds like total bullsh*t to me
If you want to know what NASA says, don't check NASA, check the Daily Mail. If you want to know what the IPCC says, don't check the IPCC, check notrickzone.
Does this mean that when I want to find out the latest about Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen, that I should check skepticalscience?
How many times has the IPCC had to back pedal from and revise downward their alarmist prophecies in the past 20 years?
It seems that exaggerations and overestimates are really nothing new to AGW cultist ideology.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre...
Try an actual verifiable source someday. They have not backpedalled at all.
It looks like they are backpedalling on species extinctions http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/24/spiegel-ipcc-backpedal-on-species-extinction-astonishingly-great-doubt-over-earlier-predictions-acute-lack-of-data/
Plus they are altering their postion on bio-fuels
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-admits-the-scientific-consensus-was-wrong-in-reversal-on-biofuels/
Okay I know this is from leaked reports, and might not turn out to be correct,
Is the IPCC in danger of becoming non alarmist
