The IPCC is a political organization that was created to advance an agenda: finding a human impact on climate in order to justify giving the UN the power to imposes taxes on businesses.
How the IPCC views their science:
“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
~ IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
~ IPCC lead author Stephen Schneider
“Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”
“Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”
“Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”
“Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”
“Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”
“Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”
“Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”
“Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”
I just spent all of two minutes actually looking at some of the IPCC reports. Here's a handful of sentences I managed to find ...
Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts. The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive.
Observed positive effects for poor and marginalized people, which are limited and often indirect, include examples such as diversification of social networks and of agricultural practices.
Positive effects are expected to include modest reductions in cold-related mortality and morbidity in some areas due to fewer cold extremes, geographical shifts in food production, and reduced capacity of vectors to transmit some diseases.
So the issue isn't that the IPCC doesn't mention or examine the positive effects. You simply have an intellectual problem when the IPCC argues the negatives outweigh the positives, but rather than actually read the reports for yourself, you absorb their supposed content by osmosis using wattsupwiththat as your mental filter.
Very clearly, the IPCC scientists have an agenda, quite apart from the facts.
"Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions. A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything, reject anything, if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his family's or his country's security and safety, whether it actually accomplishes it or not...."
"It works like a charm. A fearful people are the easiest to govern. Their freedom and liberty can be taken away, and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own good - to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their liberty - voluntarily."
―Gene E. Franchini, retired Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court
"Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures . . . they may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities."
--- George Gerbner, Former Dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania
They are simply going to the tried and proven of creating fear in order to advance their crooked agenda.
Other than the effects demanded by the laws of thermodynamics that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere MUST cause some warming, and that ice melts when warmed, most hypothetical effects, good or bad, that can not be proven to have already been seen, are speculative. Unless someone can prove that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be mostly good, we must assume that it is mostly bad. This is the precautionary principle. It is kind of like the idea that we should not touch an electrical cable that could be energized.
Could you please give an example--specifically taken from an IPCC report--that demonstrates what you claim about how they only report on the "negative aspects of CO2"?
EDIT: Wow, I've already received two thumbs down for asking for evidence that supports the premise of the question--I guess deniers don't want to be bothered looking at real evidence.
Another EDIT: Ok, you claim there are "7000 pages of negative aspects", so surely you can give ONE DIRECT QUOTE that demonstrates the negative aspects you're asking about?
One more EDIT (game, set, and match): I see that I now have 4 thumbs down and you've come up with exactly...nothing. Here's a direct quote from the 2007 report:
"Simulations with yield models show that climate change can increase global timber production through location changes of forests and higher growth rates, especially when positive effects of elevated CO2 concentration are taken into consideration (Irland et al., 2001; Sohngen et al., 2001; Alig et al., 2002; Solberg et al., 2003; Sohngen and Sedjo, 2005)."
Now will you admit that you're wrong? I doubt it.
Still Another EDIT: Ok, you did admit you were wrong, anyway, here's another:
"Fischer et al. (2002b) quantified regional impacts and concluded that globally there will be major gains in potential agricultural land by 2080, particularly in North America (20-50%) and the Russian Federation (40-70%)..."
Kano, I think you draw your conclusions based on what you read on propagandist blogs. It only took a few minutes to find these examples. The problem with you and your denier buddies is that you don't really care whether what you say is wrong or right. That's why you criticize me in another question for asking to see a direct quote from Hansen, rather than accepting someone else's word about things. Your criticism made NO SENSE to me. The whole point of the question was to ridicule Hansen for something that he (supposedly) said, then when I ask to to see what he said, you think that is "splitting hairs"; I think it is caring about accuracy.
By the way, I'm hardly going to criticize the IPCC for finding more negative impacts than positive ones--that's what we've been telling you for years.
AN INTERESTING COMMENT ON THE HONEST OF DENIERS: Cyclops, Sagebrush, happy and Mickey Finn all answered AFTER I demonstrated that the premise of your question was completely false--and yet not one of them acknowledged that fact.
Reporting anything positive would jeopardize the Welfare dollars that they receive to maintain their high-paying jobs and lavish lifestyles.
They get much more grant money this way ,
surely if it has our welfare in mind (not just politics) it should report on both positive and negative aspects?
