Tarl Says:
LOL. Really you folks are not discussing real science.
Posted on January 17th, 2010 at 12:06 am

Tarl Says:
Here is an example of the real science you folks are buying into.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ environment/ article6991177.ece
Posted on January 17th, 2010 at 10:28 am

Gail says:

Nice try Tarl, but it’s another molehill morphed into a mountain by desperate deniers:

http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 07/ 13/ melting-glaciers-kashmir-regional-chaos-water-shortages/

I suggest you read the whole thing, including comments, because it’s a much more accurate description of the issue. The take-away point is, one error from over 10 years ago repeated in the IPCC review, out of the masses of data and research about climate change, does not even slightly threaten the overwhelming consensus.

A measure of how sensationalized this article is can be found in this sentence: “A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.”

There are so many current impacts all over the world of rising average temperatures that the date by which the Himalayan glaciers disappear hardly constitutes a “central claim” of the IPCC report.

A very telling sentence in your citation is key: “Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.” Perhaps? Of course, mistakes are made in science, and the key error here appears to be scientists relying on published records based on an erroneous report, rather than original peer-reviewed research.

The important thing to note is that such mistakes (which are rare) are publicly corrected BY SCIENTISTS when they are discovered. Where’s the conspiracy there, Tarl?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

Climate alarmist!

[JR: Not what happened, as the IPCC explains. Nor is a 1996 study particularly up-to-date anymore, but I have added an update to this post by a CAP intern.]

[JR: I'm afraid we're way, way past 1996 projections. Things are going much, much faster than anyone thought back then, or even in the IPCC 2007 report.]

As mentioned, virtually all of Pakistan’s water is glacier or snowpack fed. Pakistan doesn’t get alot of rain, virtually all of its agriculture is irrigated. The agreement it has with India for the source rivers gives India certain amounts of flow from those rivers (not percentages, but actual flow rates that don’t decline as the rivers shrink – as nobody was thinking they’d shrink back when it was signed). India is already dry and projected to get more dry as it adds a billion more mouths to feed over the next couple of decades. The situation couldn’t have been designed to create more conflict.

India prays for rain as water wars break out
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/ 2009/ jul/ 12/ india-water-supply-bhopal

The monsoon is late, the wells are running dry and in the teeming city of Bhopal, water supply is now a deadly issue. Gethin Chamberlain reports

In Bhopal, and across much of northern India, a late monsoon and the driest June for 83 years are exacerbating the effects of a widespread drought and setting neighbour against neighbour in a desperate fight for survival.

India’s vast farming economy is on the verge of crisis.

I don’t believe that the people opposing ACES are opposing it are engaging in some sort of left-wing litmus test. They are genuinely concerned about the fate of the earth’s climate and its implications for humanity. Many of these people are young people who will experience these hardships in the prime of their lives.

Let’s face some facts. The bill as written is very weak and everyone from Paul Krugman in yesterday’s New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/ 07/ 13/ opinion/ 13krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion to Joe Romm knows this. Its sad that this is the only game in town. ACES does lay down the ground work that must be built on and it must get stronger. Absent that I don’t know what will curb our ravenous appetite for fossil fuels.