From The Free Dictionary
Adj. 1. unequivocal - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion; "unequivocal evidence"; "took an unequivocal position"; "an unequivocal success"; "an unequivocal promise"; "an unequivocal (or univocal) statement"
2. unequivocal - clearly defined or formulated;
The Church of Climatology has spoken.
The Summary for Policymakers, and a longer version called the Synthesis Report, were written from thousands of pages of data and computer models based on six years of research compiled by the IPCC.
Weather changes, of that there is no doubt. It always has and always will. Now what causes those changes, thats another story.
Notice that they do not mention that:
UN climate experts wrangled here Tuesday over a landmark document on global warming amid criticism that the draft report was bland and some of its findings out of date.
One negotiator described the talks among the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "difficult".
The source said there had been by sharp exchanges over what the document should include and whether it should reflect findings published after a cut-off date for new material.
Nice to see that the CBC is still using the cute yet not so cuddly Polar Bear as their Global Warming Mascot.
Lets go with the later part of the first definition shall we... "an unequivocal (or univocal) statement" from the loony left.
4 comments:
Interesting how human-caused climate change doesn't exist simply because of lack of proof, yet the same logic doesn't apply to religion and scriptures...
It doesn't? I know plenty of people who would argue your statement... including myself... sucks to be agnostic sometimes... I need PROOF to believe... its the way my brain works.
Now in the case of religion, I hope I am proven wrong. In the case of climate change, I hope I am proven right. Is hope the same as faith? What exactly is the difference?
Time to bark up another tree there nameless person. Your logic does not compute as you assume way too much. Stick to the facts and what is known...
For once I post something like that, it seems I'm actually facing a Progressive instead of a traditional kind of Conservative. I didn't know they existed anymore, as I understood that everyone was following the line of Harper and Day and looked like Myron Thompson.
But why is it that, in the light of so much scientific consensus on the existence of a human-caused (due to its significantly increased rate) of GHGs and a rapidly increasing (versus historical tendencies) average global temperatures are there so many people out there who categorically deny that curbing use of fossil fuels is not necessary? I'd say peak oil should be reason enough to change our ways sooner rather than later for economic reasons, but burning coal to generate electricity (when oil and gas are gone or too expensive) will only worsen Harper's asthma, and maybe only then would we see something happen, at the current rate.
But, you know, in a recent interview, Baird mentioned that he and his govt "believed in the science" surrounding climate change. Can you believe that? I couldn't believe my eyes.
I would not consider myself belonging to any political label. I am just me and I have a wide range of views on topics that is more like a shot gun blast than anything. Just so you might understand a bit better... I voted liberal municipally, NDP provincially and conservative federally, in the last elections held. I vote for the person, NOT their party...
"But why is it that, in the light of so much scientific consensus on the existence of a human-caused (due to its significantly increased rate) of GHGs and a rapidly increasing (versus historical tendencies) average global temperatures are there so many people out there who categorically deny that curbing use of fossil fuels is not necessary?"
I have no idea... I am not one of those people. I only dispute what the gang over at the IPCC has to say about this matter. I would love for us humans to reduce ALL forms of pollution regardless of how it is created and what it consists of. I don't like the fact that the lake I go to is now becoming contaminated by blue green algae, which some would blame on human caused AGW. Myself, I blame poor environmental controls on human wastes and the SUN!
If the IPCC actually believed that CO2 production was such a dire cause for continued life on earth, you would think they would make ALL humans accountable for its reduction. Not just those in the developed countries. They would also not allow anyone to BUY their way out with the ridiculous carbon credit scheme! Transferring wealth, will not reduce CO2 production one bit. It is a sham as far as I am concerned. If the very ones that tell us how bad this is are not taking it seriously, why should I?
As you might have guessed, I have done more than my fair share of reading in regards to this topic. I am no expert but I have come to my own conclusions. There is not enough conclusive evidence to state that "the debate is over", "the science is settled", "it is Unequivocal". For starters, the very basis of science is... NOTHING is ever settled! Science is always up for debate and willing to take into account new evidence/theories. The IPCC has chosen to trash science as it should be and make it what they want it to be. They choose to ignore many qualified scientists opinions on the matter and suggest "Big Oil" has swayed their research. Give me a break already... you better come up with a better answer than "its big oils fault" or "Haliburton" or "its all GW Bushes fault"! It is very tired and over used. I know that governments have forked out way more cash than all the corporate funding put together. Now thats easy money for anyone to grab hold of to do studies on this topic. Why do I never hear that their science is tainted because they are just telling the governments what they want to hear? Why will they not admit that there have been warmer years prior to this warming period? You know... typical cycles that the earth has gone through over its billions of years. Why won't they admit that perhaps sun spot activity just might have a bit to do with the warming we are experiencing? Many other reputable scientist are!
Too many unanswered questions... Too many shady deals at the UN...
I won't even get started with the whole Maurice Strong link to all of this...
"Baird mentioned that he and his govt "believed in the science" surrounding climate change. Can you believe that?"
No, actually I don't. Typical politicians telling the people what they want to hear. Personally I liked it better when Harper and crew stuck to the "clean up pollution" line. It made a lot more sense to me than any of this CO2 garbage does.
Thanks for the return visit by the way.
Post a Comment