The Latest IPCC Climate Change Report is out!
In late September, Climate Scientists came out with a report stating that they were 95% CERTAIN that Climate Change was occurring and mostly caused by man. It doesn’t get much surer than that! To scientists this is irrefutable.
We have done a pretty poor job of cutting emissions so far. The deniers of climate change have huffed and puffed and kept questioning scientific proof all in spite of; melting ice caps, warmest global temperatures ever recorded, warming oceans, rising sea levels and horribly destructive hurricanes, tornado outbreaks and flooding. If we do not act to cut emissions, we need to act to develop survival skills for our future. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has even promoted new guidelines since Superstorm Sandy.
Here are Some of the Recommendations for Reducing Costs to Future Disasters.
• Required FEMA to make recommendations for the development of a national strategy to reduce costs on future disasters by July 30, 2013.
The recommendations for the National Strategy should:
o Respect the constitutional roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government, as well as the private sector;
o Address vulnerability to damage from flooding, severe weather, and other hazards;
o Analyze gaps and duplication of emergency preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation at all levels of government; and
o Include recommendations on improving resiliency of states, local, and tribal communities to lower future response and recovery costs.
For the full wording of the SRIA Act of 2013 go to the following link…
It’s not going to be cheap. Expect the cost of business to go up significantly in the future. We as a country will need to learn how to harden our environments and secure our communities in the most vulnerable locations from the major climate disturbances yet to occur.
Okay, but back to the new Climate Change Report
One comment that I read from the European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegard stated… “If your doctor was 95 percent sure you had a serious disease, you would immediately start looking for the cure.”
In 2007 the IPCC said that climate change was 90% certain. In a mere 6 years things have changed. There have been more and more studies completed. Former Deniers have jumped ship and agreed something is happening. Climate deniers out there remind me of the part in the movie “Dumb and Dumber” where Jim Carreys character was in love with the beautiful Lauren Hutton and she told him there was 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that she would ever love him and he replied “YES…I Still Have a Chance!” I believe the climate deniers are clutching to that slim chance that man has no impact on our climate.
But…there are still newspapers and people out there that say “No, They Haven’t Provided Enough Evidence.”
The Daily Mail is one of them!
Methinks this is a way to sell Newspapers. There are others however who think this way.
Science and the Public Policy slams the 2007 IPCC study as “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report Four (AR-4) of 2007, concerning the influence of rising levels of CO2 on global increases of tropical cyclone (TC) activity is inaccurate and a disgrace to the scientific community.”
Like many large reports there is often misstatements or inaccuracies involved. Wikipedia even has a report on the inconsistencies of the 2007 IPCC Report on Climate Change. This 2007 IPCC report typically is the one that the climate change deniers slam for having incorrect information.
Wiki states the following;
“Some observers have identified issues in which the peer-reviewed science suggests outcomes more severe than outlined by the report, while other observers have said that some conclusions in the report are not satisfactorily supported by the peer-reviewed science. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have acknowledged that a paragraph in the WGII report on the projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers is incorrect. Climate expert Martin Parry, who had been co-chair of the working group on impacts for IPCC AR4, stated that “What began with a single unfortunate error over Himalayan glaciers has become a clamour without substance”. The IPCC had investigated other alleged mistakes, which were “generally unfounded and also marginal to the assessment”, and were commonly based on the mistaken idea that the IPCC could not use grey literature such as reports from campaign groups and governments.”
Read the full criticism by Wiki at the following link;
For the deniers out there…. I ask you this!
What is so bad about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?
What is so bad about developing new alternative forms of energy?
What is so bad about conserving and wisely using our natural resources?
The bottom line is either you believe or you don’t. It’s OK to disagree, however don’t stand in the way of those who are trying to make it better!