ACTION NEEDED TO MANAGE CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS

[guardian]

So says a new report by the National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12781

"Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts. The nation's options for responding to the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the
final volume in America's Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress."



Of course every word of this tome can be taken as fact. This is because you can't trust ANY comments by people who are not CLIMATE scientists. People with backgrounds in other disciplines are not qualified to speak on climate issues. Unless you have been granted an indulgence by the Holy Church of Global Warming.

By the way here is the list of report contributors:

* Dr Peter Raven: Botany
* Dr. Pamela Matson: Biology & Forest Ecology
* Dr. Albert Carnesale: Mech Eng and Aerospace Eng
* Dr Donald Boesch: Marine Science
* Dr. Marilyn Brown: Energy Policy
* Mr. John Cannon: Law
* Dr. Thomas Deitz: Sociology
* Dr. George Ends: Public Affairs
* Mr. Robert Fri: Physics & Business
* James Gereiner: BS Mech Eng
* Charles Holliday: Industrial Eng
* Dr. Diana Liverman: Geography
* Dr. Richard Schandensse: economics
* DR. Phillip Sharp: Govt
* Ms. Peggy Shepard: Politics
* Dr. Robert Socolow: Aerospace Eng
* Dr. Susan Soloman: Chemistry
* Mr. Bjorn Solgson: Business
* Dr. Thoms Willbanks: Geography
* Dr. Peter Zandan: Business




COME ON PEOPLE.... Let's hear how the report is crap and these people are morons and aren't qualified to speak on climate issues. Maybe we can get a quote from the famed cartoonist, Peter Jacques?


chirp chirp chirp...that's the sound of crickets as the DOOMER hypocrites have nothing to say.

[elocs]

1. Unless you live in a fantasy never-neverland there is not going to be any global action

to manage climate change risks. Hell, there's not even going to be any effective steps taken to deal with the consequences of climate change until it is likely too late.

[kristopher]

2. Your reasoning is flawed.

Of course, since you are just looking for a "gotcha" that is to be expected.

The CLIMATE SCIENTISTS say that AGW is a real problem and is going to cause a given, predictable set of global effects.

The specialists you point to are working with the PRODUCT of climate scientists and applying the effects to their fields of specialization.

They are not trying to do the work of the climate scientists.

[guardian]

4. The only thing that is 'flawed'

are your pretzel-like, mental contortions to justify a double standard: one for those with whom you agree, and a polar opposite for those with whom you disagree.

[kristopher]

5. Nope.

My specialty is energy - specifically the transition to a carbon free energy infrastructure. I don't DO climate science but I most definitely use the product of their work as an affected specialist.

[guardian]

6. Having trouble staying on topic?

I was talking about the hypocrisy and double standards of the doomers. Your reply is typical of the tap dance of people do when called out for wrong doing...shift the subject and hope people don't notice. Your vocation is irrelevant to the topic of hypocrisy. Unless you are telling me that people in your industry tend to be hypocrites.

Don't bother replying; I know that won't be on topic either.

[pintobean]

3. Yup

[Viking12]

7. FYI: Risk Assessment =/= climate science

But you knew that, right? Thanks for playing.

[GliderGuider]

8. As others have said, the committee is neither doing nor commenting on climate science

While it recognized that climate change is inherently a global issue requiring an international response, the committee focused on the charge from Congress to identify steps and strategies that U.S. decision makers could adopt now. A coordinated national response to climate change, which the country currently lacks, is needed and should be guided by an iterative risk management framework in which actions taken can be revised as new knowledge is gained.

So, they take input from climate scientists, accept that the information they are being given is valid. On the basis of that they propose risk mitigation strategies within their areas of expertise. In order to do that they need to have exactly the sorts scientific backgrounds you list above. A climate scientist would be useless in this role.

Your reactivity on this issue is interfering with your ability to process information accurately.