1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Briefly:

    • The UN IPCC Report did not say "the world won't cool without chemtrails"
    • It said: the world won't cool "except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period."
    • That means we would have to remove CO2 from the air.
    • Some people consider that a form of geoengineering but it's nothing like Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which is what people are referring to when they talk about "chemtrails" for geoenginering.
    • All the mentions of SRM in the IPCC report are about possible future use.

    In Depth:

    The claim that the UN says "the world won't cool without chemtrails" comes from this Daily Sheeple article by Melissa Melton, repeated in Before It's News

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/un-the-world-wont-cool-without-chemtrails_092013
    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/09/un-the-world-wont-cool-without-chemtrails-2776026.html
    The actual New Scientist Article is at:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article...geoengineering-warns-report.html#.UkRoS2RwrMQ

    The mistake that Melton makes here is that the geoengineering referred to in the article is carbon removal, not Solar Radiation Management (SRM - blocking the sun in some way). When they say "except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period", they simply mean that we need to remove more CO2 than we add.

    Nothing at all is mentioned about spraying things from planes, and it actually does matter if you buy that Hummer, because the entire argument here is about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which we have to do be reducing carbon emissions, and possibly by actually removing CO2 as well.

    And this quote:
    Is a quote from Fred Pearce of New Scientist, not from the IPCC.

    It's so obviously wrong, one can only concluded that Melissa Melton has deliberately created an inflammatory headline to drive traffic to her site - which is filled with the usual array of fear-based ads.

    Lastly, even if this was about SRM (which it is not), why would an article about doing SRM in the future indicate in any way that we are doing SRM now?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013
    • Like Like x 7
  2. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2013
  3. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2013
  4. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    I begin to see "chemtrail" believers getting upset over these particular lines of text from the Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, taking them out of context:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    Without the context some believers suggest this is evidence that SRM is already being used today as "chemtrails", with dire consequences.

    Reading the full quote helps us better understand what is actually being referred to:

    It is clear that what they are talking about are potential future methods and the potential side effects. Modelling means no practical means have yet been made, only models that exist either as calculations or simulations in a virtual environment. The if realizable means if sufficient research and confirmation can be made to establish the safety of the method by minimizing long time side effects of both Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management.

    The irony is that the same believers often think of IPCC as liars (global warming is a scam), not thinking about the contradiction when they accept parts from an IPCC report as truth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  5. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I was just going to post something very similar mrfintoil. When the IPCC start to publish their full findings from next week we are going to see many more misinterpretations, possibly deliberate. I watched the IPCC presentations yesterday and they are very careful with the language they use so in theory it should be hard to misinterprete what they say.
     
  6. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    The many lines of bullshit the public will be forced to read, hear, see will be definitely deliberate. The public aren't been force-fed nonsense by accident, or because those pushing the mis-info are confused. They know exactly what they're doing, and what's at stake.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. eline65

    eline65 New Member

    Need the opinion of a edumacated folk well versed in the Climate Change discussion.

    One thing that occured to me that after so much hype about emissions, and in turn, vilifying the US for creating all the "alleged" problems of the world, how much focus is deforestation of the worlds rainforests issue given. I don't hear much about that, well in the press at least. Nor do I have the time to put all the data together, but has anyone seen a chart showing, or disputing a link between deforestation and global temperatures?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Here you go... more or less:
    [​IMG]

    There is a LOT of information about the devastating effects of deforestation, not only for the atmosphere.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

    It is one of the devastating effects of colonisation of this country (New Zealand).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The global thermal radiation budget is a complex thing. The's an interesting new article out about how the decline of farming in the Soviet Union has lead to carbon being sucked up by abandoned farms.

    One must always remember to try to put these things in context. How big is the effect, relative to other things.
     
  10. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member