Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gondring

Anyone who denies that climate change is occurring just isn't paying attention.

The UN/IPCC usage of the term "Climate Change" means anthropogenic cause. It is an apriori assumption implicit in treaty obligations whenever said term is used in the context of political action.

 

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by
Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

  • "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
    ( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

  • Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

 

The main question now is, "How much, if any, is anthropogenic?"

Anthropogenic cause is presumed within the term "Climate Change" thus no such question remains to be answered in the the view of climate alarmists and political opportunists. In using the term you have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.

8 posted on 06/29/2007 7:25:22 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: ancient_geezer
In using the term you the UNFCCC have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.

There...fixed it. The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" to describe natural fluctuations. As you pointed out, the IPCC includes these natural fluctuations in the term "climate change."

I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use, since that means we'd have to say, "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is not a climate change." "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is a climate change, but it might be merely climate fluctuation."

Even if we accept your UNFCCC terminology, then the whole point of the article becomes meaningless, as we can't differentiate a mere anthropogenic climate change from natural climate fluctuation based on the Scranton data.

10 posted on 06/29/2007 10:02:09 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: ancient_geezer
Oops... to clarify, let me add a few words that I somehow erased before hitting "Post"...
In using the term you the UNFCCC have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.

There...fixed it. The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" to describe natural fluctuations. As you pointed out, the IPCC includes these natural fluctuations in the term "climate change."

I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use, since that means we'd have to say: "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is not a climate change."
Instead, if makes more sense to say: "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is a climate change, but it might be merely climate fluctuation."

Even if we accept your UNFCCC terminology, then the whole point of the article becomes meaningless, as we can't differentiate a mere anthropogenic climate change from natural climate fluctuation based on the Scranton data.

11 posted on 06/29/2007 10:07:30 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson