UN's IPCC Wins Nobel Prize; Lead Author to Speak at Directions' Rocket City Geospatial Conference

About Directions

Special Announcement

Newsletter Sign Up

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

myteams.dot.ga.gov (85)
planetgs.com (74)
www.thegisforum.com (70)
www.spatialsciences.org.au (32)
www.bloglines.com (27)

Our Points

Saturday, October 13. 2007

UN's IPCC Wins Nobel Prize; Lead Author to Speak at Directions' Rocket City Geospatial Conference

The lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. John Christy, will be the keynote speaker at Directions Media's Rocket City Geospatial Conference next week. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize last Friday (Oct. 12), along with former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, for its work on bringing attention to climate change issues. Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, is skeptical of some of Gore's work on the issue. "Climate has evolved from a topic dealt with by a few bookish, pocket-protector scientists to a multi-billion dollar industry that has begun to drive legislative policy on Capitol Hill, to embolden high-profile environmental activists... and to create anxiety among the largest industries (and thus people) of the world."

Christy's presentation will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 17th at the Huntsville Marriott Hotel.

Posted by Joe Francica in Directions Magazine, Rocket City Geospatial at 13:01 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Honesty requires you to add that Dr. John Christy was lead author in 2001 only, and that most (by a huge margain) of his colleagues disagree with his take on the urgency of addressing climate change.

#1 Sean Gillies (Link) on 2007-10-13 15:27 (Reply)

Sean:
Indeed you are right, but his contributions in the other years when reports were issued were significant. According to Dr. Christy...
"There were 4 main reports 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007, and one supplement (1992). My involvement was:

1992: Contributor
1995: Key Contributor
2001: Lead Author
2007: Contributing Author..."

Sean, is your comment directed at the fact that you believe Dr. Christy was not a significant contributor during the years in which the UN's IPCC body of work was cited for the Nobel Prize or that you simply do not agree with his scientific findings?

#1.1 Joe Francica (Link) on 2007-10-13 20:41 (Reply)

Joe,
Despite the debate concerning the state of climate, can you say that pollution is good for the environment -- and that continued polution is something we should continue to live with?

With that said. Have you been following the BP Oil saga in Indiana, wherein BP Oil wishes to have dumping rights into Lake Michigan -- when it is a fresh watersource that is still struggling to make a comeback from pollution that occurred by industry decades ago?

Did you know, for instance, that at Zion Beach, the espestos percentage in the water forced the park to close-down its beaches due to the contaminates present? Did you know that the fishing industry in the Great Lakes (especially Lake Michigan) has been desimated due to the restrictions placed on consumtion of the fish in the lake?

Yet, we continue to argue whether we should allow large corporation to contaminate our environment?

If, on the otherhand, you feel that the energies are misplaced -- I cannot argue with that. But, if you were to agree that the urgency should be placed on the fact that we shouldn't pollute our environment -- and for various health and economic reasons -- then I might respect the approach.

#1.1.1 Daniel (Link) on 2007-10-14 10:04 (Reply)

By the way... Just ask the Canadians how they feel about the fact that their fresh-water resources were completely decimated due to US industrial pollution -- along with thriving local economies as a result. And I'm not talking 10, 20 years ago, Joe. I'm talking now.

Interview a few people from Canada about their opinions on that issue, and then get back to us.

#1.1.1.1 Daniel (Link) on 2007-10-14 10:11 (Reply)

Daniel:
You are welcome to contact Dr. Christy with respect to his contributions to the debate. We are providing a forum for his views as a respected contributor to the climate change issues. At this time, I have not stated my views because I am not an expert on the issues. While you are most welcome to your opinion on these pages, you would be better served by directing them to Dr. Christy or the IPCC. Thanks for your comments.

#1.1.1.2 Joe Francica (Link) on 2007-10-14 10:16 (Reply)

Dr. Christy is a gifted man, Joe.

I think the President's analogy was indeed accurate, actually. When taken in the context of what has occurred in relation to the Canadian ecosystem -- we are like the addict in the family. We're oblivious to the fact that we harm everyone else around us. Sooner or later, we hit bottom, right?

#1.1.1.2.1 Daniel (Link) on 2007-10-14 10:19 (Reply)

I'm not qualified to judge Christy's contributions or his science (I wasn't there and am not a peer). I'm fact-checking your post only, which by over-stating Christy's role implied that IPCC scientists generally view climate change as a boondoggle. Christy has been the go-to guy for climate change deniers (and polluters, as Daniel alludes), and does not represent scientific consensus.

#1.1.2 Sean Gillies (Link) on 2007-10-15 10:46 (Reply)

People aren't denying climate change, they are denying or questioning the causes, in particular the man part of the equation. If you haven't noticed, people have dropped the whole man-made part and are just using climate change in the generic. And I see people are falling for it hook-line and sinker.
So much for free thinking.

People can't have their cake and eat it too. There are people still questioning what the causes and effects are regarding climate change. There can't be a consensus on either side of the argument, at least yet. And those scientists who a part of the so called consensus, how many are true climate scientists vs. other types of scientists?

A couple things to keep in mind. Hanson's work, his models, are just now being reviewed. Prior to this, people weren't allowed to review them. Also inputted data into those climate models, one could argue, crap in, crap out, may be the case for some of them. Take a look as to where we have placed some of our climate stations through out this nation.

Also, pollution and climate change aren't totally related. Some cases yes, but not across the board. Just because the pond in my sub-division is polluted from run off, doesn't mean a thing about climate change, nor does it have any effect on the global climate.

If CO2 is a pollutant. Then science needs to re-plum the human body so we can stop exhaling the "pollutant". And re-work plant life so they don't use CO2.

Climate has always changed and will always change. If man can control the global climate. What is the best suitable climate for us? What we had 10, 100, 1,000 years ago? How do we keep the Sun and elements in the universe from affecting our work in controlling the climate? If we can’t accurately predict what the weather/climate is going to be like months from now. How can we decades from now? Just to name a few questions.

Also, I would ask people to review how the IPCC report was put together. The summary was written prior to the final report. There have been accusations as to how the report and summary was put together. Examples: The summary was written by political types. Some of the scientists were pressured to change parts of the final report to match the summary.

Now, that’s real science, govt. style. The UN has denied it. So who is lying?

KoS

#2 KoS on 2007-10-15 13:40 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your opinion of the quality of Google's "new" U.S. dataset?

	November '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30