China report spells out "grim" climate change risks

Comments (20)
edgemaster wrote:

How ironic that China just invested Billions in the worlds dirtiest oil source: the Alberta Tar Sands. Short term gain for long term pain; how “Western”of them.

Jan 18, 2012 1:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
blindspotting wrote:

I wonder if China realise the extent that one of their little-discussed national policies, circular economy’ could provide a powerful solution both for them and internationally?

Jan 18, 2012 4:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
obamaisright wrote:

Money is god, so we offer our lives and our childrens lives to our god. Death to our future because we can’t afford to cut back on prosperity.

Jan 18, 2012 4:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
jdey123 wrote:

They should chill out, the facts are:-

Arctic Sea Ice isn’t getting thinner:-

The world hasn’t got any warmer since 1998:-

UK winter’s mean temperature in 2010-11 was the same as it was in 1910-11 (select link, choose “Mean Temperature” in “Climate Variable” and “Winter” in “Month/Season/Annual” list boxes:-

Hansen’s predictions are getting wildly inaccurate (scenario B is the light blue line and closest to actual CO2 emissions, black line represents actual temperature’s recorded:-

Jan 18, 2012 5:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
sgreco1970 wrote:

gosh I thought climate change was a fairy tale? Huh, guess we wont live happily ever after.

Jan 18, 2012 6:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
chip4761 wrote:


Excellent work cherry picking data. Typical. I especially like your use of the link to give your argument more credence. Ironically, while your last link shows lower than predicted temps given various scenarios, they have, on average, shown a steady rise. Good work! And nice try… Actually, all of your links show the opposite of what you say is really happening.

Jan 18, 2012 8:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
BettyNwar wrote:

Undoubtedly Chinese policymakers will take the report findings more seriously than their US counterparts.

Jan 18, 2012 8:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
jdey123 wrote:

Scientific advance requires the following to hold true:-
i) A hypothesis be postulated
ii) A model produced which predicts expected results
iii) Observations taken which match the predicted results.

If observations do not match predicted results, the hypothesis should be withdrawn.

Additional useful links when examining the global warming hypothesis are:-

Land & Ocean datasets:-
a) HADCRUT (UK Met Office & Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia)

b) NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) State of the Climate report – Year to date figures appear just above the Precipitation section.

c) NASA GISS (Hansen’s departmental website):-

Problems with earth-based datasets include:-
a) There are no Arctic weather stations, so results are either excluded or extrapolated from nearest weather stations.

b) Weather stations aren’t evenly distributed over the globe.

Satellite-based datasets:-

a) University of Alabama:-

Problem with satellite-based dataset is that:-

i) they do not directly measure the heat, but look at the intensity of radiation reflected back from the earth. They do cover 98% of the planet, however.

ii) They only started in December 1978

Problems with datasets in general:-

i) Temperature accuracy has increasingly improved over the years, with a reasonable degree of accuracy (+/-0.05C) only available from the 1950s onwards.

ii) Temperature is recorded as anomalies from baseline periods, and the baseline periods differ between the datasets.

iii) The starting period for the datasets varies between 1850, 1880 and 1979.

iv) The manner in which data is presented to the viewer varies. Use of unbalanced temperature scales and selective time periods is prevalent, so examination of the actual data, rather than graphs is advisable.

Jan 18, 2012 8:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
Yourpleasure wrote:

How odd? Conservatives in the US have claimed that Global Warming is a myth and was created so scientists could get funding for research on it. Now we have the Communist Chinese government with a completely different funding arrangement and a worse pollution problem than the US in most places coming out and saying it not only exists but how it will damage their future. Have the US conservatives taken this stance because it first came to prominence due to the efforts of a former Democratic Vice President? Have the conservatives put party ahead of the country? Have they put business interests ahead of individual interests? It’s absolutely shocking! Wake up America.

Jan 18, 2012 8:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
Lanche wrote:

Another huge load of liberal, communistic bs. China could care less about global warming. They know it is a scam too. When are the liberals going to get over this? The American People are realizing what a joke this is and it is something you will never be able to control. Keep trying to soak the sheeple. Just an fyi our glaciers around the world are growing not shrinking. I didnt buy any beach front property in Juneau at the moment either. It is 7 degrees there today and is supposed to snow the next 7 out of 9 days.

Jan 18, 2012 8:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
jdey123 wrote:

For a balanced view, I would also like to direct the reader to a website whose aim is to dispel any myths which skeptics like myself are alleged to employ.

I would particularly encourage you to add a comment to any of the articles that they publish, which is less than fully supportive of the global warming hypothesis, to establish the neutrality of the forum.

Jan 18, 2012 9:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
GreenMarine wrote:

Didn’t you hear? Carbon emissions are the only think keeping us from the next ice age.

What we need is a green tax to prevent do-gooders from facilitating glaciers taking over N. America. Want to recycle? Pay the tax. Drive a hybrid? Pay the tax. Solar panels? Taxed.

Jan 18, 2012 9:25am EST  --  Report as abuse

jdey123, wow though not 100% conclusive since the 1950′s Ice core data has been instrumental in showing climate change patterns. Also, I know that Ohio had high’s yesterday of 56 or so degrees, does that mean by your logic since the avg. temp. in Ohio in Jan. is 34 degrees that global warming is fact? I think not, temp. variations like the one you point out are outlaying data points just as the one I pointed out.

Jan 18, 2012 9:51am EST  --  Report as abuse

also ps, read up on the scientific method,

Jan 18, 2012 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse

The strange thing about the authors and this article is that China’s Report, dated 11-15-2011, was published on 11-16-2011 in english in Xinhua. The US media is incredibly slow. In addition, China created a plan to address climate change on 11-22-2011, published in english in Xinhua, that the Chinese presented at the Durban Conference on Climate Change a few days later. Where have the stupid American reporters been hiding? China has plans to address pollution issues by improving the manufacturing processes and by adding more renewable energy sources. Not all of it will take place immediately because China must provide jobs and other needs for its people, but they are working on it. One important item is a massive irrigation and reclamation effort that will create agricultural areas in the western and northern provinces. Global warming increases typhoons that are natural desalination plants on the south and east coasts. Pumps, pipelines, and canals carry the water to the west and north, and by 2020-2025 China will feed several billion people. Russia’s Siberia also makes vast agricultural gains as global warming melts tundra for food as well as oil, gas, and lumber. The US, Mexico, Africa, the Middle East, India, and Australia become polluted deserts, so the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China and the KGB of Russia gain control of the world’s food supply by 2025. (Officially, the KGB has become the FSR.)

Jan 18, 2012 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Looks like the Chinese understand this better then the average American Conservative. Not the only thing.

@Jdey, The only so called ‘evidence’ you present is either from ‘denier’ websites or 2011 data from credible sources. One can not look at one years worth of data to determine if climate change is occurring, you look at decades or more long trends. And the latest warming trend is MUCH sharper then any we have been able to detect in our studies of past temperatures.

Jan 18, 2012 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ratt wrote:

USA Pragmatist, stop lying Dude, your boys Mann, Jones and Hansen got caught lying about the decline in temperature over the last 20 years. You still out here pushing the scam Global Warming ? What we need is a conservative lead federal investigation against Global Warming Activists and start putting some of you lying sob’s in jail.

Why don’t you tell the good folks out here Prag-Man how many Carbon-Trading Companies Gore, Soros, Gates, Clinton, Reid and Pelosi created before they started pushing Global Warming caused by Man.

Jan 18, 2012 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Ratt, so are you even educated in a scientific area, I would doubt it. Facts are facts, just because you do not like it does not mean it lies.

Jan 18, 2012 2:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
windman4US wrote:

Ok – you right wing nut jobs – especially jdey – please explain to those of us that are concerned about what is happenning with the planet how a country that is only concerned about feeding 1.3 Billion folks and improving their lives has been able to be “force/tricked” into accepting something (climatic change)that will affect them so severely??

In case you don’t know, this year after almost 40 years of being able to grow all of their own food China became an net importer of grains – they have parts of their country in a 200 year drought – the sea has risen 4 1/2 inches in Shanghai in the past decade – so they do see what is happenning.

We have a bunch of folks ( um hum – right wing nut jobs ring a bell??)bought and paid for that will say/do anything to delay America from getting off the sidelines and participating in this exciting new industry that can “save” not only our planet, but our species. Why is that?? In 1900, 10 of of the United States GDP was spent on subsidies for oil and gas – over 100 years later, we REFUSE to look at other options?? Even after the technology boom we have had the past 30 years?

As full disclosure, I am in Renewable Distributed Energy and fully believe in it as a way to create economic growth, local sustainability & a way to prevent terrorist from disrupting our power supply.

We only have finite resources in the world, and they can be put out of balance – over time I do agree that the earth will “heal” itself – but at what costs to humans???

So instead of trying to scream from your pedestal about how fake this is, why don’t you crawl down in the gutter with the rest of us to work our way out of this challenge facing all Humans???

There is a way forward that we should all agree to – and follow

Jan 18, 2012 3:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

It still amazes me how many gullible morons there are out there who will believe any old lie if you repeat it often enough. Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. Iraq has WMDs and was responsible for 9/11. ARRA didn’t create any jobs. Cutting taxes for the rich creates jobs. Raising taxes on millionaires hurts small business. PPACA is a socialist government takeover of healthcare. “Obamacare death panels” will kill your grandma. Planned Parenthood is a taxpayer funded abortion clinic. Climate change is a hoax…

Jan 19, 2012 10:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.