Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Harpoon]

I can easily believe Bush could change his mind about AGW. His ranch is designed to efficiently use energy and recyle water, so he's had some awareness (or hired someone who has some awareness). He's cutting his actual carbon impact without resorting to carbon-credits monte.

But if the official adminstration position has changed, that means Cheney's got the message. He must have a plan to convert AGW into a weapons system.

 

[Azure]

Yeah, like science and stuff. You know, all the stuff smart people know about.

Yes science. The very science that has said beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming IS man-made.

I'm all for cleaning up the environment, developing alternative measures, etc, etc...but the global warming paranoia...is too me, much like the paranoia started by Baptists and many other fundamental groups concerning the end days.

Remember Hal Lindsey telling us that the world was going to end in '86? Or on Y2K?

Same thing. Fear-monger people to believe what you are saying. There are many, many experts that have recently reversed their belief that global warming is 'strictly' man-made. So...there is NO consensus, or common belief that if we cut down on our emissions by astronomical figures, we're going to suddenly reverse this warming trend.

I would much rather put my faith into mother nature, than what Al Gore says. But thats just me, and I guess I'm one of those who 'acts like a simpleton and a monomaniac in the same post'....since I always ' draw an inference from incomplete facts.'

Right?

 

[varwoche]

the global warming paranoia...is too me, much like the paranoia started by Baptists and many other fundamental groups concerning the end days ... There are many, many experts that have recently reversed their belief that global warming is 'strictly' man-made.

What a cherry-picked crock of nonsense, brought to us by none other than James Inhofe, nutjob extraordinaire (and you).

Azure, meet your "fearmongers", including scientists from NOAA, NASA, Scripps, Woods Hole, National Academy of Science, MIT, Penn State, Berkeley Labs, DOE, British Antarctic Survey, US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Potsdam, NCAR, UW, Rutgers, Hadley Centre, Livermore Labs, etc.

 

[Azure]

What a cherry-picked crock of nonsense, brought to us by none other than James Inhofe, nutjob extraordinaire (and you).

Azure, meet your "fearmongers", including scientists from NOAA, NASA, Scripps, Woods Hole, National Academy of Science, MIT, Penn State, Berkeley Labs, DOE, British Antarctic Survey, US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Potsdam, NCAR, UW, Rutgers, Hadley Centre, Livermore Labs, etc.

Yes, what a crock of nonsense.

Did I say that ALL those scientists are fear-mongers?

I said the idiots that say the world is going to end because of global warming are fear-mongers.

Posting links to scientists from numerous academy's does NOTHING to prove that global warming is a MAN-MADE problem. Get it?

Neither have ANY of those 'world' renowned scientists proven that MAN can reverse global warming. None of them.

Yes...

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,”

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded.

Man after my own heart. ^^^^^

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,”

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted.

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance.

 

[varwoche]

I said the idiots that say the world is going to end because of global warming are fear-mongers.

Note the movement of the Azure/Inhofe goalpost.

OK, let's discuss the new goalstrawpost location. I challenge you to provide evidence of expert scientists who say the world is going to end.

 

[Azure]

Note the movement of the Azure/Inhofe goalpost.

OK, let's discuss the new goalstrawpost location. I challenge you to provide evidence of expert scientists who say the world is going to end.

Note the lack of understanding the English language.

I challenge you to provide 'one' example where I have said scientists are part of this 'global warming paranoia.'

I said this..

but the global warming paranoia...is too me, much like the paranoia started by Baptists and many other fundamental groups concerning the end days.

Anything about scientists?

Or here:

Same thing. Fear-monger people to believe what you are saying.

No, again, I said NOTHING about scientists driving this paranoia.

Rather, it is the people who refuse to look at 'both' sides of the argument...yes, on one hand, global warming is an established fact, but on the other hand, there is no science that will PROVE that mankind is the driving force behind global warming.

There is also the belief that global warming is natural...expressed by many of the people I quoted above. But no, I am a denier.

Great.

 

[CapelDodger]

I can easily believe Bush could change his mind about AGW. His ranch is designed to efficiently use energy and recyle water, so he's had some awareness (or hired someone who has some awareness). He's cutting his actual carbon impact without resorting to carbon-credits monte.

Hmmm ... does he know something he hasn't been saying until recently? It's not incredible, IMO.

But if the official adminstration position has changed, that means Cheney's got the message. He must have a plan to convert AGW into a weapons system.

More a sign that Cheney's yesterday's man, if you ask me. Uncle Karl keeps a very close eye on the electorate's mood, and concern about AGW is spreading there. Making the right noises is OK with him. Doing anything, though, is right out. Anything actual will be piss off some group or other.

With isolationism rapidly gaining ground, explicit rejection of international bodies such as the UN and G8 is popular with the GOP core and the fabled Middle Ground. A US-led diplomatic initiative involving only the other Great Powers is just the ticket. Diplomacy is exceeding slow, and almost always ineffectual except when delay is the objective. Which I'm sure is true in this case.

It's a masterly stroke, which Cheney probably fought tooth-and-claw to prevent. Nice one, Condi . I never doubted the outcome of that contest.

 

[Azure]

But here...since you politely asked...

Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter - issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change is taking place, and that time is running out.

You're kidding me right?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0206-01.htm

First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global warming has reached "dangerous" levels.

Dangerous?

Stephen Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no return" in a decade.

Oh no, we are ALL going to DIE!

The dinosaurs dominated the earth for 160 million years. We are in danger of putting our future at risk after a mere quarter of a million years.

· Michael Meacher is environment minister. This article is based on a lecture he will deliver today at Newcastle University

Nope, no paranoia here. Especially when the title is this..

End of the world nigh - its official

WTF?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,895217,00.html

And just for fun....

A pessimistic report on global warming reveals that the entire planet Earth will burn to a cinder in less than 2 years, according to Ralph Stetson, Chairman of the film department at Collins College in Tempe, AZ.

"Even if we stop all emissions right now the world is going to end", Stetson said. "Nothing can be done. Latest estimates suggest the Earth will be destroyed by the end of November, 2008. If we stop all greenhouse gas emissions and halt all human activity right now we might be able to extend it another three of four months".

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i19194

 

[Azure]

An article from the WSJ.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

No...no paranoia here....move along.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Wow.

 

[CapelDodger]

Remember Hal Lindsey telling us that the world was going to end in '86? Or on Y2K?

Remember Churchill telling us Nazi Germany was an existential threat?

Hey, my point's of equal relevance to yours.

There are many, many experts that have recently reversed their belief that global warming is 'strictly' man-made.

Not enough to affect the scientific consensus that AGW is the dominant influence on the current warming. The likelihood has risen from 80% in the TAR to 90-99% now. Solar influences are attributed about half the 20thCE warming up to 1980, but solar input hasn't increased since then. Whereas the global temperature has, quite markedly. And, to a gardener like me, very noticably.

So...there is NO consensus, or common belief that if we cut down on our emissions by astronomical figures, we're going to suddenly reverse this warming trend.

It would be a very uncommon belief that reducing emissions will reverse the warming. We could stop entirely and it would continue. The point of reducing emissions is to lower the peak CO2-load, and associated warming, when it does level off. Which it surely will one day.

I would much rather put my faith into mother nature, than what Al Gore says.

Mother Nature can really bite your ass. She doesn't care who you are. Nor who and what you know. Nor where you're from, or even that youre human. And she doesn't give you the story by slideshow. You gotta live it. Let us know how that works out for you.

Al Gore, on the other hand, is just this guy. Why does his name pop up on AGW threads like the Antichrist in a fundie pamphlet?

 

[Azure]

Remember Churchill telling us Nazi Germany was an existential threat?

Hey, my point's of equal relevance to yours.

Churchill was right, no?

Hal Lindsey was wrong...very, very wrong.

The likelihood has risen from 80% in the TAR to 90-99% now. Solar influences are attributed about half the 20thCE warming up to 1980, but solar input hasn't increased since then. Whereas the global temperature has, quite markedly. And, to a gardener like me, very noticably.

So you're going to judge solar activity on our planet based on 20 years?

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Never mind the studies done on 'other' planets, saying the same thing. Sorry, but the likelihood you're talking about, isn't that likely. There is NO consensus amongst scientists that global warming IS man-made.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth's current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

It would be a very uncommon belief that reducing emissions will reverse the warming. We could stop entirely and it would continue. The point of reducing emissions is to lower the peak CO2-load, and associated warming, when it does level off. Which it surely will one day.

Ah, so going to such extreme methods, such as 20% in 5 years is a bit too much don't you think?

Rather, we should develop alternative measures that do NOT create emissions.

C02 load?

98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.

2%? We're going to do something by cutting back 2%(assuming we shut down emissions completely) and actually make a difference?

Al Gore, on the other hand, is just this guy. Why does his name pop up on AGW threads like the Antichrist in a fundie pamphlet?

Yes, Al Gore, JUST a guy.

Right.

 

[Corsair 115]

So you're going to judge solar activity on our planet based on 20 years?

If the sun was the pre-eminent or even sole cause, wouldn't Mercury be the bellwether planet for demonstrating that? It's far closer to the sun than the Earth is.

Never mind the studies done on 'other' planets, saying the same thing.

Uh, you may wish to read to read this blog from an astronmer about that topic.

 

[CapelDodger]

Churchill was right, no?

Hal Lindsey was wrong...very, very wrong.

Churchill was dismissed as a dangerous paranoid, and yet was right.

So you're going to judge solar activity on our planet based on 20 years?

I'll judge its behaviour over the last twenty years on its observed behaviour over the last twenty years. That seems rational to me.

Never mind the studies done on 'other' planets, saying the same thing.

The so-called "global-warming" on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto is nonsense.

Sorry, but the likelihood you're talking about, isn't that likely. There is NO consensus amongst scientists that global warming IS man-made.

Of course there is. Consensus does not mean unanimity.

Yes, Al Gore, JUST a guy.

Well, yes. Just a guy. He doesn't even hold an elected office.

 

[fsol]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

From your link.

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

 

[a_unique_person]

Churchill was right, no?

Hal Lindsey was wrong...very, very wrong.



So you're going to judge solar activity on our planet based on 20 years?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Never mind the studies done on 'other' planets, saying the same thing. Sorry, but the likelihood you're talking about, isn't that likely. There is NO consensus amongst scientists that global warming IS man-made.



http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html







Ah, so going to such extreme methods, such as 20% in 5 years is a bit too much don't you think?

Rather, we should develop alternative measures that do NOT create emissions.

C02 load?



2%? We're going to do something by cutting back 2%(assuming we shut down emissions completely) and actually make a difference?



Yes, Al Gore, JUST a guy.

Right.

[/quote]
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.
[/quote]



Worth keeping in mind.

 

[varwoche]

Posting links to scientists from numerous academy's does NOTHING to prove that global warming is a MAN-MADE problem. Get it?

Each of the studies in my link concerns MAN-MADE global warming. If you weren't up to your ears in cherry-picked irrelevancy you might have noticed this.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0206-01.htm
Dangerous? Oh no, we are ALL going to DIE!

Talk about hysteria. You are spewing straw-made propaganda by absurdly morphing one word -- dangerous -- into "we're all going to DIE!"

Furthermore, your cite is an agenda-driven interpretation of what other people (scientists) said. You should track down what was actually said if it supports your diffuse point. This is a skeptical forum Azure, not some Kevin Bacon game.

 

[Azure]

Talk about hysteria. You are spewing straw-made propaganda by absurdly morphing one word -- dangerous -- into "we're all going to DIE!"

It is hysteria.

Not that long ago I read an article where some idiot was saying that global warming is a man-made problem, but there is NOTHING we can do about it.

Hysteria? Or just stupidity. You call it what you want, but there are people out there that feed such hysteria.

I mean crap like this...

We are in danger of putting our future at risk after a mere quarter of a million years.

I think someone has watched too many movies. Everything is based on a freakin' computer model.

Way to be skeptical.

Very nice.

 

[Azure]

Just to add, since I can't edit...

End of the world nigh - its official

Yes!

 

[CapelDodger]

Everything is based on a freakin' computer model.

The science of greenhouse warming was first established over a century ago. The suggestion that human activity could convievably boost atmospheric CO2-load enough to noticably alter the climate was brought up at that time. No computers involved. More CO2, a warmer world. The question is, how much warmer?

Climate models of twenty years ago have been vindicated by the outcome. Today's models are even better. Given that they're based on soundly established science, why should we expect the predictions of today's models to fare worse?

We know a lot more than we did twenty years ago, by observation. The rate of response to warming of sea-ice extent, for instance, is greater than was assumed in the 80's models. This we now know, and can use to improve the models. We know a lot more about ocean behaviour. And so on. The long-lived "more research needs to be done ..." policy has actually funded a lot of research, much of it in the Southern Ocean which was only known sketchily until recently.

Over the last twenty years we've had the benefit of observing the biggest and best analogue climate model, one which is absolutely accurate. It's predictive value is limited since it runs in real-time, but it's fascinating to watch.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is hysteria.

Not that long ago I read an article where some idiot was saying that global warming is a man-made problem, but there is NOTHING we can do about it.

Hysteria? Or just stupidity. You call it what you want, but there are people out there that feed such hysteria.

I mean crap like this...



I think someone has watched too many movies. Everything is based on a freakin' computer model.

Way to be skeptical.

Very nice.

The model's have turned out to be pretty correct, so far, with Hansens predictions from 20 years ago being incredibly on target.

The models are just the icing on the cake for estimating what will happen, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is increasing, and the feedback affects are being observed. Unless some magical effect that cools down the earth appears out of nowhere, warming it is.