Global warming occuring faster than predicted (2 Viewers)

[zstar]

So your final conclusion, after being thoroughly trounced by Kwayera, is to ignore her and post a link to a site devoted to claiming global warming is a conspiracy, the environmental equivalent of http://www.stormfront.org/ ?

But then that's no different to going to a site that claims man made global warming is real.


Plenty of Scientists have come forward to dismiss this as junk science.

 

[A High Way Man]

I wholeheartedly reject the treatment of skeptics such as alexdores in this thread.

Who could expect such petulance from THE SECULAR RATIONALIST CREW?!!!!

 

[impervious182]

So your final conclusion, after being thoroughly trounced by Kwayera, is to ignore her and post a link to a site devoted to claiming global warming is a conspiracy, the environmental equivalent of http://www.stormfront.org/ ?

An etiquette lesson from Trefoil, how ironic.

Trefoil I used a site which contains a plethora of links to scholarly publications which disagree with the anthropogenic climate change conclusion.

However now that we're talking about bias sites; how about the site which the graph we've been talking about all day came from.

Or is someone only bias when they disagree with you Trefoil? It's bias for a site to contradict global warming? Though it's not bias for a site to support it? Give me a break, your inability to act objectively on any issue is really quite astounding; and it reveals a high level of immaturity.

Just to remind you, this was the site Kwayera linked to:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm

Skeptical Science? No, that doesn't sound bias at all! It's trying to debunk theories made by skeptics, the opposite of which is being done in the link I provided:

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/

In fact the latter is more reliable, I would suggest, as the site serves as a page where hyperlinks to many supporting scientific reports are collected and presented. It's practically a site of sources, whereas Kwayera's is a site which uses the information of the author... whoever that may be. (Probably says, if someone cares to look.)

As for ignoring Kwayera's argument. I've presented the evidence, links where proper statistics may be found and measurements of mean annual temperature. People may check for themselves if they want to see who's right.

Hadley Center Data - that's what I'd be looking at personally.

 

[live.fast]

Dudes. seriously. If you're worrying about global warming, you obviously don't have a FUKN XBOX LIVE NIGAAA!!

Get yourself one of those. i promise you, you'll stop having stress attacks over whether the world's gonna get 1.6 degrees hotterr in the next 999,999,999 years or so.

 

[Trefoil]

But then that's no different to going to a site that claims man made global warming is real.

The key difference is that sites explaining anthropogenic global warming are founded on science, not conspiracy theories and special interests.

Plenty of Scientists have come forward to dismiss this as junk science.

Oh, you mean similar to how plenty of scientists came forward to dismiss the link between cigarettes and cancer?

The overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement about the following fundamental assertions: 1) the world has been warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable future, 2) the warming is largely due to human activity (burning fossil fuel - oil, coal and gas - and destroying forests), and 3) the consequences of rising temperature, in all projected futures, are grave enough to warrant global action.

How do we know this? In 1988 the U.N. established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a body of over 2000 scientists and experts from around the world who gather periodically to review the existing peer-reviewed literature of the relevant science. The skeptical scientists, by the way, are invited and are even among the lead authors of working groups. The summary documents are reviewed word for word, with industry and skeptics in the room. The IPCC's methods are rigorously fair to dissent, and incomparably thorough. The IPCC only began to assert the fundamentals in 1995 and since then has increased the conviction of the wording in its summary statements.

To add to this unprecedented overall agreement of the world's scientists, a statement endorsing the legitimacy of the process and the conclusions of the IPCC has been signed by 16 national scientific societies (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/index.html -> Search: IPCC -> The Science of Climate Change):

THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8°C above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.

It's been said that getting scientists to agree on much is like herding cats. We recommend you keep this in mind when putting the present day level of general agreement in perspective.

Yes, there are contrarians. There always will be. But there aren't many of them and a significant fraction of these are supported directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel industry. Just as in the case of the smoking-cancer link, there will always be "experts" who support the self-serving industry position and deny the science.

Unfortunately, the stakes in global climate change and the fossil fuel industry are even higher than they are with tobacco and cancer. The planet's climate is at stake. I doubt you'll read any of this, but source here.

 

[chaldoking]

I could not stop laughing at this thread - global warming is absolute bullcrap. end of matter.

 

[moll.]

Oh god, not him again!
ANYONE BUT CHALDOKING!
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[impervious182]

This article made me genuinely laugh when I read it.... well to be honest, it was more like a mad cackle.

Australia warned on climate stance

​

"A CHINESE Government climate adviser has issued a stark warning that Australia would derail global climate talks if its maximum 2020 greenhouse target were less than a 25 per cut in emissions.

Dr Jiahua Pan, a member of the Chinese Experts Committee for Climate Change, said Australia would be acting as though it considered itself a poor nation if it set a maximum target of a 15 per cent cut at the end of United Nations climate talks in Poland.

The public call is a sign of disenchantment among developing nations, including China - the world's biggest greenhouse emitter - that Australia, Japan and Canada have not joined Europe in promising deep emission cuts to take a lead in stalling negotiations."


​

It's not like China would have a vested interest to see us cutting back our emissions so drastically and deeply wounding our economy... not at all. Quite hypocritical that this 'expert' would make such a stupid suggestion, considering China emit so heavily. (Developing or not, it's still a huge number.) Happy now moll? lol.

 

[moll.]

Much so.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Oh god, not him again!
ANYONE BUT CHALDOKING!
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

ohh creationists

 

[moll.]

ohh creationists

My logic has never been the same since. He did irreparable damage to it.