Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Opinion

FEB 13, 2013 @ 01:19 PM 463,647 VIEWS The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis





James Taylor , CONTRIBUTOR
I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
The global warming icon for the ubx.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

Recommended by Forbes
Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
Is It Hollywood Or Washington? Global Warming Activists Control Government Climate...

The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims
Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records
MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
+158,477 VIEWS 10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Fac...
MOST POPULAR Photos: The World's Highest-Paid Models 2016
MOST POPULAR Stan Lee Introduces Augmented Reality For His Kids Universe

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Forbes Welcome

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Opinion

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

Forbes Welcome

Nice try but no star today from your 2013 opinion piece.

You might want to read some of the remarks before you post crap that has been discredited more than once here already dippy.

1) The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?

2) “Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.”

Mr. Taylor,
As in previous weeks, your editorial rests on misrepresentation of the facts. As billb notes, the survey was conducted by APEGA, a professional organization of engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. According to the study you cite:

“[T]he petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta.”

Failing to mention this fact is a clear case of misrepresentation. Why are you so eager to mislead Forbes readers? Obviously these survey results cannot honestly be extrapolated to engineers and geoscientists in general as you are trying to do.

“By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

This assertion is directly contradicted by the APEGA report itself which summarizes the results as follows:

27.4% believe it is caused by primarily natural factors (natural variation, volcanoes, sunspots, lithosphere motions, etc.), 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors (burning fossil fuels, changing land use, enhanced water evaporation due to irrigation), and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.

Mr. Taylor, in case you are unaware, a “majority” constitutes 50% or more of a sample. In this instance, there is no majority opinion regarding the primary cause of climate change among the APEGA members who responded to the survey. Once again you are misinforming Forbes readers in order to prop up the Heartland Institute’s favored policy of free market environmentalism.

Mr. Taylor, if you have a good argument in favor of free market environmentalism, you should make it. However, your weekly attempts to mislead the public about climate science strongly suggest you don’t have a good argument.

3) I think that your headline is incredibly misleading. Although the paper you cite is peer-reviewed, the authors of the study admit that it’s not a properly controlled survey. Its purpose was to understand the point of view of a particular group – namely, engineers and scientists who work primarily for the petroleum industry in Alberta. Why did it want to understand their point of view? Because they were studying how to convince petroleum engineers of the reality of climate change. In other words, they knew, going in, that a predominant number of the people surveyed were not going to accept the general consensus. But even with that, a majority of the respondents accepted that carbon emissions play some role in causing climate change.

Your headline says, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis”

A better headline would be, “According to a non-scientific survey, a majority of petroleum engineers working in Alberta accept that humans are in part responsible for climate change”

_______________

#Arctic Death Spiral

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

More debunked trash. Typical of you lemmings constantly recycling the same articles. Reason? Lack of credible material on the side of the denialists.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking.

Exactly just more laughable trash from repeater666. He has been humiliated in this thread countless times now but he like a dog chasing his tail keeps coming back for more humiliation.

Lead story on climatedepot.com, top scientist at noaa blows the whistle in huge detail on noaa the lies, the corruption, the corrupt science which u can see landreth post over and over. A new and larger revelation on how the left/greens/and financially corrupted scientists are .... well go ahead and read it, its big.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Lead story on climatedepot.com, top scientist at noaa blows the whistle in huge detail on noaa the lies, the corruption, the corrupt science which u can see landreth post over and over. A new and larger revelation on how the left/greens/and financially corrupted scientists are .... well go ahead and read it, its big.

Idiot.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

u can see landreth post over and over.

just in case it shows up again spouting crap. It has been debunked and I even posted about it earlier

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by pulvarien

u can see landreth post over and over.

just in case it shows up again spouting crap. It has been debunked and I even posted about it earlier

He can't help himself, he's as thick as shit.

Read the article people, think for yourselves not what Goebbels and his henchmen keep pounding into your brain by endlessly repeating their mantra. The info is gigantic, huge and will shake the scientific climactic world. This will be what trump needs to drain that swamp, careers will be ruined over this, the left are going to take a pounding, the truth has been revealed from an insider.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Read the article people, think for yourselves not what Goebbels and his henchmen keep pounding into your brain by endlessly repeating their mantra. The info is gigantic, huge and will shake the scientific climactic world. This will be what trump needs to drain that swamp, careers will be ruined over this, the left are going to take a pounding, the truth has been revealed from an insider.

Which bit of "It's bollocks" don't you understand, you fucking moron?

It is all debunked in the above post.

Like I said, if you understood science, you'd realise that, but you really are as thick as fucking shit, aren't you?

Interesting article concerning NOAA

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

^ No it's not its just more trash from the daily mail. Another Repeater666 fail.

The facts here;

Do not buy the House Science Committee’s claim that scientists faked data until you read this



On Sunday February 5th, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology published a press release alleging, based on questionable evidence, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “manipulated climate records.”


The source of their evidence, according to Committee spokesperson Thea McDonalds, was a Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid most famous for outlandish headlines such as "Is the Bum the New Side Boob” and "ISIS Chief executioner winning hearts with his rugged looks.” This is not the first time that the House Science Committee has used spurious evidence to dispute the existence of human-driven climate change.


The piece, which quotes John Bates—a scientist who NOAA once employed—challenges the data used in the famous 2015 Karl study. The study, named after Thomas R. Karl—the director of the NOAA’s Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and the paper's lead author—was published in Science and debunked the notion of a climate “hiatus” or “cooling.”


The White House Press release, which includes quotes from committee Chairman Lamar Smith as well as Darin Lahood (R-Ill) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz), misrepresents a procedural disagreement as proof that human caused climate change is not occurring. It's akin to pointing to a family argument as proof that they aren't actually related.


"What the House Committee is trying to do, like they did in the past, is debunk the whole issue of global warming,” said Yochanan Kushnir, a Senior Scientist at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.


At the center of the argument is contention over how NOAA maintains climate data records. Climate researchers receive grants to process and develop climate-related data sets. Once those data sets are fully developed, it becomes the responsibility of NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) to preserve, monitor, and update that data—which can sometimes be what data scientists refer to as messy.

“The problem,” said Kevin Trenberth a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “is that this is quite an arduous process, and can take a long time. And, of course NOAA doesn't necessarily get an increase of funds to do this.”


Maintaining this data fell under the purview of Bates' group, and it’s this data that he has taken issue with publicly.


“Bates was complaining that not all of the data sets were being done as thoroughly as he wanted to," said Ternberth. “But there's a compromise you have to make as to whether you can do more data sets or whether you can do more really thoroughly. And the decision was made that you try and do more.”


Bates takes particular issue with the way Karl handled land temperature data in the Science study which addressed the so-called “climate hiatus." Early analyses of global temperature trends during the first ten years of this century seemed to suggest that warming had slowed down. Climate change doubters used this analysis to support their belief that—despite climatological data which includes 800,000 year ice-core records of atmospheric carbon dioxide—humans have not affected the atmosphere by releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year.

“His primary complaint seems to be that when researchers at NOAA published this paper in Science, while they used a fully developed and vetted ocean temperature product, they used an experimental land temperature product," said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with Berkeley Earth. Because climate data comes from a number of different sources, methods of handling that data go through a vetting process that ultimately dictates the use of one for the official government temperature product. That can mean controlling for known defects in the devices that gather climate data or figuring out the best way to put them together. The product that Karl used for land temperature data hadn't finished that process.


"That said," said Hausfather, "the land temperature data they used in the paper is certainly up to the standards of an experimental or research product.”
So what does that mean for those of us on the outside?
Not much.


The record data that Bates takes umbrage with showed roughly the same amount of warming as the old record. And the evidence that the Karl paper cites as to why there’s no hiatus is based on ocean temperatures—not land. A government source who does not wish to be named emphasized that there is no evidence or even a credible suggestion that NOAA falsified data in the Karl et al (K15) study. And even if Bates' critiques were valid—and given that this methodology, after much peer review, is now the default way that NOAA calculates land temperatures, his complaints seem problematic—it doesn't upend the study's conclusion. And —the evidence still supports As for the differences in water temperatures, that can be easily be accounted for by differences in the tools used to measure water temperatures. In the past, as PopSci previously reported, most ocean temperature data was taken by ships which pulled water into their engine rooms—rooms warmer than the ocean outside, making ocean temperature recordings slightly higher. When ocean temperature tracking switched to buoys, which stay in the water all of the time and don’t heat up, NOAA failed to control for the cooler (and arguably more accurate) water temperatures due to the lack of hot ship engines. The Karl study corrects for that temperature difference and Bates’ complaints do nothing to discredit it.


"People should be aware of the fact that there are different groups that analyze the data," said Kushnir. "if you look at all of the sources together you get a bigger, more reliable picture of what's happening. There's the Hadley Center from the UK meteorology office that puts together a data set of global mean temperatures, there's NASA, NOAA, then there's the Berkeley group and the Japanese who have their own way of putting information together."




The Karl paper is also not the only one to tackle the hiatus. Studies in Nature by Stephan Lewandowsky of the Cabot Institute University of Bristol, and this one in the journal Climate Change by Bala Rajaratnam of Stanford University, all say the same thing.


The Karl study’s high profile, however, has made it a frequent target for criticism.

“The whole issue of this hiatus issue was discussed quite heavily in science,” said Kushnir. "And as scientists we understand what happened in this long period.”

Basically, there’s the natural climate variability, and then there’s the variability caused by climate change. The natural variability during this period was cooler, but the climate change impact on top of it was not.


But that isn’t even Bates' complaint, as the House Committee would imply—his complaint is that the data wasn’t vetted heavily enough.


“I interpret a key part of the issue,” said Trenberth, “as, how deep do you go and how far into the research do you go for one particular data set, as opposed to moving onto the next data set and getting that into a much better state than it would have been otherwise.”


Trenberth points to a backlog of data that hasn’t yet been released or updated, pressuring NOAA to focus on volume over perfection. If this sounds to you like an argument for more funding for climate change research instead of less, you're not alone.


“Recommendations about doing these things have been made, but they've never been adequately funded. So we muddle along,” said Trenberth. “And Lamar smith under the house has been responsible for some of this, because they actually cut the funding to enable NOAA to properly deal with and process the data by 30 percent in 2012. So the ability to do this properly has actually been compromised by the House Science Committee and by Lamar Smith in particular.”


The current administration has talked a lot about the “politicization of science.” Meanwhile on the House Committee’s website, Representative Smith states that Bates has exposed the “previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.” With the House Committee misrepresenting both Bates' complaint and the overarching scientific consensus, it does indeed seem that the politicization of science is a problem the administration needs to deal with.


Do not buy the House Science Committee?s claim that scientists faked data until you read this | Popular Science

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ No it's not its just more trash from the daily mail. Another Repeater666 fail.

The facts here;

Do not buy the House Science Committee’s claim that scientists faked data until you read this



On Sunday February 5th, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology published a press release alleging, based on questionable evidence, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “manipulated climate records.”


The source of their evidence, according to Committee spokesperson Thea McDonalds, was a Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid most famous for outlandish headlines such as "Is the Bum the New Side Boob” and "ISIS Chief executioner winning hearts with his rugged looks.” This is not the first time that the House Science Committee has used spurious evidence to dispute the existence of human-driven climate change.


The piece, which quotes John Bates—a scientist who NOAA once employed—challenges the data used in the famous 2015 Karl study. The study, named after Thomas R. Karl—the director of the NOAA’s Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and the paper's lead author—was published in Science and debunked the notion of a climate “hiatus” or “cooling.”


The White House Press release, which includes quotes from committee Chairman Lamar Smith as well as Darin Lahood (R-Ill) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz), misrepresents a procedural disagreement as proof that human caused climate change is not occurring. It's akin to pointing to a family argument as proof that they aren't actually related.


"What the House Committee is trying to do, like they did in the past, is debunk the whole issue of global warming,” said Yochanan Kushnir, a Senior Scientist at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.


At the center of the argument is contention over how NOAA maintains climate data records. Climate researchers receive grants to process and develop climate-related data sets. Once those data sets are fully developed, it becomes the responsibility of NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) to preserve, monitor, and update that data—which can sometimes be what data scientists refer to as messy.

“The problem,” said Kevin Trenberth a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “is that this is quite an arduous process, and can take a long time. And, of course NOAA doesn't necessarily get an increase of funds to do this.”


Maintaining this data fell under the purview of Bates' group, and it’s this data that he has taken issue with publicly.


“Bates was complaining that not all of the data sets were being done as thoroughly as he wanted to," said Ternberth. “But there's a compromise you have to make as to whether you can do more data sets or whether you can do more really thoroughly. And the decision was made that you try and do more.”


Bates takes particular issue with the way Karl handled land temperature data in the Science study which addressed the so-called “climate hiatus." Early analyses of global temperature trends during the first ten years of this century seemed to suggest that warming had slowed down. Climate change doubters used this analysis to support their belief that—despite climatological data which includes 800,000 year ice-core records of atmospheric carbon dioxide—humans have not affected the atmosphere by releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year.

“His primary complaint seems to be that when researchers at NOAA published this paper in Science, while they used a fully developed and vetted ocean temperature product, they used an experimental land temperature product," said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with Berkeley Earth. Because climate data comes from a number of different sources, methods of handling that data go through a vetting process that ultimately dictates the use of one for the official government temperature product. That can mean controlling for known defects in the devices that gather climate data or figuring out the best way to put them together. The product that Karl used for land temperature data hadn't finished that process.


"That said," said Hausfather, "the land temperature data they used in the paper is certainly up to the standards of an experimental or research product.”
So what does that mean for those of us on the outside?
Not much.


The record data that Bates takes umbrage with showed roughly the same amount of warming as the old record. And the evidence that the Karl paper cites as to why there’s no hiatus is based on ocean temperatures—not land. A government source who does not wish to be named emphasized that there is no evidence or even a credible suggestion that NOAA falsified data in the Karl et al (K15) study. And even if Bates' critiques were valid—and given that this methodology, after much peer review, is now the default way that NOAA calculates land temperatures, his complaints seem problematic—it doesn't upend the study's conclusion. And —the evidence still supports As for the differences in water temperatures, that can be easily be accounted for by differences in the tools used to measure water temperatures. In the past, as PopSci previously reported, most ocean temperature data was taken by ships which pulled water into their engine rooms—rooms warmer than the ocean outside, making ocean temperature recordings slightly higher. When ocean temperature tracking switched to buoys, which stay in the water all of the time and don’t heat up, NOAA failed to control for the cooler (and arguably more accurate) water temperatures due to the lack of hot ship engines. The Karl study corrects for that temperature difference and Bates’ complaints do nothing to discredit it.


"People should be aware of the fact that there are different groups that analyze the data," said Kushnir. "if you look at all of the sources together you get a bigger, more reliable picture of what's happening. There's the Hadley Center from the UK meteorology office that puts together a data set of global mean temperatures, there's NASA, NOAA, then there's the Berkeley group and the Japanese who have their own way of putting information together."




The Karl paper is also not the only one to tackle the hiatus. Studies in Nature by Stephan Lewandowsky of the Cabot Institute University of Bristol, and this one in the journal Climate Change by Bala Rajaratnam of Stanford University, all say the same thing.


The Karl study’s high profile, however, has made it a frequent target for criticism.

“The whole issue of this hiatus issue was discussed quite heavily in science,” said Kushnir. "And as scientists we understand what happened in this long period.”

Basically, there’s the natural climate variability, and then there’s the variability caused by climate change. The natural variability during this period was cooler, but the climate change impact on top of it was not.


But that isn’t even Bates' complaint, as the House Committee would imply—his complaint is that the data wasn’t vetted heavily enough.


“I interpret a key part of the issue,” said Trenberth, “as, how deep do you go and how far into the research do you go for one particular data set, as opposed to moving onto the next data set and getting that into a much better state than it would have been otherwise.”


Trenberth points to a backlog of data that hasn’t yet been released or updated, pressuring NOAA to focus on volume over perfection. If this sounds to you like an argument for more funding for climate change research instead of less, you're not alone.


“Recommendations about doing these things have been made, but they've never been adequately funded. So we muddle along,” said Trenberth. “And Lamar smith under the house has been responsible for some of this, because they actually cut the funding to enable NOAA to properly deal with and process the data by 30 percent in 2012. So the ability to do this properly has actually been compromised by the House Science Committee and by Lamar Smith in particular.”


The current administration has talked a lot about the “politicization of science.” Meanwhile on the House Committee’s website, Representative Smith states that Bates has exposed the “previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.” With the House Committee misrepresenting both Bates' complaint and the overarching scientific consensus, it does indeed seem that the politicization of science is a problem the administration needs to deal with.


Do not buy the House Science Committee?s claim that scientists faked data until you read this | Popular Science

So as usual we have credible scientists in disagreement,what a surprise.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So as usual we have credible scientists in disagreement,what a surprise.

Scientists are always going to agree and disagree that is part of the scientific process but they are not in disagreement about the fact that man made climate change exists. The article you posted was a deliberate distortion of a mans words, something your side has done continuously time and again.

^ he is contesting the upward correction of water temperatures from buoys to match them with those taken from vessels, and said the land temperature data was unreliable.

Your article misrepresents the scope and nature of the criticism.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Interesting article concerning NOAA

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

Try reading the posts before you link to drivel, you fucking moron.

“Recommendations about doing these things have been made, but they've never been adequately funded. So we muddle along,” said Trenberth. “And Lamar smith under the house has been responsible for some of this, because they actually cut the funding to enable NOAA to properly deal with and process the data by 30 percent in 2012. So the ability to do this properly has actually been compromised by the House Science Committee and by Lamar Smith in particular.”

However, it is nice to see our resident luddites trying to promote further funding for Climate Science Research.

Originally Posted by longway

Your article misrepresents the scope and nature of the criticism.

No it doesn't. It is perfectly clear and spot on in its points.

^ the billions if not trillions the west is committed to spending will not affect man made climate change to any significant level. Also correctly modelling future temp changes and impacts accurately is pretty much impossible.

Studying it is a neccesity, but the way it has been turned into a religious doctrine is nutty, even mild deviations from the doctrine eg contesting any increase in storms conected to mmcc, is met by hysteria.

The problem with global warming and cilmate change alarmism is that it addresses the right issues with falacies.

There is indeed a global environmental and human health emergency, right now!
This emergency is not being addressed with the CW/CC alarmist bullshit.
Worse even, this alarmism bullshit serves to distract from the real emergency...

It's because of alarmists that people don't take the man made BS serious anymore. London was supposed to be a seaside resort by now.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

It's because of alarmists that people don't take the man made BS serious anymore. London was supposed to be a seaside resort by now.

Climate modelling is not an exact science. They have correctly predicted the outcome, the time scale is not so precise.

The trouble is that idiots like you don't really give a fuck if it doesn't stop you going to Tescos in your lifetime.

Of course the planet is going to get warmer and one day the sun will explode and there will be no more earth. Is the planet getting warmer man made? Is it fuk. But im not going to deny you your religion, I mean people worship all sorts of weird shit these days.