Will AGW deniers misuse the science collected in AR5 before it’s publication in 2013, to further delay action?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html
In 50 years, when climate models are reliably forecasting regional changes in climate, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are nearing 500, the planet has warmed another 2 degrees, methane concentrations are skyrocketing due to warming permafrost, there is no longer any year-round arctic ice, and the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are collapsing, the climate skeptics will still be telling us it is all simply natural variability and the planet was as warm during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum so CO2 can’t possibly have an effect on climate.
The point is they are in denial, no amount of objective evidence would ever convince them that humans are causing the problem because that’s what denial is.
We’ll do whatever it takes to "delay action".
It’s all a fraud.
Time to grow up.
References :
i still won’t believe AR125
References :
Well the good news is that they’re including more information about feedbacks into the models, and doing both projections and predictions. This is all very useful information.
The bad news is that it feeds the denier trolls, because they couldn’t care less what we do know, all they care about is what we don’t know so that they can make the "we don’t know enough to take action" delayer argument.
Then again, the other good news is that nobody really cares about the denier fantasyworld. They can have their Inhofes and Palins, we’ll take the Obamas and Grahams and Kerrys and Liebermans and Sarkozys and Rudds and Merkels.
*edit* "We’ll do whatever it takes to "delay action".
Wow, I sure called that one!
References :
Conservative Agenda has spoken.
They will affirm anything that seems to undermine AGW science, denounce anything that supports it as fraud, and do whatever they can to delay action for as long as possible.
References :
Nope.
They may try, but won’t succeed.
Global warming denial is pretty much limited to people with no real stake in the issue. Where people are serious and there is something really at stake (national leaders, the courts, business leaders, etc.) it has no real impact.
References :
If you want to know what further warming will bring, you should look at what happened during past warm periods.
Believe what you want about the peak temperature of the MWP or HM – but even if you believe that the peak temperatures of those periods were exceeded in the 1990s, it still must be considered that the present warmth is only a few decades long – the MWP peak lasted two centuries and the HM peak lasted at least ten.
You cook a roast at 350 for a few hours. Try to cook it at 375 for fifteen minutes and see if it’s done. It’s not. Time at temperature needs to be considered. The debate over whether the MWP and/or HM were warmer or not-quite-as-warm as the temperatures we’ve experienced since the late 20th century is somewhat academic and is moot relative to the questions of "what happens next" and "triggering positive feedbacks" because of the time comparison – it’s a few decades at X deg C versus centuries at X – 0.15 deg C.
What will the next 100 years bring, if it warms further? Severe drought in the American Southwest, making the Dust Bowl look like a holiday – - like the severe prolonged droughts that contributed to the demise of the Anasazi civilization. Severe drought in eastern Africa, causing lakes that are presently somewhat low to dry up – like Lake Naivasha in Kenya did for 200 years – the same 200 years as those aforementioned droughts (figured I’d mention that to preempt claims that the warm ‘regional anomalies’ weren’t contemporaneous). Etc…
References :
It said
The climate scientists that comprise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don’t do predictions, or at least they haven’t up until now.
Interesting. We all know they predict warming. They predicted glaciers would be melted in the Himalaya by 2035.
Here is an alarmists wiki site listing some predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report#Basis_of_predictions
They have to be kidding us. I remember I used to accept Nature as a reliable source of information, not that I believed everything was true, at least it was thoroughly vetted. I guess they have decided that politics trumps science. Here are some more examples:
They predict that under BAU increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade.
The wide range in predictions is based on scenarios that assume different levels of future CO2 emissions.
The predictions are based on scenarios, and the IPCC did not assign any probability to the 35 scenarios used.
I could go on and on but the point is Science has lowered its standards to little more than a rag. It is extremely disappointing because all we have left is pop science. I blame alarmists for lowering the standard of science to junk and psuedoscience. We may pay a dear price for their short sightedness oneday.
References :
In 50 years, when climate models are reliably forecasting regional changes in climate, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are nearing 500, the planet has warmed another 2 degrees, methane concentrations are skyrocketing due to warming permafrost, there is no longer any year-round arctic ice, and the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are collapsing, the climate skeptics will still be telling us it is all simply natural variability and the planet was as warm during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum so CO2 can’t possibly have an effect on climate.
The point is they are in denial, no amount of objective evidence would ever convince them that humans are causing the problem because that’s what denial is.
References :
Misuse science?
That’s strictly an alarmunist activity.
References :
conservative’s first sentence has it right.
<<We’ll do whatever it takes to "delay action".>>
what’s that old game? "Lie, Cheat, and Steal". that’s it.
the bad news is that they’ll quote just about anything, even if it directly contradicts what they’re promoting, and those that are inclined to believe them won’t look to see if what’s said is taken out of context, or is even in whatever it is that they’re supposedly quoting.
References :