Basically, climate change is rubbish.
Edit: Human acceleration of climate change is rubbish.
My honest opinion: It's wack, weird mixing of genres, they're living on this weirdo gimmick/image and will be a footnote in musical history. Some sections of the methhead rapping does have good flow, but I still can't understand shit of what they're saying. ;D
I see, perhaps I'd like it more of I knew afrikaans XD. That bitch is intriguing tho, would definitely hit.
thanks... no offense but I am going to take a pass on this one ;D3:01 they just had to write the pentagram on someone ???
however, let me hit you with some sick die antwoord shit... I know you have eclectic taste in music so I would like to hear your input on this one. personally I think it's off the fuckin chain ;D
"Global warming" Ahahahahahahahahhaha!What about the hole in the ozone layer coach? Did that just happen naturally? Right.... i forgot you have an inability to think. I always have to remind myself of this before i return a comment to you.
not hatin' bro but can we get some cliff notes? shit is 10+ mins long...
Did you even watch the video tbombz?
Edit: Once again mr tbombz, the all knowing oracle, kind enough to share his fountain of knowledge ::).
Did you even watch the video tbombz?Fact: over 90% of climatologists agree that global warming, aka drastically and rapidly increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is real and caused by humans.
Edit: Once again mr tbombz, the all knowing oracle, kind enough to share his fountain of knowledge ::).
Basically, climate change is rubbish.
Edit: Human acceleration of climate change is rubbish.
My teacher (meteorology) in college thinks the same. It's bullshit.Yep, them glaciers melting at accellerated rates and the ice caps melting quicker, is utter bullshit...yep, those holes in the ozone layer are fake...has nothing to do with us...
Did you see the video? Accelerated rate? Go to 4:45 in the video.. From your "climate gate" link :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_gate)
Fact: over 90% of climatologists agree that global warming, aka drastically and rapidly increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is real and caused by humans.
Hey Parker and tbombz, please explain this to me, because it tells me there has been basically no change in level of sea ice area in the last 40 years and yet you claim the melting is unusual and accelerated. Please backup your claims.
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg)
Did you see the video? Accelerated rate? Go to 4:45 in the video.I'm sending some displaced Polar Bears to your house...please argue with them..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_gate)
its funny how the general public doesnt argue about the specific material types and coatings and angles used in stealth aircraft design yet they think that they are better credentialed than the world's collective climatologists and scientists to judge climate change.qft. I'd love for xerxez and monckton to be right, but the experts believe otherwise.
the very same sort of brains are putting spaceships into orbit and remotely controlling rovers on mars and coming up with cures for diseases and breaking codes like DNA and dark matter and just because the public have access to "similar data"- they think they can make some conclusions.
I'll go with hundreds of statisticians and experts who are working on this and who have concluded that we are contributing.
its not a far stretch to believe that our pollutants arent doing anyone any good.
Or should we wait to see if there really is catastrophic consequences?
The fact is, if we do nothing, then we die wondering if we shouldve. If we do something, and we die- at least we tried.
Welcome to life. Keep thinking and believing what you want, how many times have liberal bullshit has been proven to be politically motivated lies? And you call us sheep?Typical right wing nut thinks if he speaks louder then the majority that he can blot out all logic and rationale.
I'm sending some displaced Polar Bears to your house...please argue with them..
Stick to men in thongsUnfortunately, I don't stick to anything...and men in thongs are not my forte...
If you are a seeker of the truth, without an agenda (tbombz and others), please look at these videos and then come back to me and tell me if your opinion hasn't changed.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
[
Brutal argument. Thats why I didn't bother replying in case you wondered XD.Polar Bears don't argue, that's why i.m sending them to you...
What does it matter when all your educated UN consensus could do was lie to you? Please watch the videos. Brutal agenda.why would u listen to anyone's opinion on a subject in which they have no education? Especially when their opinion is contrary to the opinion of all those people who do have an education in the field in question?
Basically, climate change is rubbish.
I take it none of you bothered watching it then. Oh well...
would you bother with a video from a guy who was calling evolution a hoax?Because experts have agendas just like everyone else, including you. Don't just blindly take what you're told asmfact, think for yourself. The earth has always heated up and cooled down over a long period of time, ad the emount of gases we expel is insignificant... It's just another scientific fad. Start thinking logically.
would you bother with a video from a guy who was calling mass-energy equivelance a hoax?
would you bother with a video from a guy who was saying that the earth is flat?
at what point do you accept the experts opinion's and disregard the uneducated?
Because experts have agendas just like everyone else, including you. Don't just blindly take what you're told asmfact, think for yourself. The earth has always heated up and cooled down over a long period of time, ad the emount of gases we expel is insignificant... It's just another scientific fad. Start thinking logically.yes, the evil scientists of the world, their plan to spend a decade of their life becoming educated in a field of science so that they could spend another decade of their life doing research in the field so they could appear credible to the public at which point they would create a grand hoax and recieve millions in funding to continue their research !!!! hahaha!! the evil scientists have won!!!!!
You can not be convinced no matter how hard the evidence. I do not wish to discuss the matter with you anymore as you just disregard it. Everything you just said is totally irrelevant.
Yes he doesn't even bother looking at the videos presented, just chimed in on the topic with his own preconceived notion of what is right. If he bothered to watch the just over 30min long 1-4 vids he would know how much he has been lied to by these scientists and politicians he trusts so much aka the "consensus".
Fucking annoying discussing anything with you tbombz :/
Let it be noted that I believed just like you, that the "global warming" was dangerous, but I realize now I was just ill informed. The last 9 years it's actually been colder ???.
yes, the evil scientists of the world, their plan to spend a decade of their life becoming educated in a field of science so that they could spend another decade of their life doing research in the field so they could appear credible to the public at which point they would create a grand hoax and recieve millions in funding to continue their research !!!! hahaha!! the evil scientists have won!!!!!Lol.;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
insignificant amount ??
Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
please, if you feel he makes any points worth noting, do post them here and ill look into them with an open mind. i honestly wish you are right, and hope our massive contribution to the carbon in the atmosphere/oceans is harmless.
How is it "alarming rate" ? Who told you it was an "alarming rate" and why? When the this and that melts what? Post some proof that they will melt? Please take a look at all the lies you have been fed by the media exposed in Mr.Mocktons 35min seminar. That will address your worries.This.
I have posted a link from cryospheretoday where sea ice levels have seen little to no change in the last 40 years. How alarming can it be, really? Especially with the world being becoming colder the last 10 years ??? ?
How is it "alarming rate" ? Who told you it was an "alarming rate" and why? When the this and that melts what? Post some proof that they will melt? Please take a look at all the lies you have been fed by the media exposed in Mr.Mocktons 35min seminar. That will address your worries.
I have posted a link from cryospheretoday where sea ice levels have seen little to no change in the last 40 years. How alarming can it be, really? Especially with the world being becoming colder the last 10 years ??? ?
you want me to watch a 30min video by someone who has no education, but you obviously havent even looked at the facts presented by teams of experts. the last decade was the hottest on record. 2007 was the 2nd hotttest year on record, 1998 the first.Xerxes has a point here.
so why have the polar icecaps been melting in an alarming rate?
when the ice cap in Greenland and the Arctic melt, it will dump a whole lot of fresh water into the northern Atlantic. This will disrupt the Gulf Current, warm water that travels from the Gulf of Mexico up the east coast of the US and then across to Europe and then back down the other side. Note that Europe is a lot further north than the US, yet has mild winters. That's because of the Gulf Current. Disrupt the Gulf Current and Europe goes into a deep freeze.
sure this has all happened many times naturally in the past. but its usually over thousands of years. This current change is happening very quickly. It's happened before, but in the past there weren't 6 billion people trying to live here. Climate change today will cause widespread famine, widespread migration.
Yes. Take a look at this one where he confronts them, and they are speechless and begin arguing by with irrelevant responses, they try to pull a "tbombz" with the latest century has been warmest ever yada yada, but he addresses that too.lol.'
(if you haven't seen the 1-4 videos I posted earlier I suggest you do, it is truly an eyeopener of how much we've been lied to, even if not now or today, take the time to see it)
lol.'
Dudes a badass.
And he has a point.
You can see these fuckers running around like little good sheep, invading shit and yelling at the top of there lungs, scaring people. Its sad, the state today, where shit like this happens. :-\
Very true, while the arctic cap has had slight decrease, Antarctica has actually grown bigger. Seems like Parkers polar bears will be just fine..the so called caps cover the inner earth openings ... antarctica is closed almost shut and north the opening is bigger
the so called caps cover the inner earth openings ... antarctica is closed almost shut and north the opening is biggerStop it, Antartica is a continent...it has it's own continental shelf, and at one time was very hot...Dinosaur and plant fossils hae been found there.
nobody ever gets close to that area despite the lies
Very true, while the arctic cap has had slight decrease, Antarctica has actually grown bigger. Seems like Parkers polar bears will be just fine..
Swedish Viking: By his calculations the human added co2 elevated levels could account for maybe 0,5-1 degrees celcius in the next 100 years, by that time fossil fuels will run out anyway. So I really believe this mass paranoia is bullshit. Watch the vids man they're very informative and interesting. God jul ;D.
When did the queers start calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming?"To cover it it gettting cold or warm...all extremes, so that "they" are not wrong...A umbrella term
To cover it it gettting cold or warm...all extremes, so that "they" are not wrong...A umbrella term
Thats kinda what I thought.....guess it being cold enough to freeze shit in a chicken in europe and about half the US in an ice-age kinda put a crimp in the "global warming" terminology.....idiots.. ...Well, there is the thoery that the earth is shifting poles...and there is evidence that Antantica used to be hot, even after the Mega-continent broke apart.
okay xerxez his first point is that carbon dioxide is only one of many greenhouse gases, and that we can only make a very small change to the composition of the atmosphere even after we burn all the fossil fuelson the planet. Wed only displace a thousandth of the atmosphere. And this is too tiny to cause any difference.
Thats kinda what I thought.....guess it being cold enough to freeze shit in a chicken in europe and about half the US in an ice-age kinda put a crimp in the "global warming" terminology.....idiots.. ...hey moron, the 50 billion tons of co2 we add to the atmosphere every year is causing our earth to absorb and retain more solar radiation than it should be, and this is causing our long term average temperature to rise. Aka global warming. The fact that there is extremely unusual weather, especially extremely unusually cold, indicates a disruption to our weather systems. If you knew anything about our planet, like how solar radiation effects global weather patterns, you would understand that the increase in carbon are responsible for the extreme colds, extreme droughts, extreme changes in ocean currents and acidity, etc etc etc. Warming is the long term global trend.
hey moron, the 50 billion tons of co2 we add to the atmosphere every year is causing our earth to absorb and retain more solar radiation than it should be, and this is causing our long term average temperature to rise. Aka global warming. The fact that there is extremely unusual weather, especially extremely unusually cold, indicates a disruption to our weather systems. If you knew anything about our planet, like how solar radiation effects global weather patterns, you would understand that the increase in carbon are responsible for the extreme colds, extreme droughts, extreme changes in ocean currents and acidity, etc etc etc. Warming is the long term global trend.
Good. Let me explain just a little bit more.. Nothing too technical, to give some more insight..
Fossil fuels are just that. Fossils. All life is based on carbon. The fossilized remains of hundreds of thousands, millions of years of life on earth, mostly vegetation, collects and compresses and forms into fossil fuel. Aka oil. These vast amounts of oil under the earths surface provide the planet with a carbon reserve tank. Basically, we only need so much carbon in the atmosphere at any time, but we have an abundance of carbon on the planet,so we have a carbon cycle where a large portion of the unnecessarycarbonis stored as fossil fuels aka oil. At no point in the natural earth process would those fossil fuels ever be released in large amounts into the planets atmosphere/ life cycle. We are, by harvesting and burning it off, releasing our vast excess, our reserves, of carbon into the atmosphere, clogging our life cycle with too much of a substance that plays a very integral and vital role in most of our weather systems.
As of right now the amount of carbon in our atmosphere is higher than it has ever been while life has existed.
::) carbon is the only factor to take into account. What he meant, I can only assume, is that WARMING is only one out of hundreds of effects that we should be concerned with.
As Emmortal said, fagg, that is only one factor out of HUNDREDS to take into account. I'm very proud that you retained something your profs propogated in Ecology 101..... but as usual, you are just blowing smoke about a topic and can only cut and paste to back up your stupidity.
::) carbon is the only factor to take into account. What he meant, I can only assume, is that WARMING is only one out of hundreds of effects that we should be concerned with.
Stupid southern rednecks, as always, don't know shit about shit
What's your gods role in all of this ???Read the post you quoted. The earth has more carbon than necessary, but has evolved to form a carbon cycle, with massive reserves of fossilized life compressed into liquid form where our excess carbon can remain. God is pretty amazing 8) you should check out the hydrologic cycle, and other cool weather stuff like the intertropical convergance zone and how it regulates all of the climates on the planet.
So you honestly think the ONLY factor involved in warming the planet is CO2? oh brother.....Searchingfor ghosts my dumb relative, never would I say that, in context to the issue of " global warming" aka the increase in atmospheric carbon, yes.. Carbon is the only factor to take into account. By definition. Retard. ;D
Read the post you quoted. The earth has more carbon than necessary, but has evolved to form a carbon cycle, with massive reserves of fossilized life compressed into liquid form where our excess carbon can remain. God is pretty amazing 8) you should check out the hydrologic cycle, and other cool weather stuff like the intertropical convergance zone and how it regulates all of the climates on the planet.
Searchingfor ghosts my dumb relative, never would I say that, in context to the issue of " global warming" aka the increase in atmospheric carbon, yes.. Carbon is the only factor to take into account. By definition. Retard. ;D
Searchingfor ghosts my dumb relative, never would I say that, in context to the issue of " global warming" aka the increase in atmospheric carbon, yes.. Carbon is the only factor to take into account. By definition. Retard. ;D
If you are a seeker of the truth, without an agenda (tbombz and others), please look at these videos and then come back to me and tell me if your opinion hasn't changed.
lol.'
Dudes a badass.
And he has a point.
You can see these fuckers running around like little good sheep, invading shit and yelling at the top of there lungs, scaring people. Its sad, the state today, where shit like this happens. :-\
In retrospect, Lord Monckton is a fucking douchebag, lieing prick had me fooled. I am off to study the matter more.my heart is but a flutter. :) Good man.
Why did you change your entire post after i quoted it, chubb-rock? And at least I'm smart enough not to have guys stick their schlong in my ass or mouth..... ;Dlmao!!! O the irony.. Reread the last few posts, you fucking owned yourself
Easy now, hahaha ;D ;Don a purely intellectual level ;D
three words: Medieval Climate Optimumyes water vapor is the most powerful of all the green house gases.at times Contributing as much as 70% of the total insulation provided by the atmosphere!
::)
And it's water vapor that is many more times important than CO2
::)
on a purely intellectual level ;D
Did you read up on peak vs abiotic oil theory?I don't see any relevance. ???
So you are just guessing? ??? It's not a yes or no 50/50 flip a coin type of deal.he doesn't see a reason why 50 billion tons of carbon release annually is to be of any concern.. :D
he doesn't see a reason why 50 billion tons of carbon release annually is to be of any concern.. :Dthe problem is for me is that we are basing all of this off of new technology...and the earth works in cycles....so how in the hell do we not know this is just another cycle?...there is no data worth a damn that can proove that this ISNT normal....
the problem is for me is that we are basing all of this off of new technology...and the earth works in cycles....so how in the hell do we not know this is just another cycle?...there is no data worth a damn that can proove that this ISNT normal....
we dont have records with vital info dating back to even record, and establish a base reading......like someone already said we had a ice age at one point....we got over that...i am sure we have had extreme warm points to..
bench
the problem is for me is that we are basing all of this off of new technology...and the earth works in cycles....so how in the hell do we not know this is just another cycle?...there is no data worth a damn that can proove that this ISNT normal....yes, the climate does go in cycles. And when the climate changes drastically, it usually kills off most all of the life on the planet. right now, the climate is changing, it's getting Warmer globally, and the consensus in the scientific community is that it's being caused by the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere. There is not just a correlation, but a descriptive explanation of cause and effect to go along with it, all based on verifiable facts.
we dont have records with vital info dating back to even record, and establish a base reading......like someone already said we had a ice age at one point....we got over that...i am sure we have had extreme warm points to..
bench
Humans account for 5% of the worlds co2, what are you suggesting specifically? Most of it is from fossile fuels which will run out in 50 years or so (except coal), by then we'll have figured out how to fix transport on the ground, sea and air without them and it will be a non issue. Not to mention it is actually getting colder.
If you are referring to the medieval warm period then no it was not much warmer, see my post where I qouted you.
No, it wasn't "much" warmer, but it was warmer. And who knows how warm it was before we started taking data on any of this, which hasn't been long enough to draw any conclusions.actually, with the right tracking technology, it would be possible for us to definitively say that we are causing it. however that kind of technology doesnt exist at the moment. not on the scale necessary.
I definitely agree that we should put much more effort into pollutions, not just C02, but just look at the islands of plastic floating out in our oceans. The problem I have is that while there is evidence of our contribution to C02, which is significant, we have no way to empirically say we are causing what's going on with the world.
To sum things up since getbig was down - buselmo works in oil and oil will be around for a lot longer than 50 years, easily 200 years.Who funds the people doing research that says Global Warming is bunk? What stake do they have in saying that it is? Are they in the energy (oil) sector or manufacturing (car) sector? Just like the proponents of Global Warming are from the environmental investment sector and the corporation sectors (a new green industry).
I watched 2 hour debate between professor Lindzen and another professer (Lindzen which Showstoppa found a qoute from) were he was pretty much owned.
In other news, global warming is real and highly likely to be man accelerated.
Who funds the people doing research that says Global Warming is bunk? What stake do they have in saying that it is? Are they in the energy (oil) sector or manufacturing (car) sector? Just like the proponents of Global Warming are from the environmental investment sector and the corporation sectors (a new green industry).
Check into who's funding the studies...who is lobbying for whose special interests...
who gives a shit if it's getting warmer ::)your children will give a shit when they are murdered by your solopsistic attitude.
there is NOTHING you can do about it
Yes there seems to be bias in both directions, still, now that I've seen arguments from both sides I'm more convinced than ever that the naysayers are full of shit.
the idea that the people urging political action on the issue of global warming are doing so because they are self interested is complete malarcky, and it would behoove yourself to stop with that non-sense. the % of supporters who are doing so out of self-interest is probably less than 1%. self interested people do not usually look to better the world in the process of becoming rich. the people advocating this issue are scientists and liberals who make their life purpose to make as much of a positive change in the world as they can. these conservative fucks are either misinformed or self interested, bottom line.Well, there is a lot of proof that Al Gore, the green movements biggest proponent, makes millions in investments in "green" corporations. That show Conspiracy Theory exposed a lot of it, and even Jesse Ventura, who knows Al Gore very well, had said he doesn't fault Al for trying to make a buck, it's just that "going green", if one cab make a ton of money on it, will attract those that will...and those that see that these new technologies are the future and oil based goods, and infrastructures are sooo last century...this is being shown in the carbon credits, the hybrid technologies, the fact that the Western world is making a push to get off of oil (foreign oil) and alternatives...same was the push in the early part of the 20th century to change from steam to oil based fuel.
I disagree with the bold part.
Check this out:Now, you are seeing why I was arguing and saying what I said...because I was once someone who used to argue so fiercely for global warming, until I understood what Kiwiol brought up...this was yrs ago...and then when I saw the $$$ angle as well---for both sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)
Anyway after reading about this stuff for the last few days, going from one side to the other, seeing almost all deniers arguments demolished etc and seeing how they try to fool people and even seeing the skeptic scientists getting owned in debate - well.. I don't have anything more to add, and frankly I am getting tired of reading about this shit.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)
Anyway after reading about this stuff for the last few days, going from one side to the other, seeing almost all deniers arguments demolished etc and seeing how they try to fool people and even seeing the skeptic scientists getting owned in debate - well.. I don't have anything more to add, and frankly I am getting tired of reading about this shit.
Up until what point though? You've mentioned this twice but haven't put it in context. Temperature increasing up until it starts to decrease, yes but when that happens might be 1000 years from now? Do you have a source on how much it will increase before it will start going down again?
Maybe not literally, but bear in mind that there is a lot of literature in textbooks and journals that aren't available online, at least for free. There could be more people supporting one side of the issue (whether global warming is real or not), but "the number of adherents is not proof of an idea's merit".yes and anyone going to a decent university has access to all of those journals and databases. Guess what? They all support the position that human activities, and the resulting increases in greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are causing a temperature increase and many other environmental disataers than can potentially, and likely will, have very adverse effects on the inhabitants of earth. One of them being death.
My point is that we can make all the extrapolations and predictions we want, but long term weather changes and shifts aren't accurately predictable with the level of understanding and science we have today.
That's what I'm trying to say - that no one knows when it will happen or how much the temperature will need to go up before the cooling occurs or how much cooling will occur or what will happen in 1000 years and so on.we don't know for sure what's going to happen so we might as well do nothing.
As for sources, it's mostly textbooks and journals that I used to read back when I was university. If you search in scientific databases that you find in university libraries (you can find some of them online), you'll find all the stuff I've mentioned, although again, you'll find opposing schools of thought in other articles and publications.
No one has the definitive answer or exact figures with respect to things like time or temperature, is what I'm driving at.
yes and anyone going to a decent university has access to all of those journals and databases. Guess what? They all support the position that human activities, and the resulting increases in greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are causing a temperature increase and many other environmental disataers than can potentially, and likely will, have very adverse effects on the inhabitants of earth. One of them being death.
Again, there is a scientific consensus on this issue. That establishes a status quo for the educated opinion. And if you want to change that you need to provide some proof otherwise, or else you have no grounds for objection.
we don't know for sure what's going to happen so we might as well do nothing.
Great attitude, dipshit.
Firstly, they don't ALL support the position you've taken and secondly, even though the temperature is rising from CO2 emission, it doesn't mean that it will keep increasing without a ceiling. Could there be flooding of coastal areas from sea water levels rising? Yes. But will it change to a point where it will wipe out all life on Earth? No one knows and most likely not.
And again, I could Google and post studies and all that, but you or someone can find opposing studies just as easily. It will only prolong the debate, even though neither of us has the answer as to what is going to happen.
I said I didn't see the point in discussing it further, not to stop the thread or for people to stop their studies, you moron. As usual, you read up on a few sites and now think you're an expert who knows it all, which is why I never waste time arguing with you.I'll have an associates in geography in may. Climate/earth weather systems is the main focus of physical geography.
Believe whatever you want to believe and post all the studies you want. I'm just not interested in discussing this endlessly, that's all.
Yes, they ALL agree. Read
Science 3 December 2004:
That is from 2004 and if you look at Xerxes' post at the top of this page, it shows you a list of scientists who aren't endorsing the global warming scenario. It's not just that - just Google for scientists that refute or take a stand against the global warming consensus and you'll see tons of stuff like this one here
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
It's nothing new. Just about every school of thought in science has lots of opposing points of views and arguments. My point is that human impact on climate is not really well understood, at least to a point where you can turn it into a doomsday scenario.
no, there is no back and forth on this issue in the scientific community. 30,000 scientists saying they dont agree doesnt mean shit when 98% of all the scientists who focus on climate are in agreement.
So you speak for the whole scientific community now, lol? Your second statement contradicts your first and the issue is still under debate, whether you like it or not. Bolding text doesn't make it any truer, sorry ;Dwho is engaging in debate? not climate scientists, they are all in agreement. :)
So you speak for the whole scientific community now, lol? Your second statement contradicts your first and the issue is still under debate, whether you like it or not. Bolding text doesn't make it any truer, sorry ;D
Maybe putting it in a large red font would help?hi gaydonis
who is engaging in debate? not climate scientists, they are all in agreement. :)
Yes, they ALL agree. Read
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (.
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1.↵ A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times A1 (19 June 2003).
2.↵ S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2(1), 3 (2003).
3.↵ See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.↵ J. J. McCarthy, Ed. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.↵ National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.↵ American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7.↵ American Geophysical Union, Eos 84(51), 574 (2003).
8.↵ See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.↵ The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
Yes, they ALL agree. Read
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (.
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1.↵ A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times A1 (19 June 2003).
2.↵ S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2(1), 3 (2003).
3.↵ See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.↵ J. J. McCarthy, Ed. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.↵ National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.↵ American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7.↵ American Geophysical Union, Eos 84(51), 574 (2003).
8.↵ See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.↵ The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
gotta bump this thread because of dumbass coach and his new "damn that global warming" thread
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
MELTDOWN !
I shoveled about 21 inchs of global warming yesterday.
My sis in Syracuse has record global warming and got 4 feet last week.
Thank god we have tbombz to tell us the "truth". :D
Hey, he ALMOST has an ASSOCIATES degree in geography......so....... ..
Oh a little snow!! Lets call the whole thing off then! ::) You guys are geniuses!! What about actually trying to learn about this shit instead of filling the thread with your mindless drivel? ::)
Oh a little snow!! Lets call the whole thing off then! ::) You guys are geniuses!! What about actually trying to learn about this shit instead of filling the thread with your mindless drivel? ::)
Oh a little snow!! Lets call the whole thing off then! ::) You guys are geniuses!! What about actually trying to learn about this shit instead of filling the thread with your mindless drivel? ::)
According to tbombz, climatology is a serious science. :-\
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'
By Our Foreign Staff 11:14AM GMT 09 Nov 2007
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM," John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
The maverick weather forecaster is known for his regular critique of widely accepted global warming theories. The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day.
His views challenge the consensus of the international science community that it is at least 90 per cent certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8ºC 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.
A recent joint statement by the scientific academies of 17 countries, including the UK's Royal Society, endorsed the theory of climate change and dismissed doubts raised over the need for action to mitigate possible damage caused by climate change.
"We do not consider such doubts justified," the group said in a joint statement, urging prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
"Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.
"Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment."
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3313785/Weather-Channel-boss-calls-global-warming-the-greatest-scam-in-history.html
Thank god we have tbombz to tell us the "truth". :D
When are YOU going to learn something? ???
3333 Get the fuck back to politics
3333 Get the fuck back to politics
I have learned a lot actually since I started this thread. Are you another global warming denier/skeptic? If yes, tell me why..I am interested.
I've read NASAs views, IPCC views, I've seen 2 hour long debates between professors, read countless arguments on both sides, yeah ok I've learned nothing ::). Fucking write in a polite manner if you want a serious debate with me.
sure this has all happened many times naturally in the past. but its usually over thousands of years. This current change is happening very quickly. It's happened before, but in the past there weren't 6 billion people trying to live here. Climate change today will cause widespread famine, widespread migration.
HEY STUPID #### STOP COPY AND PASTING IRRELEVANT SHIT, I'VE ALREADY POSTED ABOUT MILANKOVITCH CYCLES AND HOW CO2 PLAYS A PART IN THAT, IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN READING AND LEARNING INSTEAD OF POSTING IRRELEVANT SHIT FOR YOUR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA THEN GET THE FUCK OUT.
Please do share.
You are the fucking fool, you didn't read shit or see any video posted in this thread, you only saw the subject title and went ahead to copy paste some articles you found to promote your own political agenda. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Hey you ignorant motherf uc kers, this is not a fucking copy and paste competition, and if it was I would win it.
Blah blah - you are a immature little bitch. Grow up already.
"Global Warming" now referred to as "climate change" has been proven a complete lie and bogus theory and ou true believers cant accept the fact that you bought into a false religion.
I guess its like children finding out at 5 y/o that Santa Claus is fake.
NO, ONCE! Why are you lying to prove a point? I realized I was wrong after extensive study, you however choose to believe a conspiracy theory on youtube. :-\ :-\ :-\
Since you actually took the time to go through those long ass videos 1-7, I am sure you'd be open to seeing some other stuff too. I will post some stuff just for you after new years (off to party soon).
How much c02 did the volcano in Iceland produce last year?
You don't want to know the truth you just want your political party to be "right". Until you come to the discussion with an open mind and be objective I am ignoring you.
In the meantime, I hope you can take a look at what NASA says to educate yourself a little.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/)
You don't want to know the truth you just want your political party to be "right". Until you come to the discussion with an open mind and be objective I am ignoring you.
In the meantime, I hope you can take a look at what NASA says to educate yourself a little.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/)
You don't want to know the truth you just want your political party to be "right". Until you come to the discussion with an open mind and be objective I am ignoring you.
In the meantime, I hope you can take a look at what NASA says to educate yourself a little.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/)
::) ::)
Whatever. Again - an average volcano eruption spews more stuff into the air than all of us combined x 1000's.
Should be ban volcanoes?
What happened 3333, you ran away, your volcano argument didn't work out well or what? ::)
I choose to believe legitimate sources like universities, scientific institutions, majority of scientists educated in the field. Don't know what the fuck you are going by.
Totally irrelevant, I shatter his volcano argument, and you turn to "baby" rubbish, wtf man?
It's about level of greenhouse gases from oil, gas and coal.
First of all, I am not a child @ 21 years old.
I wasn't "influenced" by tbombz, I just realised I was wrong.
Lastly I only changed my mind ONCE.
Enjoy whatever the fuck you are gonna eat and drink.
Yes you are a child at 21 y/o. until you get a real job and actually work for a few years, you are still green, no pun intended. You will quickly leanr than greater than 50% of the pap they "teach" you in college in utter horseshit.
All this discussion about me and my age is totally irrelevant, present your arguments to why you think global warming is fake and then I will address them. I'm tired of this childish insult hurling.
people care about what they have no control over cause they have nothing better to do in life.This.
I am off to a new years dinner party now, I'll respond later. Happy new year!!
Thank you for this information but it is totally irrelevant to the debate, dr phil ::).What I was going with, is that 225 said he wrote his grad paper on this subject, which means he did all of the research that you have been doing x 1000 and HE came to the conclusion that its a bunch of propoganda BS. My opinion is, after reading everything ive read, and heard from non-biased 3rd parties (such as 225), my opinion is that its horseshit. The earth has been doing this for centuries, and it will continue to do it long after were gone. You have to realize how much money for how many people (yes including scientists) is at stake here, not to mention how many scientists are being bullied for not going along with it.
What grad paper is that? Possible to read somewhere? I can't really understand why or how your one friends GRAD PAPER will inform me better than the majority of scientists (no offence but come on, it's a grad paper not a magic bullet).
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009).
More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes.
However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science.
Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
Are you posting about "climategate" now? !, it is not relevant to the discussion.::)
We are getting another 12" of global warming in NYC tommorow.
where are we going to put all that snow?
I guess Xerxes is boycotting the subject cause he finally came to the conclusion that he is wrong.
Thank you for this information but it is totally irrelevant to the debate, dr phil ::).
What grad paper is that? Possible to read somewhere? I can't really understand why or how your one friends GRAD PAPER will inform me better than the majority of scientists (no offence but come on, it's a grad paper not a magic bullet).
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009).
More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes.
However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science.
Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
Parts of CT got 28 inches of Global Warming today.
Parts of CT got 28 inches of Global Warming today.
Basically, climate change is rubbish.
Edit: Human acceleration of climate change is rubbish.
WHY DO YOU MAKE ME POST HERE AGAIN?! LET THIS THREAD DIE PLEASE!!!!
While you guys are bitching and moaning about a little snow (booo hooo, get over it fucking crybabies) this is the situation in Australia
Seriously 3333333333 you fucking propaganda machine IDIOT, if you are gonna bump this thread again with stupid shit like this, I WILL EMBARRASS YOU AGAIN
EDIT:
I DELETED THE ORIGINAL VIDEO BECAUSE IT WAS A PACK OF LIES.
This is when 333386 goes from being obsessive to a fucking idiot. I love to argue but even I will admit when my side of the arguement got some serious flaws. Obviously we're unclear of how exactly climate change will play out, but you gotta be a fucking idiot to not think it's real.
This is when 333386 goes from being obsessive to a fucking idiot. I love to argue but even I will admit when my side of the arguement got some serious flaws. Obviously we're unclear of how exactly climate change will play out, but you gotta be a fucking idiot to not think it's real.
Climate change study had 'significant error': experts
AFP/File – A farmer works a wheat field. A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in … .by Kerry Sheridan Kerry Sheridan – Wed Jan 19, 11:33 am ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.
The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.
But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.
"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.
"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization."
Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.
The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.
Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.
The study cited the UN group's figures for its projections, combined with "the business-as-usual path the world is currently following," said lead author Liliana Hisas of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF), a non-profit group headquartered in Argentina.
But climate scientist Rey Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"
He also noted that study author Hisas was told of the problems in advance of the report's release.
"The author of the study was told by several of us about this error but she said it was too late to change it," said Weymann.
Scientist Scott Mandia forwarded to AFP an email he said he sent to Hisas ahead of publication explaining why her figures did not add up, and noting that it would take "quite a few decades" to reach a warming level of 2.4 degrees Celsius.
"Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today," Mandia wrote.
"To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold."
Mandia described the mishap as an "honest and common mistake," but said the matter would certainly give fuel to skeptics of humans' role in climate change.
"More alarmism," said Mandia. "Don't get me wrong. We are headed to 2.4, it is just not going to happen in 2020."
Many people do not understand the cumulative effect of carbon emissions and how they impact climate change, Mandia said.
"This is something that people don't appreciate. We tied a record in 2010 (for temperature records) globally. That is primarily from the C02 we put in the atmosphere in the 70s and early 80s, and we have been ramping up since then," he said.
"So it is not good. We are seeing the response from a mistake we were making 20 years ago, and we are making bigger mistakes today."
The public relations firm that issued the report on the UEF's behalf said the group stands by the study and would issue a statement to that effect.
Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_20110119163335
Shoveled 16" of global warming in NYC today.
Brrrrr.... fuck it. First thing tomorrow I'm going out to the garden to burn a load of old tyres and aerosol cans, and see if I can get global warming kickstarted again.
It's "you're", fucking untermensch. :)or: yer an idiot..
or: yer an idiot..