It's an unfortunate catalyst, but acceptable in the greater scheme of things, that China's air pollution from coal burning and vehicle emissions will lead to even more green energy development

Putting words in my mouth champ. Notorganic would be proud.

Actually, to clarify, the figure represents the percentage of ALL peer reviewed scientific papers since circa 1990 that support anthropogenic global warming. IIRC the amount of papers is in the thousands (possibly tens of thousands)

At the end of day, labeling anthropogenic global warming as fiction is just that you are poorly educated when it comes to science, particularly what the scientific method is and what peer review is.

Educated opinion isn't so much as to whether anthropogenic global warming exists as it is to the significance of its contribution to the fluctuation in the climate.

Peer reviewed climate science answers the question as to how much anthropogenic CO2 contributes to climate change, as opposed to natural variability.
Blogs (eg: What's Up With That, Joanne Nova, Andrew Bolt, etc) do not answer this question.

Using a moron like Andrew Bolt as the poster boy of the naysayers isn't really the way to go :lol:

My problem with 'scientific' opinion on the matter is that in science, you start with a theory and then try and observe and replicate the result. Global Warming "scientists" have the result and try and shoe-horn the theory to fit.

There isn't enough detail or data to make concrete assertions as to the extent of anthropogenic global warming. Especially when we know for a fact that the earth's climate naturally heats and cools. We also know that there was a significant increase in global temperatures following the Industrial Revolution, but we don't know the extent thereof nor the subsequent impacts - ie. was there a return to previous temperatures, or how far off previous temperatures was it and over what duration?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any action because of this. I mean, the pollution coming out of China is TEN TIMES that of 'safe' levels (which is still disturbingly high). Something obviously needs to be done about that. But using something as intangible and mercurial as "Global Warming" to spark action from countries who are too busy trying to steal from and kill each other than work together on a pan-global scale, rather than the basic humanitarian appeal that you're literally suffocating your own people in the name of "progress" doesn't work for me.

Tell people that you're causing global warming and the right-wing douchebags go "prove it, natural climate fluctuation, etc." Tell them that they're suffocating their own people in the name of 'progress', that's a little bit harder to just brush off.

Just saw on youtube Rita Panahi on Sunrise expressing her views on climate change.
It goes to show how fucking dumb people are. "...where are the women on the climate commission..." :oops: :oops: :oops:
This is the woman who trolled football fans over the seats getting ripped up at the Melb derby.

When it comes to anthropogenic global warming it reminds of this psychological bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

if anyone is interested in a good read on the whole nature,earth,food,pollution thingy.....Prince charles "harmony" is a good read........

[youtube]hC3VTgIPoGU[/youtube]

Climate change 'will make hundreds of millions homeless'

Carbon dioxide levels indicate rise in temperatures that could lead agriculture to fail on entire continents

Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 12 May 2013

It is increasingly likely that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands in the near future as a result of global warming. That is the stark warning of economist and climate change expert Lord Stern following the news last week that concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had reached a level of 400 parts per million (ppm).

Massive movements of people are likely to occur over the rest of the century because global temperatures are likely to rise to by up to 5C because carbon dioxide levels have risen unabated for 50 years, said Stern, who is head of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.

"When temperatures rise to that level, we will have disrupted weather patterns and spreading deserts," he said. "Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, however. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth."

The news that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have reached 400ppm has been seized on by experts because that level brings the world close to the point where it becomes inevitable that it will experience a catastrophic rise in temperatures. Scientists have warned for decades of the danger of allowing industrial outputs of carbon dioxide to rise unchecked.

Instead, these outputs have accelerated. In the 1960s, carbon dioxide levels rose at a rate of 0.7ppm a year. Today, they rise at 2.1ppm, as more nations become industrialised and increase outputs from their factories and power plants. The last time the Earth's atmosphere had 400ppm carbon dioxide, the Arctic was ice-free and sea levels were 40 metres higher.

The prospect of Earth returning to these climatic conditions is causing major alarm. As temperatures rise, deserts will spread and life-sustaining weather patterns such as the North Indian monsoon could be disrupted. Agriculture could fail on a continent-wide basis and hundreds of millions of people would be rendered homeless, triggering widespread conflict.

There are likely to be severe physical consequences for the planet. Rising temperatures will shrink polar ice caps – the Arctic's is now at its lowest since records began – and so reduce the amount of solar heat they reflect back into space. Similarly, thawing of the permafrost lands of Alaska, Canada and Russia could release even more greenhouse gases, including methane, and further intensify global warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/12/climate-change-expert-stern-displacement?

Not for the scientifically illiterate

Not looking forward to the distant future (I'd hate to be my kids or grand kids).

Well if it is real, surely we're fucked by now so let's just burn the rest of it and enjoy ourselves. Get it over and done with.

I don't think it's going to be as distant as you think.

Fantastic channel for anyone who's interested

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

If more people (mainly hot chicks) wear less clothes because the world is getting warmer, im all for that!

Not much climate change doubt, science says

May 15, 2013

Having doubts over climate change and the role of humans? You're unlikely to find many scientists who share your uncertainty.

That is the finding of a University of Queensland-led study that surveyed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific papers from 1991-2011 and claims to be the largest peer-reviewed study of its kind.

Of those who a stated a position on the evidence for global warming, 97.1 per cent endorsed the view that humans are to blame. Just 1.9 per cent rejected the view.

The report's lead author, John Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute and founder of the website skepticalscience.com, said the scientific consensus was overwhelming, growing and had been around since the early 1990s.

He said that while the number of papers rejecting the consensus was "vanishingly small", his research suggested the public was under the impression the debate was split 50-50.

"When people think scientists agree, they are more likely to support a carbon tax or general climate action," he said.

"But if they think scientists are still arguing about it, they don't want to do anything about it." Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are about 400 parts per million and rising – the highest in more than 3 million years.

The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is due to update its findings on research into global warming and the potential impact on societies and the environment from this September.

Mr Cook said scientists now found less need to state their position on climate change in abstracts summarising their papers, "just as geographers find no reason to remind readers that the earth is round".

The survey is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. It is based on the work of 24 scientists and others recruited through skepticalscience.com. Ratings were cross-checked and authors were contacted to rate their own papers.

Mr Cook said the level of endorsement – 97.2 per cent of the one-fifth who replied – was in line with the overall findings.

The strength of the scientific consensus could be likened to the theory of plate tectonics, or continental drift, that took 50 years to gain acceptance. In that case, he said the media found little reason to stoke controversy because there was "no political or ideological issue with plate tectonics", he said.

Broad study

"If people disagree with what we've found we want to know," said Mark Richardson of the University of Reading in England, one of the authors of the study that looked at English-language studies by authors in more than 90 nations.

Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said he was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus "at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews".

Opinion polls in some countries show widespread belief that scientists disagree about whether climate change is caused by human activities or is part of natural swings such as in the sun's output.

A survey by the US Pew Research Center published in October last year found 45 per cent of Americans said "Yes" when asked: "Do scientists agree Earth is getting warmer because of human activity?" About 43 per cent said "No".

Governments have agreed to work out, by the end of 2015, a deal to slow climate change that a UN panel of experts says will cause more floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

With Reuters

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html#ixzz2TSACVIms

It's a reflection on the poor teaching of what science is in secondary school.

That is a very poor question to ask people. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they have the data, experience or are even properly qualified to give an opinion in the "expert" manner that they are suggesting.
The correct answer should be "No", those 1.9% of papers in the UOQ study prove that. Scientists don't totally agree.

A better question would be:
Is the general consensus in the scientific community that Earth is getting warmer because of human activity?

DOOM, DOOM, I tells ya!!!!

Stereotypical mindset of a right wing voter. Simplistic. Hence why they are branded 'conservative'

I'm agreeing with you. It's all doom.

World suffered unprecedented climate extremes in past decade-WMO

Source: Reuters - Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:25 AM
Author: Reuters



* Every year of decade except 2008 was among 10 warmest on record

* Extremes worsening, greenhouse gas emissions rising - WMO

By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

July 3 (Reuters) - The world suffered unprecedented climate extremes in the decade to 2010, from heatwaves in Europe and droughts in Australia to floods in Pakistan, against a backdrop of global warming, a United Nations report said on Wednesday.

Every year of the decade except 2008 was among the 10 warmest since records began in the 1850s, with 2010 the hottest, according to the study by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The number of daily heat records far outstripped lows.

It said many extremes could be explained by natural variations - freak storms and droughts have happened throughout history - but that rising emissions of man-made greenhouse gases also played a role.

"Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far-reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement.

The study said damaging extremes included Hurricane Katrina in the United States in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, floods in Pakistan in 2010, droughts in the Amazon basin, Australia and East Africa and a retreat of Arctic sea ice.

Deaths from extreme events totalled 370,000 people, up 20 percent from the 1990s, the Geneva-based WMO said, though the world population also rose sharply over the period, from 5.3 billion in 1990 to 6.9 billion in 2010.

The jump in the death toll was caused mainly by a heatwave in Europe in 2003 which killed 66,000 and a heatwave in Russia in 2010 in which 55,000 people died.

However, casualties from storms and droughts fell, partly because of better preparedness for disasters.

The study said that 44 percent of nations recorded the highest daily maximum temperature of the past half-century in the decade 2001-10 but only 11 percent reported a new low.

It also said that the decade "continued an extended period of accelerating global warming" with average decadal temperatures 0.21 degree Celsius (0.4 F) warmer than 1991-2000, which was in turn 0.14 C warmer than 1981-1990.

SLOWING RATE OF INCREASE?

Other reports have found that the rate of temperature rises has slowed this century.

"Global mean surface temperatures have not increased strongly since 1998" despite rising greenhouse gas emissions, according to a draft report by the U.N.'s panel of climate scientists due for release in September.

Some experts say the apparent rise from the 1990s is magnified because a volcanic eruption in the Philippines in 1991 dimmed sunlight and cut temperatures.

The WMO also said it was hard to link any individual extreme events to climate change rather than to natural variability.

However, warmer air can hold more moisture, raising risks of downpours - the study said that 2010 was the wettest year since records began. And sea levels have risen about 20 centimetres in the past century, increasing risks of storm surges.

One 2004 study, for instance, said that climate change had at least doubled the risks of the European heatwave in 2003.

Peter Stott of the UK Met Office who led that study said scientists were now trying to see if there was a human fingerprint behind other extremes in 2012, such as Superstorm Sandy or drought in Australia.

"You can't just take a record-breaking event and say 'that's climate change'," he said. (Editing by Gareth Jones)

http://www.trust.org/item/20130703112539-htj28/?source=search

This is serious. Let's raise more taxes.

When medical scientists say there's an aids problem in Africa, no one says "bullshit".
When astronomers discover a new planet, no one says "bullshit".
When biologists discover a new animal species, no one says "bullshit".
When physicists find out more information about atoms, no one says "bullshit".
When doctors diagnose someone with cancer, no one says "bullshit".

But when climate scientists say we've got a pollution problem, people seem to think they can call it bullshit despite having 0 qualifications in that area of science.

I'm sure you're right. But can we move this into the "Fads" thread?

Climate change denial? I guess so.

Denial is a river....

And the people near there are revolting.