Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with warming. On the high end of the estimates, there is a projection of 3mm rise per year. It's not like one day everyone wakes up and there is a 10ft rise. I hear people talking about a 200' rise in sea level, but those are completely ignorant statements. That would require all global ice to melt. Specifically, most of Antarctica is over 7,000ft which means even with a catastrophic 10F jump in temperature, it will still be below freezing temperatures. Aggressive projections suggest a max of 20ft sea level rise over the next 300-1,000 years. That includes positive feedback loops that are pretty suspect IMO. So in terms of coastal cities, they will have plenty of time to adapt. Most buildings constructed these days have less than 100 year life span anyway. Effected areas would easily be able to shift with a sea level that rises only 3mm per year. We are constantly tearing down and re-building our cities anyway. Almost all projections suggest that the amount of arable land will increase dramatically as the northern tundra melts. So really, what is all the fuss about?
Not really. ..grasping at straws........ from the article..... "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].) Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Consensus = grant-seeking academic research to get more grants to do more grant-seeking research. Old paradigms die hard when so much money & politics are involved. See ClimateGates 1 and 2 if you believe these are a bunch of pure, agenda-less sciencebots "reaching consensus."
Actually the instrumental period is more like 160 years, and before that reasonable estimates are made with ice cores, treerings etc. The hockey stick graph has been proven to be correct. And no we won't stop with the global warming science because it is true and is one the most serious threats that mankind faces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Except that almost all other climatologists think he's wrong. His 1% opinion gets 100% of the denier attention.
Spencer is another hack with a 1% opinion that gets 100% of the attention from the right wing ideologue deniers. He believes in intelligent design. He is a board member of the Marshall group.... The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.[1] Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The George C. Marshall Institute has been described by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine."[2] The institute is named after the World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall. Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[3]
The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming So the question before us on this panel is, "Will the Planet Survive the Age of Humans?" And I want to focus on one particular aspect of humans that makes them very problematic in a planetary sense -- namely, their brains. What I've spent the last year or more trying to understand is what it is about our brains that makes facts such odd and threatening things; why we sometimes double down on false beliefs when they're refuted; and maybe, even, why some of us do it more than others. And of course, the new book homes in on the brains -- really, the psychologies -- of politically conservative homo sapiens in particular. You know, Stephen Colbert once said that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." And essentially what I'm arguing is that, not only is that a funny statement, it's factually true, and perhaps even part of the nature of things. Colbert also talked about the phenomenon of "truthiness," and as it turns out, we can actually give a scientific explanation of truthiness -- which is what I'm going to sketch in the next ten minutes, with respect to global warming in particular. I almost called the book The Science of Truthiness -- but The Republican Brain turns out to be a better title. 3. Fox News is the Key "Feedback Mechanism" -- whereby people who want to believe false things get all the license they need. So clearly, there are some deeply rooted attributes that predispose conservatives towards the denial of global warming. But there are also "environmental" factors -- things that have come to exist in our world that did not exist before, that interact with these things about conservatives, and make all this much worse. And here, Fox News is undeniably at the top of the list. There are now a host of studies (video here) showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about various aspects of reality, including two such studies about global warming. So if you've got Fox News, you've got a place to go to reaffirm your beliefs. And that serves this psychological need for certainty and security. So conservatives opt in, they get the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/the-science-of-truthiness_b_1379472.html
Gotta love the cherry-picked data. Anyone with a functioning brain can see the motive$ behind this and how it can be used to centralize power...as well as they myriad problems. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian http://www.omsj.org/corruption/mich...n-suffers-three-legal-blows-in-court-escapade http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797...er-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
Those articles are misleading, bullshit and pathetic. For instance, saying no warming for five years, cherry picking points on the jagged uptrend chart. Junk pop science fodder for the deniers. Fleas on the back of the huge body of knowledge and evidence. This idea that the science of AGW is all a grand conspiracy by all the world's scientists to basically lie so that power can be centralized?, has to be one of the most bat-shit crazy things the deniers say. Remember, it's mostly the scientists that are talking about this, the politicians and everyone else just wishes it would go away. When was the last time AGW was even mentioned on TV news shows? Why is that?