A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...global-warming-alarmists-one-helluva-beating/
Note sure why it is that you think this is a convincing argument. Yes, CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. Yes, of course raising CO2 causes warming. Wrong. The number that is under debate is "how much warming". If the increase in CO2 causes a very small amount of warming there is no problem. In fact, the scientific consensus is that a small increase in temperature from the present makes the world a better place for humans. This was published in the latest IPCC.
Of course! What's your point for bringing this up? Of course science agrees that temperatures have been rising. Sure you can find "researchers" who disagree but that's not mainstream science. Apparently you didn't read the transcript to the APS workshop I provided. The other day I found two of the physics professors here wondering about how we should change our classes to account for the fact that students don't read as much as they used to. Sure it's tough but reading fairly long stuff is what you need to do, if you want to familiarize yourself with the science. I'll repeat the short version: (1) We agree that CO2 causes warming. (2) We agree that there has recently been some temperature rise due to CO2. The disagreement is over exactly how much warming is due to CO2 and how much will occur in the future.
Apparently the anti-AGW argument boils down to - scientific papers are wrong, so here's a scientific paper to say scientific papers are wrong. Anti-AGW papers are not considered capable of being faulty, whilst all AGW science is. That's just the lack of positive skeptisim known as denial.
Predicted and confirmed scientifically. Check. Predicted and confirmed scientifically. Check ...and if it doesn't? It is predicted scientifically there would be serious problems. Under debate surely is why would anyone even think of taking such a ridiculous gamble just because the final half of a scientific duck is not yet entirely in the row.
Very good, you understand at least half the argument! At the extreme, there are two alternatives, both of which can be described as "ridiculous gambles": (1) Allow the burning of fossil fuels to continue thereby increasing CO2 to even higher values. (2) Ban fossil fuel usage even though the world's economy is entirely dependent on them. The problem for the proponents of the 2nd ridiculous gamble is that the "settled science" predictions of 1990 failed miserably in their attempt at predicting global average temperatures of the decades since then. They've demonstrated that they can't predict the climate 25 years in the future; some of them even made bets with skeptics and lost money to them. Only a complete fool would think that they can predict temperatures another 75 years further on. -------------------------------------------------------- Back around 1990 when global warming was not a big deal, most scientists accepted the idea. They only bothered to look at it carefully when it became a big deal with the threat to future generations and all that. Then Climategate exposed the science as corrupt. Here's a clue: the APS chose Koonin to investigate Climate Science for a reason. He recognized cold fusion as bad science and wasn't shy about announcing it publicly. You don't hear these things about climate science because you're getting your news from people who are hiding the truth from you. There is no longer any scientific consensus on the question of which of the above two "ridiculous gambles" is better. This is slowly propagating into the statements of the scientific bodies you guys are so proud of. Another example: In 2009 the Geological Society of Australia adopted a statement on climate change as follows: ... GSA therefore recommends: 1. That strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO 2 ... https://scentofpine.files.wordpress...as-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf Their membership revolted and 5 years later they retracted it. They deleted it from their website. Their present policy acknowledges that the science is not settled: Geological Society of Australia March 2014 After an extensive and extended consultation with Society members, the GSA Executive Committee has decided not to proceed with a Climate Change Position Statement. As evidenced by recent Letters to the Editor of TAG, Society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held. The Executive Committee has therefore concluded that a Climate Change Position Statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the Society as a whole. http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/publications/TAG's/TAG 170 WEB.pdf
Anyone genuinely interested in the debate understands that is a false dichotomy which won't alter the facts and the science which does predict problems.
Wrong.... CO2 is an extremely minor greenhouse gas that still only represents only 4/100 of 1% of the atmosphere. It never has in the past. So says Chicken Little!!
It's THE most important greenhouse gas. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/ It ALWAYS has in the past. When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. TheCO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm The debate of among the experts is over. Done. History. AGW is real. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ It's time for the deniers to get their heads out of their asses and stop believing right propaganda over science.