Chart 1. CO2 matches but lags change in ocean temp by one year. 2. Shows that man made co2 is steady and does not match up with overall co2 levels 3. Shows the annual Carbon change does match up with change in ocean temps. reasonable hypothesis... man made co2 has little to no impact on temperature because there is no science showing it impacts temps. Its change in ocean temps which impact co2.
‘Oregon Comes Closer to Recognizing Animal Personhood’ and Oregonians are global warming true believers, too. What a coincidence.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6] Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperateand polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7] The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8] The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought,wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is "extremely likely" that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[4] The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.[5] Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:[6] A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[6] Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[6] Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[6] Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[6] The IPCC's attribution of recent global warming to human activities is a view shared by most scientists,[7][8]:2[9] and is also supported by 196 other scientific organizations worldwide[10] (see also: scientific opinion on climate change).
Is the polar bear a political weapon? Arctic creatures are NOT threatened by climate change, says scientist Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...mate-change-says-scientist.html#ixzz3CyeGCVmp Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
No, why would animals that are dependent on ice have any troubles with global warming? It makes no sense. Ha ha, Daily Mail. One step up from a comic book.