It's much worse than we thought. It's much worse than our predictive climate models predicted. It's the warmest century than any century in the past 100 years since records began in the 20th century. The climate models have been programmed to predict something worse than you could ever imagine.
I'll set aside your amazing condescending tone for a moment, but really you don't need to be so juvenile. I have a friend from grade school who is by any counts a genius. Although he stayed in high school through graduation for social reasons, he had completed a masters program in math and stats by the time we graduated high school. He currently works as a PhD statistician for a biochemical company. His opinions on economics and most topics are decisively libertarian/conservative and any conversation leaves you with the impression that he is a republican with a libertarian streak. As it turns out he claims and votes Democrat. Turns out that his company receives almost all funding from federal grants. Democrats consistently increase their funding while Repubs do the opposite. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair Few people get paid to present others' research and say, this is correct. I'm very much an anti-conspiracy theorist, and I will laugh at anyone claiming this is a big g-ment conspiracy. It isn't, but there is a huge problem in this arena in the fact that 99% of all climate researchers live off g-ment funding that is mainly provided by the MGW party. This is the very definition of conflict of interests. Imagine if you were a climatologist trying to determine the cause of warming. The bulk of all historic evidence suggests that there is nothing man can do to change the situation, but certain info absolutely provides a chance that man is affecting things. You know that if you claim nothing can be done that your company will lose all funding. Which theory do you present?
Heh, listen to the tone you set in both your posts. Anyway, this motives business... I've said it before: everyone has them. The current beneficiaries of profits are just as interested in maintaining the flow of profits to themselves, probably more so, than these merely-self-interested scientists you imagine, but unlike those scientists they have the power to do something effective about it. Like create a "skeptical" movement, and get air time in the interest of "fairness". I suppose they learned that strategy from the creationists. Thanks for the anecdotes, by the way.
LOL. I was senior spacecraft systems engineer on TOPEX/Poseidon. I calibrated every instrument on that vehicle in-orbit for JPL. I calibrated the radar altimeter whose data you just cited. The very data is created by polynomial fit coefficients I produced that reside in the telemetry database at JPL. I helped launch the satellite from French Guiana in August 1992. So let me tell you pal, you don't know shit. You have just been owned like I have never seen anybody owned in P&R. You might as well just go get a new handle right now ace. "The price of beans has just gone up and your old lady has just gone down" Frank Zappa
Now this is complete hogwash. The message from climate science has been the same for years regardless of the political complexion of the government of the day - in countries right around the world. Scientists have not changed their position at all to suit the political situation. The Bush administration tried to silence James Hansen - but the message was the same. Every government on the planet must surely wish that AGW would simply vanish because it is such a politically and economically difficult issue for them to handle. The last thing any government wants to hear is "It's worse than we thought". What conflict of interests. Scientists get paid (a fairly modest) salary to do their jobs and their work is reviewed and criticized by other scientists. What is so special about climatology that it is somehow different from other sciences? (other than you don't want to hear what it is telling you). There is no historical precedent for the huge release of GHGs generated since the industrial revolution by human activity so there is "no historical evidence that nothing can be done". As GHGs are causing the problem, the solution is in principle very simple - just stop doing it. In practice of course it is difficult and complex. I would suggest the rapid deployment of nuclear power is the single most important action that could be taken. Keeping in mind that nuclear power is necessary but not sufficient and many other measures such as electrification of transport and changes in land use including forest conservation and reforestation are also essential.
Unintended. If that's how they came off, I apologize. And I'm not trying to say either that climatologists are knowingly presenting false info or that they are the only ones doing it. Personal experience tells me that usually a person doesn't need to consciously falsify a report. The only requirement is a slight bias toward a certain conclusion and often the test results will coincidentally agree with that bias. Unconscious omission of critical info is rampant throughout science and very apparent on both sides of this particular issue.
I agree, but a slight bias of that type would be present in those scientists working for big oil, too. At best that's a "wash".