Sorry, but the evidence for man-made climate change has only been increasing, not decreasing. It's piling up and our certainty is only growing. Basically, the time for doubt and debate is over. The science is clear. The only thing to decide is what to do about it. Also, Y2K didn't unleash havoc precisely because a lot of companies spent a lot of money to avoid it.
Try harder. Forbes is not a scientific journal, an opinion article using a highly biased source also really doesn't count. Also we avoided major issues with Y2K because a lot of people worked really hard to fix it. It's the absolute worst example you could have chosen, it's like saying the government can't accomplish something they said they want to do and then using the moon landing as an example.
Have we had an impact more than possibly, probably. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615 Now of course it would be foolish to rule out the possibility that it's just part of a natural cycle. But is it not better to err on the side of caution? So two further questions If the majority of climate scientists are wrong what will be the consequences? If they are right and we don't act to try and minimise the impact we might be having what will the consequences be?
Are you referring to the whole University of East Anglia email (non)scandal from a few years back? Because they were extensively investigated by several independent groups who could find no evidence that any wrongdoing had actually occurred: Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Do you have links to all of this evidence from reputable sources in the field of climatology rather than scientists in non-related fields and/or who are on the payroll of energy corporations? http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm Do they trump the 97% of climate scientists who agree that humans are the primary cause of climate change at present? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm It's amazing how skeptics can't even agree on climate change on Earth, but they can speak about it happening with great certainty on other planets. There's no evidence of global warming on Mars: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm Solar activity has been decreasing and the Sun has been cooling, while temperatures on Earth have been rising: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm Galactic cosmic rays are actually increasing, which should have a cooling effect on Earth, but instead we have record temperatures: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm So, because it's hard we should do nothing while we get hit with increasingly powerful and more frequent storms, while poorer regions face famine, desertification, and water shortages, and international conflicts increase as people battle for dwindling space, arable land, and drinkable water? I don't recall very many scientists suggesting that we abandon all the trappings of our modern society and return to a simple agrarian existence. That's an extreme and alarmist argument. The actual suggestions are far more reasonable: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm If political obstructionists and corporate sellouts continue to place greed and ignorance above responsibility to their fellow man things will most certainly continue to get worse, so how is doing nothing because "something bad might happen" (how exactly would that work from decreasing greenhouse gasses?) a preferable alternative? No: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm No: http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm No: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm No: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm No: http://www.skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm By the way, nice Face-Heel Turn on this previously innocuous subject. Very subtle. I'm surprised you didn't connect climate change to the War on Christmas while you were at it (Evil scientists are trying to take my beloved snow!). It's about time for your annual thread, after all.
He's more than citing information from the Heartland Institute, he's part of that institution, along with other organizations having a vested interest (often economic) in promoting a particular point of view. From the sidebar on the Forbes opinion piece linked above: http://ballotpedia.org/National_Tax_Limitation_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ferrara He's hardly an unbiased commentator.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...t-behind-closed-doors-climate-depot-round-up/ It all boils down to the forecasts not being what they were claimed would be. The planet has not been warming to the extent claimed or is supposed to be happening. And even inspite of admitting their assessments were flawed they continue to assert humanity as the cause. And paleoclimatology records show the Earth has at times been warmer in the past than it is now, long before industrialization.
Well there is the 2013 IPCC report, linked to via the BBC webpage I posted earlier http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uov78Cea-Fx Though I don't think the report is final just yet.
Umm no. You included the Daily Mail aka the Daily Fail, a news source that has an accuracy level below the Weekly World News and two sources that use the Daily Mail as their only source. I'd rather wait till the actual report is released and not go by the claims of the Daily Mail.
One of the paragraphs from the telegraph article The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007. So they made an error of 0.01C, that might still be within the toleranceof what they were expecting.
There's no way six billion humans aren't having an effect on the climate. You think that would just be common sense?
Why aren't any of your sources scientific? They're all political and op/ed. Those are not acceptable. Just as I don't get professional health advice from my banker, I do not accept political and ideological sources as scientific evidence.
And you would be right. I never thought it would drag the thread into climate change denial nonsense.
Everyone can see that the earth is flat. If it's so round, why aren't people in Australia falling off the earth? You can't explain that!