.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
Of course its easy to see why the IPCC are toast based on a handy Daily Mail graphic to help.
Where does the Daily Mail explain this to you?
Church et al 2011 Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008
Do you see any issue with cherry-picking surface temperature as the metric for global warming?
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@SBF
And do you know why the graph you posted above stops at 2010? The data are available beyond that year. Could it be because if the graph extended to 2013 then its ideological purpose would be contradicted?
First of all you asked why stop at 2008, and now you ask why stop at 2010 - which is it?
In any event both are wrong. Perhaps you should examine the facts - the figures are from January 1970 to November 2012.
Figure 4: Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.
The objective of the graph is clear - deniers cherrypick a metric - surface temperature, and then cherrypick a date range that suits them and cry 'cooling'. All the while ignoring all other metrics and the overall multi-decadal trend.
No - I'm not embarassed - the facts are clear.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@SBF
Interesting that you find an economist authoritative on anything - when did they ever get any predictions right?
Hardly the point though - every decade since the 1960's has been hotter than the last, and the recent pause in surface temperature rise (one measure of global warming - you know the globe includes the oceans and the atmosphere?) is thought to be caused by deep opean absorption of heat.
Nobody I read claims all the answers on matters of science, of course it is far easier to sit on the sidelines crying "wrong, wrong" every time science progresses. Thats how it works.
You cannot deny the laws of physics. There is more energy going into the system than there is coming out.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@fig8ter
I mean, there's all kinds of research and dissenting opinions out there. All I'm saying is, keep an open mind....look at everything. Yes there are changing weather patterns, have been for millions of years......
Do you understand how climate and weather are different?
Can you explain why climate changes?
What is your basis for accepting a 3% minority position denying human-caused climate change?
Why are you better qualified than 97% of climate scientists and every major national and international association and academy of scientists to make that call?
Do you understand where the burden of proof lies in this debate?
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@glander
Charts and graphs by sponsered (salaried) climate change professionals do not impress me.
Good to know your position on research is based on your perception of bias.
Are you impressed by charts and graphs by climate science studies sponsored (paid for) by the fossil fuel industry?
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@metatron
The curve of the presented graph seems to show an actual decline rather than a flatline pause.
Deniers have been playing this tired myth for a long time now. Take an arbitrary year that is very hot, wait for a 'relatively' cooler year, draw a flat line and screech that 'global warming has stopped'.
You have to explain why the laws of physics don't apply if you accept CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Or you could get into an arcane debate on climate sensitivity, which is where the professional deniers are at these days.
If you want to read more about the history and facts behind this particular myth see here http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@SBF
Judith Curry - the Daily Mail rent-a-kwote climate scientist of choice for right wing deniers
I'm still waiting to hear why you are better qualified than 97% of mainstream climate scientists to adopt a 3% minority position.
The logical conclusion is that you have a pre-existing outcome in mind for this debate.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@JeffT
OK, I will be the one to post a graph. Note the flat line at the end. Did the IPCC report address this?
What did you find out when you checked the source of the graph? What does NOAA say about climate change?
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@fig8ter
Unfortunatly
And we should listen to you who can't spell the first word of your rant?
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/religious-boy-fights-court-for-right-to-die-20130917-2tx5u.html.
this is tragic.
the boy is 17, and earlier this year the courts ruled that he was to be forced a transfusion.
But you are fine with the same boy choosing to refuse blood a few weeks later when he turns eighteen?
yes because the state has drawn a line in the sand at age 18 - one is then deemed old to enough to commit medical suicide for religious beliefs - up until his 18th birthday, common sense prevails
