1) The every 3-4 years international IPPC report AND
2) the every few years US National Assessment Report were both released within the last few weeks,
both strongly reinforcing the decades old scientific consensus on climate change (see below) AND
3) There was the clear study recently released showing that the melting of West Antarctic has reached a point of no return. It will take centuries to happen, but it will happen and will have slowly evolving but nonetheless negative consequences for future generations, no matter WHAT we do now. We have had all the information necessary to take common sense moderate cost, or no cost, actions for 30 years and have instead done almost nothing, and our generation will be blamed for centuries to come for this colossally short-sighted and cowardly blunder. Until now there was still a (slight) chance of keeping the consequences of human-caused climate change within reasonable and ultimately reversible limits, but now we have reached the point where that is not even theoretically possibly any more. There is still plenty that can be done to slow down and moderate the already underway and sure to worse alternations of the global climate, but the chance that we had for 20-30s years to actually contain it within some kind of reasonable bound has been effectively blown for good.
4) The news media will take any opportunity to hype something dramatic sounding (no matter how important or trivial or even non-existent), but in this case, there has actually been some underlying news of significance.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
Hey Dook makes a clear case.
Why does he get so many thumbs down?
Obama is set to unveil an illegal set of CO2 regulations, and has been pushing these stories to his minions in the media.
Dems want tax increases, more power, and to divert attention away from their failures such as Obamacare in an election year
Most media outlets support a socialistic approach to life on Earth. BIG GOVERNMENT ideas appeal to them. The mere fact that temperatures have remained steady since 1998 while CO2 emissions have increased has them unsettled. They need something to write about with the hopes of selling a story. That's how they earn their money.
Most of these environmental zealots do not understand that fossil fuels have been the main driver in helping people live longer with a higher prosperity level. The change in the atmosphere is a very small 1 part in 10,000. If you add 1 part in 10,000 of CO2 into a real greenhouse and take out the equivalent of everything else, the change is microscopic and won't create a temperature change that is noticeable or even measurable.
Gosh it sounds like Scorpius gets confused easily, he should never visit Australia we call pickups, utes that I guess would also confuse his as well. Or if he visited the U.K they call station wagons, estates.
As far as I can see it is only deniers who play up this so called differences in names as I guess they have no real points to make on the science they have to do something.
As for the question I have not noticed much of an increase in media reporting on climate change of late, some times a report is released and it makes the news for a few days, like the recent release of the U.S. report on affects to the U.S. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/06/us/cli...
Im getting confused, why are there so many different names?
