Almost everyone I know uses global warming as more of a punch line than anything else. We broke a record today. Most snow for the season since man has been keeping records. What's the first you hear from commentators, friends workmates etc.
Thank you Global Warming....
If they would avoid all the dire predictions then they would not have a crisis Which is something a famous politician once said is something no politician should EVER let go to waste. Politicians use a crisis to drive their agendas.
The public, after seeing crisis after crisis come to naught end up becoming numb, calloused, distrusting and in time they simply will not care.
So, is it a concern? Yes. But then overstating anything in the name of politics is a broader more general concern.
For global warming if they simply stayed with facts, findings and potential outcomes the politics would follow. Most people in the body politic do NOT fully grasp the difference between this "could" happen versus this "will" happen. The reason is simple. Most people deal with what is and what is NOT on broad basis of subjects every day of their lives. We are conditioned for is or is NOT. Thus we quite often hear could the same way we he IS.
Had AGW stuck with "could" then they would have won. No one "could" have stated they were overstating their cases as they would have never claimed these things "would" happen.
Overestimating global warming is an ongoing concern, and it is only going to get worse. As temperatures continue to 'underperform' vs the models, the models will be ratcheted upwards to assure us global warming is just around the corner, it will be back with a vengeance.
Most people would look at the failure and say maybe the models are overestimating warming. Instead, they try and defend it by saying a few models are within range, and therefore the average of all of the models is correct. How about looking at the models that were closest?
An over estimation by models predicting surface temps is not global warming and a one year increase in sea ice doesn't mean that ice volume isn't continuing to decrease Plus dsilymail prints lies and misinformation as a matter of course so they aren't a reliable source In addition, without an actual NOAA link to the graphs, the graphs are suspect
Models are inherently flawed as anyone with a vrain knows, but that doesn't mean that AGW isn't in full swing. Too bad with all you deniers lame links, you still after years of posting questions and answers, have not been able to scientifically disprove AGW and of course never will.
You would think if they were honest, they would admit to being troubled by the constant obvious exaggeration. In fact, it is more about the cause than the truth so they don't mind when models and corrections are always exaggerated toward warming. It demonstrates the inherent dishonesty of alarmism in general. Most are probably too ignorant to even realize it.
They over estimate to the worse mega disaster .
And when it does not happen they denied the prediction
even though it was published and all over the internet .
Is overestimating global warming a concern? As much as underestimating is a concern.
But I suggest that until we can get past the "AGW is a conspiracy by thousands of scientist world wide in order to persuade politicians to get their hands on your money and/or bring about a tyrannical one world government" little headway will be made in this forum...
That's a superficial falsification that doesn't stand on closer analysis:
"Despite warming over the last 16 years, global surface temperatures have warmed at a slower rate than the previous 16 years and, at first glance, it appears that the climate models may have overestimated the amount of surface warming over this period.
Climate models, however, cannot predict the timing and intensity of La Ni?a and El Ni?o, natural cycles that greatly affect global temperature in the short-term by dictating the amount of heat available at the ocean surface.
Nor can the climate models predict the timing and duration of volcanic eruptions and industrial pollution, both of which eject light-scattering aerosols into the atmosphere and therefore reduce surface warming.
By failing to account for these and other factors, the CMIP5 collection of climate models erroneously simulate more warming of Earth's surface than would be expected.
When the input into the climate models is adjusted to take into consideration both the warming and cooling influences on the climate that actually occurred, the models demonstrate remarkable agreement with the observed surface warming in the last 16 years...
When you consider all of Earth's reservoirs of heat; the oceans, land, ice and atmosphere together, global warming hasn't slowed down at all. In fact quite the opposite has happened, the Earth has warmed at a faster rate in the last 16 years than it did in the previous 16. Taken in isolation though, the atmosphere has bucked this trend - warming at a slower rate in the last 16 years than it did in the previous 16 years. "
let's see now. We take action and in the short-term it affect 1% of GDP or less for most nations. (the bail-out of the US banking fiasco cost the US 14% of GDP).
Cities would become nicer.
Women worldwide would finally have access to contraception
Products will be superior and cheaper to manufacture
The most toxic of chemicals will be taken out of the production chain so human health will improve in addition to less environmental harm and toxins entering the food supply and water supply will drastically diminish meaning people will be exposed to far lower levels of endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins
We'll have access to a greater variety of goods to purchase
Electricity will be cheap or free after the initial investment has been paid
there will be far lower levels of pollution
Those garbage islands in the ocean may stop growing
we'd have access to better quality goods
we'd have ensured water security and food security
we'd see less erosion, ocean acidification, soil salinity etc.
I'd prefer that to what we're currently getting. I'm tired of living in a world of plastic crap and toxins where almost all things natural are tainted and energy is expensive. I don't understand why so many cling to primitive technology rather than moving forward to a better world.
( ?° ?? ?°) what I can't get over is that these people are so sure there are those who would bring in a one-world Government NWO, yet oppose anyone who opposes the very people who are showing any signs of trying to do such a thing! Shills through and through and rotten to the core.
your sources of info are dubious to say the least. Really a Murdoch-owned faux news paper is the best you've got? While meanwhile people with a conscience are realising that the models indeed are flawed - they were too conservative. The polar ice caps are melting faster than predicted, the methane released was under-estimated and the rate of climate change is happening faster than predicted.
Everything that the IP CC and the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) predicts is based on conjecture. They are being paid millions to prove that CO2 warming is a huge alarm and they have the right people running that message through their reports and media outlets. Do you think that they don't plan press releases in the name of their cause?
The WMO failed miserably at predicting the most recent months of cooling and apologized for their failure. It only shows that they really don't have a grasp on predicting any future climate states of the Planet's climate.
"The damn thing changed on them!"
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Here's the WMO's next prediction that may fail : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-15...
It's a con game to force a totalitarian new world order under the guise of Sustainability.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419557/Climate-change-models-accurate-study-finds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html
The statement I have been continually making about the climate science community is that they are biased and they are doing a poor job of accounting for their bias.
Note that 114 of 117 climate models are not overestimating. There is a nifty 97% consensus.
But maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill. Well warmers, is that the case? You are aware of change and "corrections" to the temperature data. Can you point to one of the corrections that led to less warming?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/uncorrupted-us-temperature-data-showed-cooling-from-1930-to-1999/
All of your "corrections" have lead to more warmming instead of the 50-50 corrections I would expect as a statistician. Further 97% of your cliamte models are overestimating. To make matters worse, the reporting of global warming to the masses is more extreme than the IPCC reports.
You have bias upon bias upon scare-mongering reporting and you are surprised by the backlash???
Oh, I know, Goddard is unreliable. He is an evil denier who lies for a living paid billions by the evil Koch brothers. Here is the thing though. I went to the NASA website and found the 1999 report and compared to the current one. It was just as Goddard said.
So is the bias still just a figment of the "deniers" imagination?
