They dont care if they starve or die .
Not as far as I'm concerned, no; It's purely a scientific issue.
To be honest, I don't see how your link justifies this question.
Edit: Did they jump to the conclusion or were they just investigating the possibility? The way I'm reading it is that they were concerned about a possible cause, did some investigation and came to a different conclusion. Nothing wrong with that; it's how science works.
As for the warming; the annual change due to CO2 is very small and there are other factors which can cause a greater change. But these are cyclic (positive and negative) and will cancel themselves out over a few decades. The effect of CO2 is always positive, cumulative rather than self cancelling. If you want to explain the apparent pause, I don't think you need to look further than the phase change in the PDO from El Nino to La Nina conditions. It says nothing about the underlying trend due to increasing CO2 levels.
I put this together recently for another question; probably not the best graph, but it makes the point well. El Nino's above the green trendline; La Nina's below the blue.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/fro...
CO2 warming has and always will be a scientific issue; it's our response which is the political issue.
Edit 2: The slope was not of my choosing, it was generated by Woodfortrees. However, the slope is meaningless without reference to the axes. My graph and that of DRS are both correct. It is the conclusion of cooling which I disagree with; it's premature at best.
I'm not certain you have fully understood your IPCC graph; it shows the way the 30yr anomaly has changed, not global temps; those look like this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
The question of global warming is a question of fact. Either the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing or it is not. Either CO2 absorbs long wavelength infra red radiation or it does not. These phenomena are indifferent to political or religious thought. They are also indifferent to personal attacks on scientists or administrators on the grounds that these people may be socialists or environmentalists.
The satellite temperature record since 1979 (34 years) shows a warming trend of about 0.13C/decade. That basically means a projection to 2100 comes in at about 1C more of warming. To reach warming predicted by climate models or by 3C climate sensitivity (actually, that's really the same thing), something drastic has to change.
So to me, future warming predictions sure seem pretty high. I'm not if it's an emotion of you believe them to be accurate. Frankly, from an unemotional point of view, I don't really know how it's going to turn out. My belief is that if the Sun is going to continue low activity, we won't get any warming from CO2.
I think it is.
Having said that, I also think that applies less to scientists than to the politicians and general public. The main problem with the science is that most of the research effort is funded by government who are prompted by the UN and IPCC. So most of the effort goes into looking for man-made problems.
For instance, you mention "clouds". The science seems to be saying that over half the sun's output is moderated by clouds and water vapour on the way down to earth. The infra red that is causing the problem is not that, however. It is the tiny percentage that manages to find one of the man-made CO2 molecules out of the 0.04% total that manages to emit a photon before it has one of its 10 billion collisions per second with another molecule.
Can anyone point me to an explanation that shows how the CO2 effect that is many orders of magnitude less than another can be the main driver?
The environmentalist's gut reaction to any perceived problem seems to be to blame it on climate change until proved otherwise. Science is complicit in my view. See the link for examples. I don't believe that the media fabricated all of them. I am 95% Confident? that they got it all from press releases based on genuine scientific papers.
Environmentalists have been making dire predictions since the beginning of history. The earth has always been on the brink of an environmental disaster, only the cause of this impeding disaster keeps changing. These predictions are based on emotion rather than objectivity. Environmentalists like to use scientific language to make their claims sound more objective than they are.
I would say that a lot of the denialists are emotionally attached to oil, coal and SUVs.
Right here
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Why are there no polar bears in Hawaii? And the people of Hiroshima were doing fine on August 5,1 1945.
Global warming ended in 2012 and all seasons have returned to normal naturally/ Earth's environment has always been in good shape for thousands of years. All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature/ gases, exhaust, co2, smoke, etc. Mike/ Global command= civilian
Yes it is but the original "cause" has been forgotten by today's clueless followers, or more likely their too young to be aware of it.
Its no coincidence that the first Earth day celebration was held on Lenin's 100th birthday.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-p...
Most of them are also too young to have seen the leader of the evil empire pound his shoe on the table at a U.N. meeting & shout "we will bury you" to the U.S. representative.
Loyal followers of 5th column causes like the environmental & anti nuke movements would be shocked at the motivation of the people & organizations that originally greased the wheels of the political machines their now pushing.
Bombs are not the best way to destroy an enemy's dam's, power plants & industrial manufacturing base.
Its much more efficient to teach their own children to voluntarily do it for you.
yet another great answer by the unrealist, the people in Hiroshima were just fine on August 5,1 1945, tell that to all who died that day, or were hurt in accidents, or had heart attacks, or the ones who were dieing of cancer, yea ALL were fine I guess if we leave out those few thousand, and of course no polar bears in Hawaii, wow, did you learn that in 1st grade or 2nd, gee, pretty soon he'll tell us there aren't any tropical fish in Nome Alaska
The IPCC and other government run climate "investigators" have been proven numerous times and by numerous independent scientists to be pedaling snake-oil in place of real climate science. AGW is their political driven myth implemented to instill fear in the public and raise revenue to fund pie in the sky green projects that just are not working.
http://news.yahoo.com/report-swells-affected-puerto-rico-glowing-lagoon-231233838.html
Environmentalist have been doing this for years. Jumping to conclusions about "causes and effects". The IP CC and NASA are full of environmentalist and we all know that the fearless leader of the IP CC is a known Socialist/Environmentalist. It seems that science in general has become an emotional issue. It seems to warrant "personal attacks" on people's intelligence from the Pro-AGW side of this argument here at Y/A.
Oh my goodness! The lagoon isn't glowing. It must be AGW! What else could it be? We know everything and we cant explain it. This is really disastrous. It is right up there with a run in Peggy's nylons!
It is 75% politics, 20% emotion and 5% science
