Global Warming

[Super Nova]

The climate situation is much worse than you believe, and is accelerating far more rapidly than accounted for by models. Ice sheet loss continues to increase at both poles, and warming of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is twice the earlier scientific estimate. Arctic ice at all-time low, half that of 1980, and the Arctic lost enough sea ice to cover Canada and Alaska in 2012 alone. In short, summer ice in the Arctic is nearly gone. Furthermore, the Arctic could well be free of ice by summer 2015, an event that last occurred some three million years ago, before the genus Homo walked the planet. In a turn surprising only to mainstream climate scientists, Greenland ice is melting rapidly.

Ocean acidification associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is proceeding at an unprecedented rate and could trigger mass extinction by itself. Already, half the Great Barrier Reef has died during the last three decades. And ocean acidification is hardly the only threat on the climate-change front. As one little-discussed example, atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping to levels considered dangerous for humans.

[Rorschach]

So you say... yet is it natural or man-made is it true or false.
I can link quote other sites and experts that say otherwise.

I do wish people would calm down about this and stop being chicken littles.
Guarantee you, our tax or any measures in the next 100 years will not change the situation one iota.

[Super Nova]

Guarantee you, our tax or any measures in the next 100 years will not change the situation one iota.

So you advocate do nothing and humanity will just have to suffer the consequences.

Shit in our own nest... so to speak.... just like....

[IQS.RLOW]

So you advocate do nothing and humanity will just have to suffer the consequences.

Shit in our own nest... so to speak.... just like....

I didn't take you for one of the "seen to be doing" type of people SN.
You shall hear-forth be known as Sir Panic Merchant of Wide Open Wallet (SPaMWOW).
What is the point of wasting money that could be prioritized better?

There's also the fact that if your chicken little hypothesis manages to somehow be even a little bit correct, a warming world is actually far better for life on the planet.

Have you read Lomborg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001).

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics.

Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition. In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat." [1]

In the chapter on climate change in his 2001 book A Skeptical Environmentalist he states; "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming but questions the way in which future scenarios have been arrived at and finds that forecasts of climate change of 6 degrees by the end of the century are not plausible.[2]" Lomborg claims to have consistently supported the position that global warming exists, but cost–benefit analyses, as calculated by the Copenhagen Consensus ranked climate mitigation initiatives low on a list of international development initiatives when first done in 2004.[3] In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."[4]

[mellie]

The climate situation is much worse than you believe, and is accelerating far more rapidly than accounted for by models. Ice sheet loss continues to increase at both poles, and warming of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is twice the earlier scientific estimate. Arctic ice at all-time low, half that of 1980, and the Arctic lost enough sea ice to cover Canada and Alaska in 2012 alone. In short, summer ice in the Arctic is nearly gone. Furthermore, the Arctic could well be free of ice by summer 2015, an event that last occurred some three million years ago, before the genus Homo walked the planet. In a turn surprising only to mainstream climate scientists, Greenland ice is melting rapidly.

Ocean acidification associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is proceeding at an unprecedented rate and could trigger mass extinction by itself. Already, half the Great Barrier Reef has died during the last three decades. And ocean acidification is hardly the only threat on the climate-change front. As one little-discussed example, atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping to levels considered dangerous for humans.

Can I have a link SN?

[Rorschach]

Guarantee you, our tax or any measures in the next 100 years will not change the situation one iota.

So you advocate do nothing and humanity will just have to suffer the consequences.

Shit in our own nest... so to speak.... just like....

Nope

[Rorschach]

For those of you doing the chicken little I suggest you watch a show called ORBIT a BBC doco and learn a bit about the complexities of; the weather, the seasons and the climate on our planet... and what the primary drivers really are.

[Super Nova]

OK climate deniers. Do you think it is worth the risk to not address close warming and man-made climate change.

Is the risk to the future of humanity worth ignoring this risk?

He will also attack man-made climate change deniers, claiming they "want us to take a huge gamble with the future of every human being on the planet, every future human being, our children and grandchildren, and every other living species."

The Lib Dem MP will say: "Two hundred years of good science – teasing out uncertainties, considering risk – has laid the foundation of what we now understand. It screams out from decade upon decade of research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... kered.html

and another article.

He added: “The delays in the climate system mean that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now will determine climate and therefore weather for the next 25 years.”

Sir John said the world had huge problems of food, water and energy security as the global population increases, all of which will be exacerbated by climate change.

"In 12 years’ time there will be another billion people on the planet and we have big issues of food security, water security and energy security and many, many people will start to be living in cities," he said.

"These are massive problems. Climate change is just going to make it worse."

He admitted there were some "uncertainties" in the analysis of climate change but stressed that there was clear evidence that it is happening in the way that climate models suggest.

"For example the Arctic is heating up vastly faster than other parts of the world - this is exactly what the climate scientists are predicting,” he said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... warns.html

[Rorschach]

Honestly go away and read some Delingpole for a while... get some balance in your life.

http://jamesdelingpole.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

James' Latest Masterpiece - Watermelons

Imagine if everything you knew about the environment was wrong. Imagine that global warming was something to be desired, not feared. Imagine that organic food, sustainability, biofuels and the WWF were far more harmful to the world and its inhabitants than GM food, industry, oil and ExxonMobil.

[IQS.RLOW]

OK climate deniers. Do you think it is worth the risk to not address close warming and man-made climate change.

Is the risk to the future of humanity worth ignoring this risk?

Yes and yes.

Ok warmies. Do you think it is worth the risk to address warming via restriction of CO2 output? Warming that has not occurred for 17-23 years despite increased CO2 output? Restrictions that are incurred at great expense with no alternative energy source? Restrictions that place the burden on the poor and developing nations? Warming that even if all CO2 output was halted would still occur according to the (so far wrong) models?

Is the risk to the future of humanity having spent all the funds on mitigation of CO2 leaving humanity with no funds for adaption worth pushing forward with this risk despite questions surrounding the hypothesis and lack of warming over 17-23 years with increased CO2 output?