# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/181 "2012-02-01T02:19:18Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What? He checked a couple of names? Why those names? > Still, misleading headline and suspect methodology. > > Nope, he starts with ad hominems about people’s professions (Uve is a biologist, by the way). > reply 1) He isn’t published in the right magazines. Content-free > Reply 2) He, oops, omits “dangerous” and makes it a completely changes the meaning. > Reply 3) when he says “And as long as it is peer-reviewed, and it represents the consensus, then I’m happy to write well backed up and documented statements” he commits a scientific sin, he has to represent the consensus. No science will ever get done if you aim for consensus. > Reply 4) Stupid (for both) Climategate fight. > Reply 5) Again he says that if it isn’t consensus, it’s not good. > Reply 6) Although there is a body of evidence of climate change, it doesn’t point to catastrophe or the social change that is demanded, > Fail. > > What professions “count”? Economist (Head IPCC)? B.A.? Masters Governance and Public Policy? B.A. and PhD in Buisness? (Top people at Uve’s Center) Yeah, it is a failure to get science done with peer review. Not! ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/182 "2012-02-01T02:54:52Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I find it difficult to believe that other crops will not fare better, and some parts of the earth will become more fertile, and that we cannot breed plants that are well suited to the changed environment. If this is all you’ve got, it ain’t much to worry about. But I don’t think crops are the major concern. Some areas may see benefits [but overall it is likely that the impacts will be negative](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm), whether you look at crops (note that just because it gets warmer in say, Siberia, doesn’t mean that it would make good farmland), cold vs. heat deaths, sea level rise, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/183 "2012-02-01T03:56:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yeah, it is a failure to get science done with peer review. Not! Nice to see you’re still in your I-don’t-answer-questions mode. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/184 "2012-02-01T04:07:53Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > Some areas may see benefits [but overall it is likely that the impacts will be negative](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm), whether you look at crops (note that just because it gets warmer in say, Siberia, doesn’t mean that it would make good farmland), cold vs. heat deaths, sea level rise, etc. Still not buying it. Sure there will be some upheaval, but crop production has been adapted for ecological changes in the past. If it’s only 4 degrees, we’ll get over it, as far as crops are concerned. There are plenty of potential problems. This one seems minor to me. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/185 "2012-02-01T04:20:28Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Nice to see you’re still in your I-don’t-answer-questions mode. Meh, first you should investigate if your hero there has worked in the subject and published his recent findings in a journal, I wanted to give you more rope and it worked really good. And this is because he is still in the end he is just contradicting what all virtually all others experts have found. After looking around I can say that he is following the footsteps of people like Dr. Seitz. And loopier than lord Monckton, but we have seen the kind of people you are willing to defend many rimes before. > **[Starck raving Reefgate? | Climate Shifts](https://climateshifts.org/2010/05/23/starck-raving-reefgate/)** > [@](#): > > As background, Dr Walter Starck has spent a good deal of time diving on the Great Barrier Reef and regularly contributes to the highly compromised Institute of Public Affairs claiming that the Great Barrier Reef is in good shape and that concerns of scientists and reef managers otherwise are sensationalised and overblown. While he has not published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper for over 30 years, Dr. Starck is a regular contributor to popular magazines including one, the Golden Dolphin, which he edits and funds himself. > > Starck also does not believe in anthropogenic climate change (see under his signature under “Science and Technology Experts Well Qualified in Climate Science” on an open letter UN Secretary General His Excellency Ban Ki Moon BUT DOES BELIEVE in ‘crop circles’ which many enthusiasts of his ilk believe are caused by extraterrestrials. > > Walter Starck began the exchange on April 16 by addressing an open letter to Prof Russell Reichelt, Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. In his letter, Starck complained to Prof Reichelt that McCook et al. 2010 had not declared serious conflicts of interest arising from their employment and funding by GBRMPA. He also suggested that McCook et al. paper was slim on evidence and deliberately missed key evidence that would otherwise have told a different story about marine protected areas. Curiously, he did not reveal these other papers and data sets. > > Not giving Prof Reichelt much time to reply, Dr Starck wrote two weeks later to Hon Min Peter Garrett to complain about GBRMPA’s failure to deal with the allegations. This prompted a careful response in the form of a GBRMPA press release and letter of reply from Prof Russell Reichelt. > > In his letter, Prof Reichelt carefully addresses each of Dr. Stark’s claims and makes a number of important points which lead to quite different conclusions to those of Dr Starck: > > For example, Prof Reichelt points out that the paper by McCook et al has been reviewed and accepted by a prestigious international scientific journal. As with any publication in a leading journal, the McCook et al. paper would have had to go through rigorous and independent review. As part of this process, the paper’s data sources, methodologies and conclusions would have been scrutinized by 2-4 independent and anonymous expert reviewers. Given that GBRMPA had no control over the journal’s quality assurance process (the journal being no less than the Proceedings of the US Academy of Sciences!), the idea that GBRMPA would have been able to influence the paper such that it would erroneously support GBRMPA’s desired position without the burden of evidence is, simply, far-fetched. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/186 "2012-02-01T04:21:05Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This one seems minor to me. “Be sorry when and if the point of no return disaster strikes” or “Be on the safe side if nothing happens”? Since no one is certain, what do you think might be the smarter choice we can make at this juncture, based on what we think we know and what we are concerned about? Should we go with “Meh, I doubt it”? . ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/187 "2012-02-01T04:27:44Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Still not buying it. Sure there will be some upheaval, but crop production has been adapted for ecological changes in the past. If it’s only 4 degrees, we’ll get over it, as far as crops are concerned. There are plenty of potential problems. This one seems minor to me. Again. Even before getting there the results so far are not encouraging. [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract) > [@](#): > > We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8. For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming. > **[Third of Russian grain crop destroyed by drought - Agriculture Ministry](https://sputnikglobe.com/20101012/160929959.html)** > > This summer's severe drought and forest fires destroyed 13.3 million hectares of the country's grain crop, the Russian Agriculture Ministry said on Tuesday. > [@](#): > > This summer’s severe drought and forest fires destroyed 13.3 million hectares of the country’s grain crop, the Russian Agriculture Ministry said on Tuesday. > > This amounted to a third of the expected harvest. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/188 "2012-02-01T04:42:22Z")
> [@brittekland](#): > > “Be sorry when and if the point of no return disaster strikes” or “Be on the safe side if nothing happens”? > > Since no one is certain, what do you think might be the smarter choice we can make at this juncture, based on what we think we know and what we are concerned about? > > Should we go with “Meh, I doubt it”? > > . Huh? You realize I’m talking about crops being adapted to a changing environment. What are you talking about? The magic bullet that ends global climate change if it gets as bad as some predict? I’ll concentrate on changing the crops, something we already know how to do. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/189 "2012-02-01T05:10:46Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Huh? You realize I’m talking about crops being adapted to a changing environment. What are you talking about? The magic bullet that ends global climate change if it gets as bad as some predict? I’ll concentrate on changing the crops, something we already know how to do. I’m talking about the attitude that anything “seems minor” and “it’s only 4 degrees”. Priority one: think about and start changing our childish virus-like behavior. Anything we can do will help including crop adaptation except not heeding to the potential problem. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/190 "2012-02-01T05:38:28Z")
> [@brittekland](#): > > I’m talking about the attitude that anything “seems minor” and “it’s only 4 degrees”. > > Priority one: think about and start changing our childish virus-like behavior. Anything we can do will help including crop adaptation except not heeding to the potential problem. That isn’t what I’m talking about. I was saying crop problems will be solvable, others will be worse. Your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn’t spread fear of the sky falling prevents the kind of solutions that may be necessary, and still should be done even if they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/191 "2012-02-01T06:15:18Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn’t spread fear of the sky falling prevents the kind of solutions that may be necessary, and still should be done even if they aren’t. Is that a compliment and criticism combo? No knee jerk reaction; it’s just that it gets me that people go to militant length to fight about the obvious shitty things we do to environment with “Meh, it’ll be fine” attitude and that we ought to correct our behavior for ourselves, as good Earthlings and for the posterity. It’s like we are determined to get the fake boob job NOW, even if it might kill us later. . ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/192 "2012-02-01T06:59:57Z")
> [@brittekland](#): > > Is that a compliment and criticism combo? > > No knee jerk reaction; it’s just that it gets me that people go to militant length to fight about the obvious shitty things we do to environment with “Meh, it’ll be fine” attitude and that we ought to correct our behavior for ourselves, as good Earthlings and for the posterity. It’s like we are determined to get the fake boob job NOW, even if it might kill us later. > > . Since that didn’t make much sense, I’ll just say “I accept your apology”. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/193 "2012-02-01T07:08:34Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Since that didn’t make much sense, I’ll just say “I accept your apology”. Wait… I think you typed that upside down… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/194 "2012-02-01T15:31:59Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The article was updated in 2011. > You quote an alarmist newspaper article from the The Guardian and you give people hell for using the Daily Mail. Here is the actual data. > > [http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960) > > One thing you need to learn about C02. Every year is a record year. Still it claims that the people telling us about the future increases were going to be wrong, that was not the case. I have seen this before, for some reason a basic correction like that will never be made. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/195 "2012-02-01T18:31:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Still it claims that the people telling us about the future increases were going to be wrong, that was not the case. I have seen this before, for some reason a basic correction like that will never be made. You obviously still don’t understand the math. Basic points: [ul] [li]The response to increases in greenhouse gases is a logarithmic, not a linear function. That is pretty much Climate Science 101. [/li] [li]The actual thermal sensitivity, i.e. feedback of the environment can be deduced from the actual temperature records. This is less certain, since over a period of 50 years there will be other effects besides greenhouse gases on the temperatures, but should give you a rough order answer and serve as a sanity check on the climate models.[/li][/ul] The basic point you don’t understand is that climate models are not science, they are engineering. You have a lot of numbers that are run through complex numerical models. By tweaking the starting parameters you can generate pretty much result you want. Not only are the starting parameters tweaked, but the actual models are adjusted as our understanding of the climate improves and the computers get faster. The fact that you think Dr. Nelson was actually predicting future increases in CO2, means that you don’t have clue about what he is talking about. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/196 "2012-02-01T19:43:17Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You obviously still don’t understand the math. Basic points: > > [ul] > [li]The response to increases in greenhouse gases is a logarithmic, not a linear function. That is pretty much Climate Science 101. [/li] > [li]The actual thermal sensitivity, i.e. feedback of the environment can be deduced from the actual temperature records. This is less certain, since over a period of 50 years there will be other effects besides greenhouse gases on the temperatures, but should give you a rough order answer and serve as a sanity check on the climate models.[/li][/ul] > > The basic point you don’t understand is that climate models are not science, they are engineering. You have a lot of numbers that are run through complex numerical models. By tweaking the starting parameters you can generate pretty much result you want. Not only are the starting parameters tweaked, but the actual models are adjusted as our understanding of the climate improves and the computers get faster. > > The fact that you think Dr. Nelson was actually predicting future increases in CO2, means that you don’t have clue about what he is talking about. Neither you when looking at what others are actually saying. I’m not talking about the math at all -yet- I was referring to this: > [@](#): > > Some climatologists, making assumptions about ever-increasing rates of carbon dioxide production, assert that the doubling will occur within a few decades instead of a few centuries. However, they are doing sociology, not climatology. They are assuming that fossil fuel consumption will increase drastically over current levels. This is very unlikely. It turns out climatologists had very good estimations, the bad news is that they are a bit worse than expected, that is what I say needs to be changed for starters, as it is not well thought out criticism. Also, I did not mention much about models, and I already know that scientists do not depend on them for reporting on the most likely rise of temperature. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/197 "2012-02-01T20:26:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, first you should investigate if your hero there has worked in the subject and published his recent findings in a journal, I wanted to give you more rope and it worked really good. > > And this is because he is still in the end he is just contradicting what all virtually all others experts have found. > > After looking around I can say that he is following the footsteps of people like Dr. Seitz. And loopier than lord Monckton, but we have seen the kind of people you are willing to defend many rimes before. > > [Starck raving Reefgate? | Climate Shifts](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5295) What hero? You mean one guy whose ideas I kinda liked? You’re still in “debating generic denier” mode, where every scpetic is evil and ignorant. Oh, no, not Mockton again. Did he blow you off at the prom or something? You still don’t get my orignial quote about him. Peer-review does not mean that they do your experiment agains and check them or anything like that. They check the general idea of the experiment, check for glaring mistakes or clear contradiction. Peer-review doens’t mean the experiment is perfect or even OK. It means you didn’t make mistakes in basic procedures and that why peer-revied articles contain mistakes over and over again and are false many times. Peer-review is an excellent tool for science, but the real test of a theory is after publication. When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat’s last theorem, he had a referee chacking his math (and made him correct mistaked), but the referee didn’t go back to zero to prove Fermat again. And this is theoretical work If I say that giving 5mg of Zinc a day to a rat for 2 years causes it to develop and enlarged liver, the peer-reviewers aren’t going to redo my experiment and publish it after 2 years. They check the bases of my experiment, see if everything fits and publish it. In the case of AGW, peer-review is being used to block (no conspiracy by the way) publication. After \*Remote Sensing \*published a sceptical article (and the article itself can be the biggest load of crap ever to disgrace a sheet of paper, that’s not the contention; I’m not going to discuss the content of the article) the editor was forced to resign. Publishing wrong experiments is not uncommon, but resignign because (his words) “_I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements_”. You resign because of what people say about the article and not the experiment itself? This means that climate science cannot stand a sceptic even when he is wrong. This shows that either: a) the peer-review process let an article with “methodological errors or false claims”(editor’s words) to be published or b) the article was good enough and it was the outcry at the “sin” that forced the resignation ( and one would imagine that being a sceptic article they went deeply into it); this is science by popular vote. This sends a chilling effect to other peer-reviewed magazines. Publish and resign, no conspiracy is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/198 "2012-02-01T21:28:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Neither you when looking at what others are actually saying. > > I’m not talking about the math at all -yet- I was referring to this: > > It turns out climatologists had very good estimations, the bad news is that they are a bit worse than expected, that is what I say needs to be changed for starters, as it is not well thought out criticism. > > Also, I did not mention much about models, and I already know that scientists do not depend on them for reporting on the most likely rise of temperature. > [@](#): > > Some climatologists, making assumptions about ever-increasing rates of carbon dioxide production, assert that the doubling will occur within a few decades instead of a few centuries. However,\*\* they are doing sociology, not climatology\*\*. They are assuming that fossil fuel consumption will increase drastically over current levels. **This is very unlikely**. Not only do you not understand math, but you can’t even understand what you are quoting. The scientists admit there is no scientific data to support this claims. Here is the actual data collected by actual scientists about the actual C02 in the atmosphere. [http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/trend:1990/plot/none](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/trend:1990/plot/none) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/199 "2012-02-01T21:43:09Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Not only do you not understand math, but you can’t even understand what you are quoting. The scientists admit there is no scientific data to support this claims. > > Here is the actual data collected by actual scientists about the actual C02 in the atmosphere. > > [http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/trend:1990/plot/none](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/trend:1990/plot/none) Ah yes, I was not sure but now I am, but I will let you another chance to show all that you are fair or if you are indeed denying something here, you are aware that by showing that limited view you are omitting that that slope was not there when looking at the beginning of the industrial era eh? You are aware that what you are doing here is implying to others that the current slope up is natural? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/200 "2012-02-01T23:11:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ah yes, I was not sure but now I am, but I will let you another chance to show all that you are fair or if you are indeed denying something here, you are aware that by showing that limited view you are omitting that that slope was not there when looking at the beginning of the industrial era eh? > > You are aware that what you are doing here is implying to others that the current slope up is natural? There is something wrong with your grasp of English. I stated in my first post that I’m a lukewarmer. Let me state the basic the basic tenets of being a lukewarmer: [ul] [li]we accept the basic tenets of climate science.[/li] [li]we accept that atmospheric concentration of C02 is increasing.[/li] [li]we think most, if not all of the increase is caused by human action. [/li] [li]we \*\*don’t \*\* think the **rate** of warming is as rapid as implied by most climate models.[/li][/ul] My personal belief is that we will experience an between 1 and 2 degrees of warming during the next 100 years. You are quoting some people who seem to expect a doubling or tripling of the **current rate** of C02 emissions by **humans**. By their own statements they admit there is no scientific evidence to support this. The article **you quoted** also says it isn’t likely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=11)