# "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157 "2013-06-28T19:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/1 "2013-06-28T19:49:51Z")
Lately we’ve been having [threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=683193) talking about how we should respond to the imminent extinction of the human race as a result of climate change. Unfortunately it seems that the human race may be around a bit longer than was initially reported. The title of this thread is the conclusion of [a recent article](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) in The Economist which is well worth reading in its entirety. For those too busy to do so, here’s a summary: [ul] [li]Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions have soared in the past decade.[/li][li]Meanwhile, according to Dr. James Hansen “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”[/li][li]Some have speculated that the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses may be going into the ocean, but the ocean isn’t cooperating. Its temperature trends is flat as well. Since most ocean temperature measurements are near the surface, it’s possible that the deep ocean is heating somewhat.[/li][li]Mainstream climate science, as embodied by the IPCC, has predicted a rise of between 2 and 4.5 degrees (celsius) by midcentury, with an average prediction of 3 degrees. A compilation of twenty climate models has given a range of predicted global temperatures for every year.[/li][li]The actual temperatures for 2012 are at the very lower level of the range of predictions. If temperatures do not increase soon, then they’ll be entirely beneath the predicted range.[/li][li]“Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C.”[/li][li]“Its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C.”[/li][li]“Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data.”[/li][li]There are two main types of climate models: general circulation models (GCMs) and energy-balance models. The later have the advantage that they can easily be adjusted based on recent climate data; the former cannot. The IPCC predictions are based on GCMs.[/li][li]“In contrast, the Norwegian study was based on an energy-balance model. So were earlier influential ones by Reto Knutti of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich; by Piers Forster of the University of Leeds and Jonathan Gregory of the University of Reading; by Natalia Andronova and Michael Schlesinger, both of the University of Illinois; and by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Centre (who is also a co-author of the new Norwegian study). All these found lower climate sensitivities. The paper by Drs Forster and Gregory found a central estimate of 1.6°C for equilibrium sensitivity, with a 95% likelihood of a 1.0-4.1°C range. That by Dr Aldrin and others found a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range.”[/li][li]“Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought. A recent paper by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests that ‘the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century’.”[/ul][/li] The Economist says “that does not mean the problem is going away” and that policy solutions to global warming are still needed. I agree. However, good policy requires all the facts. I think it’s best if everyone knows about the recent research predicting a smaller temperature rise than what mainstream science predicted, and if we definitely don’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off, making predictions of impending extinction. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/2 "2013-06-28T20:15:23Z")
Who predicted the extinction of the human race do to global warming? I mean within the next few hundred years. Obviously at some point, regardless of what we do, our sun will go red giant and we’re toast, but that’s a bit a ways. Otherwise it looks like the predictions nee to be adjusted to accommodate recent data. Yeah. Science! Imagine that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/3 "2013-06-28T20:23:41Z")
If true, that’s great news because all those that claimed there just wasn’t time to fix things so why bother might be wrong. Now it looks like we have the time to put in much needed corrective measures, right **ITR champion**? ---
**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:** [June 28, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/4 "2013-06-28T20:24:33Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Lately we’ve been having [threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=683193) talking about how we should respond to the imminent extinction of the human race as a result of climate change. Unfortunately it seems that the human race may be around a bit longer than was initially reported. As Kinthalis pointed out, your main point is a straw man regarding what scientists report. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Economist says “that does not mean the problem is going away” and that policy solutions to global warming are still needed. I agree. However, good policy requires all the facts. I think it’s best if everyone knows about the recent research predicting a smaller temperature rise than what mainstream science predicted, and if we definitely don’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off, making predictions of impending extinction. And as Skeptical Science reported, the problem with the Economist and others is that they are not reporting on the big picture: > **[Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming](https://skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html)** > > As we have previously discussed, the overall warming or heat accumulation of the planet has continued, and if anything accelerated over the past 10–15 years (Figure 1). > [@](#): > > **Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming** > > The Naive Economist Blog > > … > > The bottom line is that the body of scientific research suggests that the current slowed surface warming is mainly due to natural oceanic cycles, and thus is only a temporary effect. However, a political blog for the Economist suggested that we should take a ‘wait and see’ approach for ‘a decade or two’. > > The argument is based on both the surface warming ‘pause’ and the premise of low climate sensitivity. However, research has remained consistent with the IPCC range of 2–4.5°C equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Some recent research has suggested the value might be toward the low end, but other recent research has suggested otherwise. In any case, even in a realistic best case scenario, we’re not doing enough to decarbonize the economy if we want to avoid dangerous and potentially catastrophic global warming. > > Taking a ‘wait and see’ approach for another decade or two would be a recipe for certain disaster. Fortunately that blog recommendation is at odds with the approach suggested by The Economist’s correspondents, who agree that in any case we’re not doing nearly enough to decarbonize the economy if we want to avoid dangerous climate change. > > We Need to Hit the Global Warming Pause Button > > The key take-home point is that we now have better measurements of ocean and global heat accumulation. We no longer have to settle for focusing on the 2% of global warming represented by surface air temperatures. Consider the analogy offered by Greg Laden, that the planet is a dog and surface temperatures are his tail. In the past we only had a GPS locator on his tail. It wags around a lot, sometimes accurately representing the movement of the dog, sometimes not. Now we’ve got a second GPS locator on his body – should we continue focusing on the movement of the tail for old times’ sake, or should we shift our focus to the more representative measurements? > > Ideally people will begin using the term “global warming” to refer to the planet’s overall heat accumulation. Or use the term “global heating” or “climate change” or “global disruption.” \*\* Whatever term is chosen, we need to stop misleading people by saying that global warming has “paused.” The overall warming of the planet has not and will not pause until we stop increasing the greenhouse effect through our reliance on fossil fuels. The warming will only continue to grow.\*\* BTW, in that discussion you linked the OP was trounced by misrepresenting science. ---
**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:** [June 28, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/5 "2013-06-28T20:49:32Z")
Something else I noticed that makes me trust the Economist even less, The reporter claims that the IPCC: > [@](#): > > Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An \*\*unpublished \*\*report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity. That is not true, because the IPCC reports on likely scenarios, scenario B1 where we do a concerted effort to control population and emissions does report a likely increase in temperature of 1.8 °C, when the reporter claims that that is well below, he is only telling us part of the history, and misleading at that. [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html) The Economist do cover their butts in the end by reporting that: > [@](#): > > Since CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, this could increase temperatures compared with pre-industrial levels by around 2°C even with a lower sensitivity and perhaps nearer to 4°C at the top end of the estimates. Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring. As a few climate scientists report, uncertainty is not your friend, assuming that all the bets will work to get us lower sensibility in the future is really reckless, specially when the ocean cycle then comes around and a good deal of that heat accumulated then comes out. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/6 "2013-06-28T20:53:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As Kinthalis pointed out, your main point is a straw man regarding what scientists report. How so? I never said that mainstream scientists predicted extinction; I said that some people on this board did. > [@](#): > > And as Skeptical Science reported, the problem with the Economist and others is that they are not reporting on the big picture: > > [Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html) The Economist article specifically addresses the issue of ocean heat content, as I said. It features a graph from the Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, showing a nearly flat trend for the past decade. The article you linked to has a graph of ocean heat content as well, looking quite different. I suppose before going further, we need to either reconcile the graphs or figure out which one is incorrect. As for the claim that “research has remained consistent with the IPCC range of 2–4.5°C equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2”, the Economist paper cites seven studies which predict a lower range of temperature increases. The predicted range from those studies seems to average around 1-3°C, which overlaps the IPCC’s predicted range, but if many studies are coming up with lower ranges, then policy thinking needs to take that into account. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/7 "2013-06-28T20:57:58Z")
I’m guessing the OP doesn’t live in the destroyed city of Calgary. > **[Calgary floods spotlight cities' costly failure to plan for climate change |...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary-floods-spotlight-cities-costly-failure-to-plan-for-climate-change-1.1308429)** > > Many Canadian cities and towns are ill-prepared for the rising frequency of catastrophic weather events like the southern Alberta floods, a costly delay that hits taxpayers' wallets, climate change experts say. ---
**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:** [June 28, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/8 "2013-06-28T21:05:16Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > How so? I never said that mainstream scientists predicted extinction; I said that some people on this board did. And as I pointed out already what you did in the OP was an example of “nut picking” not even I agreed with the OP there. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Economist article specifically addresses the issue of ocean heat content, as I said. It features a graph from the Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, showing a nearly flat trend for the past decade. The article you linked to has a graph of ocean heat content as well, looking quite different. I suppose before going further, we need to either reconcile the graphs or figure out which one is incorrect. As I noticed, his reliance on \*\*\*unpublished \*\*\*papers should be a very good clue who is more correct. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As for the claim that “research has remained consistent with the IPCC range of 2–4.5°C equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2”, the Economist paper cites seven studies which predict a lower range of temperature increases. The predicted range from those studies seems to average around 1-3°C, which overlaps the IPCC’s predicted range, but if many studies are coming up with lower ranges, then policy thinking needs to take that into account. Once again, even the report acknowledges they are reaching for unpublished reports and even the ones they mention: > [@](#): > > This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. Funny thing, that is also within what the IPCC mentions, I’m beginning to conclude that this non peer reviewed report is just attempting to claim that IPCC is alarmist when in reality they are just dealing (or cherry picking) with the reports that go for the low estimates. > [@](#): > > If such estimates were right, they would require revisions to the science of climate change and, possibly, to public policies. If, as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3°C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service: rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it. This is called “mitigation”, in the jargon. Moreover, if there were an outside possibility of something catastrophic, such as a 6°C rise, that could justify drastic interventions. This would be similar to taking out disaster insurance. It may seem an unnecessary expense when you are forking out for the premiums, but when you need it, you really need it. Many economists, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, have made this case. > > If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Nope, as I have read a lot of this I can report that there are many problems coming with a rise of 2°C and the IPCC has also reported on how it is not a good idea to count on humans to continue with a “business as usual” when all that increase in heat arrives. ---
**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:** [June 28, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/9 "2013-06-28T21:14:55Z")
And as the climate scientists at Realclimate reported: > **[RealClimate: Hit the brakes hard](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/hit-the-brakes-hard/)** > > RealClimate: There is a climate splash in Nature this week, including a cover showing a tera-tonne weight, presumably meant to be made of carbon (could it be graphite?), dangling by a thread over the planet, and containing two new articles (Allen et... > [@](#): > > We feel compelled to note that even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier. ---
**Author:** ![Independence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e274bd/32.png) [@Independence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Independence)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/10 "2013-06-28T21:49:44Z")
I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/11 "2013-06-28T21:53:05Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… It’s not a religion. ---
**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:** [June 28, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/12 "2013-06-28T21:53:34Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… > > Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. > > However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. You should know that for several years scientists explained why the current temperature change is different, so many times that even conservative scientists for years have recommend resources like Skeptical Science: You myth is just #1: > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/13 "2013-06-28T22:59:51Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. Yes, those are the key issues. The debate over AGW is a distraction from what we need to be focused on - pollution. ---
**Author:** ![toofs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@toofs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toofs)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/14 "2013-06-28T23:05:41Z")
And overpopulation. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/15 "2013-06-28T23:17:19Z")
If The Economist said pigs couldn’t fly, I would immediately invest in Airborne Porcine Futures. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/16 "2013-06-29T00:08:09Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > Yes, those are the key issues. The debate over AGW is a distraction from what we need to be focused on - pollution. Only that the ones that claim that it is a distraction from pollution are ignoring that it is very related. And if overpopulation was a show stopper then you need to explain why is it that we are not dying of cholera. And the answer is that several pollution items can be decoupled from overpopulation, otherwise it would had been impossible to control issues like cholera brought by human waste pollution. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/V7bmg65SS20/maxresdefault.jpg "How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20) ---
**Author:** ![Independence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e274bd/32.png) [@Independence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Independence)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/17 "2013-06-29T03:58:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It’s not a religion. Well, you wouldn’t know that from the way alarmist enviro fundies spin their “sky is falling” tales… ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/18 "2013-06-29T04:06:38Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > Well, you wouldn’t know that from the way alarmist enviro fundies spin their “sky is falling” tales… Once again, read the linked “enviro fundie” link in the OP, they are not respected at all. Now that that is out of the way, recalibrate your alarm system and realize that groups like the IPCC are **the moderate conservative ones** on this, and yes, they report that we have to control our emissions as the problems that we will get if we don’t are not going to be a walk in the park. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/19 "2013-06-29T06:35:57Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… > > Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. You clearly don’t understand the least little bit about the subject, then. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/20 "2013-06-29T07:19:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Lately we’ve been having [threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=683193) talking about how we should respond to the imminent extinction of the human race as a result of climate change. Is there some reason you were unable to convey your ideas without inaccurately describing the other side of the debate? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157.md?page=2)