There’s no question that it’s the norm. The question is whether we are causing an accelerated change outside of the normal fluctuations.
Well, yes, a 4-degree rise in one day makes no difference. But we’re talking about a 4-degree rise in the average temperature over year. So, it might be normally 4C in the Winter and 28C in the Summer. This might increase to 8C in the Winter and 32C in the Summer.
Even then, it will still take many years for the damage to happen.
Yeah, perfectly true and well known. Everything expands as it gets hotter, liquids and solids too. Have you ever wondered what makes the level in a thermometer go up as the temerature rises? It’s the expansion of the liquid in the bulb.
Actually, it’s absolutely true. Lomborg published and was excoriated by other scientists - the DCSD said he was ‘objectively dishonest’ - but was later vindicated by the Danish Ministry of Science.
See http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233
It might be worth your while checking your statements before you post.
Walk down a road on a cold winter’s day and walk up to a bonfire. Although the road was cold, the air near the bonfire is warm and toasty. Now imagine yourself walking down that same winter’s road and being as warm as standing next to a bonfire. Wouldn’t you say something’s amiss?
Also rubbish. Lomborg was not “vindicated” by the Danish Ministry of Science. They just criticized the DSCD for not having sufficiently documented the methods by which they came to their conclusions. They did not indicate that Lomborg was correct.
Many other scientists have provided detailed critiques of Lomborg’s methods and conclusions. A summary of some of them can be found in the Scientific American article: Misleading Math about the Earth. Lomborg has been criticized by scientists not because he is “polically incorrect” but because his science is bad.
Many respected scientists have published articles critical of or contrary to one or another aspect of global climate change theory. Some of these criticisms have held up, and others have not. But as long as their data and methodology have been legitimate, they have not been “excoriated” or criticized by other scientists just for having gone against the conventional wisdom. The cardinal sin for scientists is not iconoclasm, but bad science.
Fifteen years ago there was no strong consensus in the scientific community about the reality of Global Warming. Many scientists at that time felt that it was likely, but that the evidence was not yet conclusive. Since that time sufficient evidence has accumulated that it has convinced most remaining skeptics beyond a reasonable doubt.
You’re right about that - global warming has gotten the label “Politically Correct” attached to it. Think about that. Who would admit to being “Politically Correct”? It’s amazing to me that the vast majority of people I’ve discussed it with believe either that global warming is a fiction, or that it’s “still unproven”. And yet these folks still manage to believe that they’re the freethinking minority. It’s amazing how insidious and effective propaganda has been in some areas. Repeat lines like “unproven theory” often enough, and people will start to believe it’s true. The scary part is that they’re working on doing the same thing with natural selection.
Except that climate scientists aren’t saying more tests are required. It’s energy companies and Republican politicians who claim it’s still unproven.
No offense, but what basis do you or I have to draw our own conclusions? I don’t know about this shit. However, the great majority of scientists with expertise in the field agree, and that’s about the best I can do to decide. I’d rather be with the scientists than against them - seems like a safer bet.
Lions at least were very widespread in prehistoric times. I’m not quite sure when they died, but I’ve never heard that they were confined to tropical areas. I think they lived in cool and temperate regions. It’s just that they went extinct in most of their habitat, and the places they happen to remain are tropical now.
WTF?
Is this for real? I had to double-check to make sure I wasn’t looking at The Onion.
Whatever is the next stage beyond being boggled, is the stage that my mind is at after reading that.
Why can nobody in charge of anything ever look beyond short-term profits?
The only reason scientists reputation is ‘tarnished’ is because of oil and other companies’ massive spending on PR. Not particularly suprising that they’ll spend money to protect their core business, of course, but doesn’t mean that we have to believe them. They’d also like you to believe that driving more and faster makes you sexier, cures bad breath, and makes your farts smell like roses.
As Colibri and others have said, real scientific consensus is overwhelming that Global Climate change is real and that human actions are a major factor. Of course you can find someone who disagrees; if you look hard enough you can find someone who thinks that cold fusion works, gravity is imaginary, and Michael Jordan sucked at basketball, but that doesn’t mean that the issue is really in doubt. And make no mistake, fossil fuel companies have spent millions to find the few doubters and have spent millions more giving them a megaphone so that it sounds like there is a real question, when it’s really two guys with a megaphone against 998 others.