1) That's under debate, as the data, depending on how it's interpreted, can lso show the temperature has DROPPED.
2) Greenhouse gasses, as released by humans are a drop in a very large bucket. We don't even come close, by orders to magnitude, to what nature is doing by itself.
3) These same models can't accurately predict weather a week from now, and their ability to predict even a year ahead is usually not discernable from chance guesses. It is generally accepted by climatologists that even now, the models are woefully inadequate. You expect me to believe they can predict 10, 20, 50, or even 100 years from now?
4) No, there isn't. There is a lot of stats that people choose to interpret that way. There's just as much evidence that the sun's activity caused any possible warming.
5) Prove that that will have a noticable affect over anything else - like volcanoes or the sun, for instance.
6) The IPCC is a sham. More than half the members at the last meeting had no scientific credentials at all - and heck, just GOING to the IPCC means that you are somehow signing on to anything they report. An increasing number of scientists BOYCOTT the IPCC meetings because they're a political entity, not a scientific one.
HOWEVER, please don't take this to mean I don't support initiatives to reduce pollution and energy use and to improve our society's energy efficiency. In fact, I'm a strong and vocal supporter of them.
I just question anything that claims we've had a bigger effect on the climate than the natural processes that have been shaping it for the last several billion years, and claims to show a trend based on the eyeblink of data we have.--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"
2) Greenhouse gasses, as released by humans are a drop in a very large bucket. We don't even come close, by orders to magnitude, to what nature is doing by itself.
3) These same models can't accurately predict weather a week from now, and their ability to predict even a year ahead is usually not discernable from chance guesses. It is generally accepted by climatologists that even now, the models are woefully inadequate. You expect me to believe they can predict 10, 20, 50, or even 100 years from now?
4) No, there isn't. There is a lot of stats that people choose to interpret that way. There's just as much evidence that the sun's activity caused any possible warming.
5) Prove that that will have a noticable affect over anything else - like volcanoes or the sun, for instance.
6) The IPCC is a sham. More than half the members at the last meeting had no scientific credentials at all - and heck, just GOING to the IPCC means that you are somehow signing on to anything they report. An increasing number of scientists BOYCOTT the IPCC meetings because they're a political entity, not a scientific one.
HOWEVER, please don't take this to mean I don't support initiatives to reduce pollution and energy use and to improve our society's energy efficiency. In fact, I'm a strong and vocal supporter of them.
I just question anything that claims we've had a bigger effect on the climate than the natural processes that have been shaping it for the last several billion years, and claims to show a trend based on the eyeblink of data we have.--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"