Real survey of scientists about Global Warming

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That isnt what the article says though. The articles says they agree man contributes. Well no shit. I dont know many except the most rabid clueless nub that would say man doesnt contribute. Nobody is denying that. But they dont define what "significant" is.

So, your argument is that by "significant" they actually meant "insignificant"? :disgust:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Genx87
That isnt what the article says though. The articles says they agree man contributes. Well no shit. I dont know many except the most rabid clueless nub that would say man doesnt contribute. Nobody is denying that. But they dont define what "significant" is.

So, your argument is that by "significant" they actually meant "insignificant"? :disgust:

No, my argument is without defining what significant is the study and article is pointless.
The 97% figure is nearly irrelevant as well due to the question. Like I said there arent many people who will deny man contributes. The level of significance and what we can realisticall do about it is the debate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'd like to see this question on the survey: "Do you believe that the cosmic ray intensity and solar wind variations may be significant contributors to historically observed global warming and cooling trends?" And then include the astrophysicists in this little BS opinion poll and you'll quickly see the fallacy of this stupid "science by consensus" approach. It's very telling that this particular group of scientists were not surveyed. But hey?it does give you a clue of the total lack of objectivity by whoever drafted and conducted this survey. I'm very curious as to exactly who these people are as they weren't mentioned in the article and there was no link to the actual survey?.something smells funny here.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I'd like to see this question on the survey: "Do you believe that the cosmic ray intensity and solar wind variations may be significant contributors to historically observed global warming and cooling trends?" And then include the astrophysicists in this little BS opinion poll and you'll quickly see the fallacy of this stupid "science by consensus" approach. It's very telling that this particular group of scientists were not surveyed. But hey?it does give you a clue of the total lack of objectivity by whoever drafted and conducted this survey. I'm very curious as to exactly who these people are as they weren't mentioned in the article and there was no link to the actual survey?.something smells funny here.

Yeah, I thought the survey on Earth's climate would have been improved by including more people with limited knowledge of Earth's climate too.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

x2

I'll repost what was I posted in the locked repost of this topic....

Seriously OP?

If I ask 3000 religious people if BHO is the anti-christ, and the majority say "yes" does that mean he is? No. It's their opinion.

Man made global warming and global warming are not the same btw, and each provides a different answer. If the question said "Do you believe in global warming?", then they are just asking if you believe the Earth is warming which could be either natural (which happens) or man-made?

So all said and done.... This is a worthless survey and non-news...

Except they did not ask 3000 weather people, they asked people that were experts in this field. If you ask 3000 experts in religion that have knowlegde of the anti-christ then that be different. But religion is a "faith" belief. Climate is based on science.

And it is not a worthless survey as so many nuts, dailyTrash anyone, keep trying to say there is no warming at all.

While that is true, I find the man made GW crowd to be just as fanatic as the religious crowd.

I am not saying the planet is warming. I am not saying that humans have not (and are not) affecting their enviornment. I am not saying that we shouldn't work to change our ways to become more "green". I am not saying that we aren't a negative influence on our enviornment.

What I am saying is that I am not going to kill our economy, and spend so much money on "going green" that the economy collapses. Right now "green" tech is expensive on the whole. Personally I do things to try and help curb my "carbon footprint". I buy more energy effiecient products, because it saves me money and helps the enviornment. I have changed my habits to conserve and not be as wasteful, because I save money. I don't buy "carbon credits", I don't buy something more expensive because it is "green", I will buy something that is cheaper and happens to also save me money by being "green".

But none of that would change if GW was found to be wrong. I am not AGW, or GW, but believe we don't have a long enough record to really say for sure the cause. There are too many factors, and we simply haven't had enough time to measure accurately. Until that point comes though, we should work to become a "greener" society as long as the cost isn't too high.

 

[Ozoned]

I have a sister, one of those 20 year professional students, that would be considered a MMGW scientist. She has a real job now with US Geological survey. I do value her opinion, so I ask her. What do you think?

She replies, knowing the kind of person I am, to get your investments positioned to align with the MMGW nuts, and you are going to make a shit-load of money. It's a win-win situation, real or wrong.

 

[Harvey]

Still doubt global warning? Want more evidence? Want more immediacy? Try this from Reuters...

Antarctic ice shelf set to collapse due to warming

Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:14pm GMT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

WILKINS ICE SHELF, Antarctica (Reuters) - A huge Antarctic ice shelf is on the brink of collapse with just a sliver of ice holding it in place, the latest victim of global warming that is altering maps of the frozen continent.

"We've come to the Wilkins Ice Shelf to see its final death throes," David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), told Reuters after the first -- and probably last -- plane landed near the narrowest part of the ice.

The flat-topped shelf has an area of thousands of square kilometers, jutting 20 meters (65 ft) out of the sea off the Antarctic Peninsula.

But it is held together only by an ever-thinning 40-km (25-mile) strip of ice that has eroded to an hour-glass shape just 500 meters wide at its narrowest.

In 1950, the strip was almost 100 km wide.

"It really could go at any minute," Vaughan said on slushy snow in bright sunshine beside a red Twin Otter plane that landed on skis. He added that the ice bridge could linger weeks or months.

The Wilkins once covered 16,000 sq km (6,000 sq miles). It has lost a third of its area but is still about the size of Jamaica or the U.S. state of Connecticut. Once the strip breaks up, the sea is likely to sweep away much of the remaining ice.

Icebergs the shape and size of shopping malls already dot the sea around the shelf as it disintegrates. Seals bask in the southern hemisphere summer sunshine on icebergs by expanses of open water.

A year ago, BAS said the Wilkins was "hanging by a thread" after an aerial survey. "Miraculously we've come back a summer later and it's still here. If it was hanging by a thread last year, it's hanging by a filament this year," Vaughan said.

Nine other shelves have receded or collapsed around the Antarctic peninsula in the past 50 years, often abruptly like the Larsen A in 1995 or the Larsen B in 2002. The trend is widely blamed on climate change caused by heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels.

WARMING TO BLAME

"This ice shelf and the nine other shelves that we have seen with a similar trajectory are a consequence of warming," Vaughan said.

In total, about 25,000 sq km of ice shelves have been lost, changing maps of Antarctica. Ocean sediments indicate that some shelves had been in place for at least 10,000 years.

Vaughan stuck a GPS monitoring station on a long metal pole into the Wilkins ice on behalf of Dutch scientists. It will track ice movements via satellite.

The shelf is named after Australian George Hubert Wilkins, an early Antarctic aviator who is set to join an exclusive club of people who have a part of the globe named after them that later vanishes.

Loss of ice shelves does not raise sea levels significantly because the ice is floating and already mostly submerged by the ocean. But the big worry is that their loss will allow ice sheets on land to move faster, adding extra water to the seas.

Wilkins has almost no pent-up glaciers behind it. But ice shelves further south hold back vast volumes of ice. "When those are removed the glaciers will flow faster," Vaughan said.

Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) since 1950, the fastest rise in the southern hemisphere. There is little sign of warming elsewhere in Antarctica.

BAS scientists and two Reuters reporters stayed about an hour on the shelf at a point about 2 km wide.

"It's very unlikely that our presence here is enough to initiate any cracks," Vaughan said. "But it is likely to happen fairly soon, weeks to months, and I don't want to be here when it does."

The U.N. Climate Panel, of which Vaughan is a senior member, projected in 2007 that world sea levels were likely to rise by between 18 and 59 cm (7 and 23 inches) this century.

But it did not factor in any possible acceleration of ice loss from Antarctica. Even a small change in the rate could affect sea levels, and Antarctica's ice sheets contain enough water in total to raise world sea levels by 57 meters.

About 190 nations have agreed to work out a new U.N. treaty by the end of 2009 to slow global warming, reining in emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and factories.

(Editing by Andrew Roche)

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Man made GCC is a FACT:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate
change caused by human activities
is occurring now, and it is a growing
threat to society.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press..._climate_statement.pdf

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

AAAS History
Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more.
http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/

This is as official as it gets. The time to act was yesterday and you guys still try to argue ... :disgust:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Pedro69
Man made GCC is a FACT:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate
change caused by human activities
is occurring now, and it is a growing
threat to society.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press..._climate_statement.pdf

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

AAAS History
Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more.
http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/

This is as official as it gets. The time to act was yesterday and you guys still try to argue ... :disgust:

Vote for Pedro :roll:

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: JS80

Vote for Pedro :roll:

I love how you take apart the article and back it up with facts :thumbsup:

Guess I just got owned by you :laugh:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: JS80

Vote for Pedro :roll:

I love how you take apart the article and back it up with facts :thumbsup:

Guess I just got owned by you :laugh:

great job with the "facts" Pedro.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: JS80

great job with the "facts" Pedro.

I see you can't be bothered to look it up yourself:

Climate change is real There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world?s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth ? in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ? including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide ? to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today ? higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth?s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/audio-video...bali-video-message.mpg

Still waiting on your peer-reviewed rebuttal my friend.

This just made the headlines for today:
Antarctic ice shelf on brink of collapse hangs on by a thread

Oh and another thing. When you are finished with gathering the facts here is the contact page of AAAS so you can let them know they are wrong: http://www.aaas.org/contact.shtml
I am sure they will appreciate it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: JS80

great job with the "facts" Pedro.

I see you can't be bothered to look it up yourself:

Climate change is real There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world?s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth ? in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ? including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide ? to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today ? higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth?s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/audio-video...bali-video-message.mpg

Still waiting on your peer-reviewed rebuttal my friend.

This just made the headlines for today:
Antarctic ice shelf on brink of collapse hangs on by a thread

Oh and another thing. When you are finished with gathering the facts here is the contact page of AAAS so you can let them know they are wrong: http://www.aaas.org/contact.shtml
I am sure they will appreciate it.

:thumbsup: your copy paste skills are great. you win Pedro. congrats.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: JS80
:thumbsup: your copy paste skills are great. you win Pedro. congrats.

Thanks man ... I tried my best. Though I have to admit that I used macros.

Let me know when I can read the revised version from AAAS. They gonna be sooo surprised that they were wrong all this time.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: JS80
:thumbsup: your copy paste skills are great. you win Pedro. congrats.

Thanks man ... I tried my best. Though I have to admit that I used macros.

Let me know when I can read the revised version from AAAS. They gonna be sooo surprised that they were wrong all this time.

Pedro, take it from someone who has wasted a lot of time in global warming threads on here. You're wasting your time. ATPN and Dailytech are (for reasons beyond me) home of some of the most rabid global warming deniers that exist. You won't dent them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Still doubt global warning? Want more evidence? Want more immediacy? Try this from Reuters...

Antarctic ice shelf set to collapse due to warming

Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:14pm GMT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

WILKINS ICE SHELF, Antarctica (Reuters) - A huge Antarctic ice shelf is on the brink of collapse with just a sliver of ice holding it in place, the latest victim of global warming that is altering maps of the frozen continent.

"We've come to the Wilkins Ice Shelf to see its final death throes," David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), told Reuters after the first -- and probably last -- plane landed near the narrowest part of the ice.

The flat-topped shelf has an area of thousands of square kilometers, jutting 20 meters (65 ft) out of the sea off the Antarctic Peninsula.

But it is held together only by an ever-thinning 40-km (25-mile) strip of ice that has eroded to an hour-glass shape just 500 meters wide at its narrowest.

In 1950, the strip was almost 100 km wide.

"It really could go at any minute," Vaughan said on slushy snow in bright sunshine beside a red Twin Otter plane that landed on skis. He added that the ice bridge could linger weeks or months.

The Wilkins once covered 16,000 sq km (6,000 sq miles). It has lost a third of its area but is still about the size of Jamaica or the U.S. state of Connecticut. Once the strip breaks up, the sea is likely to sweep away much of the remaining ice.

Icebergs the shape and size of shopping malls already dot the sea around the shelf as it disintegrates. Seals bask in the southern hemisphere summer sunshine on icebergs by expanses of open water.

A year ago, BAS said the Wilkins was "hanging by a thread" after an aerial survey. "Miraculously we've come back a summer later and it's still here. If it was hanging by a thread last year, it's hanging by a filament this year," Vaughan said.

Nine other shelves have receded or collapsed around the Antarctic peninsula in the past 50 years, often abruptly like the Larsen A in 1995 or the Larsen B in 2002. The trend is widely blamed on climate change caused by heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels.

WARMING TO BLAME

"This ice shelf and the nine other shelves that we have seen with a similar trajectory are a consequence of warming," Vaughan said.

In total, about 25,000 sq km of ice shelves have been lost, changing maps of Antarctica. Ocean sediments indicate that some shelves had been in place for at least 10,000 years.

Vaughan stuck a GPS monitoring station on a long metal pole into the Wilkins ice on behalf of Dutch scientists. It will track ice movements via satellite.

The shelf is named after Australian George Hubert Wilkins, an early Antarctic aviator who is set to join an exclusive club of people who have a part of the globe named after them that later vanishes.

Loss of ice shelves does not raise sea levels significantly because the ice is floating and already mostly submerged by the ocean. But the big worry is that their loss will allow ice sheets on land to move faster, adding extra water to the seas.

Wilkins has almost no pent-up glaciers behind it. But ice shelves further south hold back vast volumes of ice. "When those are removed the glaciers will flow faster," Vaughan said.

Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) since 1950, the fastest rise in the southern hemisphere. There is little sign of warming elsewhere in Antarctica.

BAS scientists and two Reuters reporters stayed about an hour on the shelf at a point about 2 km wide.

"It's very unlikely that our presence here is enough to initiate any cracks," Vaughan said. "But it is likely to happen fairly soon, weeks to months, and I don't want to be here when it does."

The U.N. Climate Panel, of which Vaughan is a senior member, projected in 2007 that world sea levels were likely to rise by between 18 and 59 cm (7 and 23 inches) this century.

But it did not factor in any possible acceleration of ice loss from Antarctica. Even a small change in the rate could affect sea levels, and Antarctica's ice sheets contain enough water in total to raise world sea levels by 57 meters.

About 190 nations have agreed to work out a new U.N. treaty by the end of 2009 to slow global warming, reining in emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and factories.

(Editing by Andrew Roche)

Wilkins Ice Shelf On Antarctic Peninsula

Major Volcanoes of the Antarctica

GISS Map Showing Elevated Water Temperatures In Area of Highest Volcanic Activity

Buried Volcano Recently Discovered in Antarctica (located near Pine Island Glacier on Antarctic Peninsula)
It's roughly the size of New Jersey and is located under the ice on the Antartic Peninsula. Funny that you don't hear much about thess little tidbits of information nor mention of the possibility that these active volcanos may be the culprit here.

 

[BigDH01]

No one will be dented here because GW has become politicized. Once this subject stepped into the realm of politics, any possibility of scientific debate, consensus, and action disappeared. This applies to everyone in my opinion.

Politics serve a huge disservice to mankind.

 

[NeoV]

OMG - Doc Savage to the rescue - he's figured out that it's really a series of volcanoes, all over the world, that are causing temperatures to rise - why didn't any of the ACTUAL Scientists consider that?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: NeoV
OMG - Doc Savage to the rescue - he's figured out that it's really a series of volcanoes, all over the world, that are causing temperatures to rise - why didn't any of the ACTUAL Scientists consider that?

I dunno...can you tell me?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Still doubt global warning? Want more evidence? Want more immediacy? Try this from Reuters...

Finally, some real evidence presented. :thumbsup:

Here is a good one too:

Scientists drill back in time in Antarctica
http://www.reuters.com/article...ws/idUSB38829120061215

Over the last 4 million years or so, Niessen said, there is evidence of some five such warm periods in Antarctica.

...

"We think this has happened quite a few times in the past," and it suggests that at some stage the ice shelf will do the same thing again, Niessen said. "With global warming, we'll probably go back to these kinds of conditions which would definitely be different than today."

"It's very dynamic," he said. "This is the basic message which we are taking home here: We're looking at a very dynamic system."

 

[miniMUNCH]

PhD chemical engineer here... several of my PhD friends did climate/polution modeling for their PhD (one of the top groups in the world).

Sorry... the conclusions being drawn from the data and models are bullshit. Even most of my climate modeling friends would never go so far as make any of claims being put forth by the IPCC.

Look OP and others on here... many of you don't understand the math, the modeling, how the data is acquired, processed, massaged and then statistically mapped and compared to the models. They are making way more claims than the radical uncertainty of their data and models merit. Bottom line.

Many renown climate experts have said the same... some even who authored the original IPCC report.

You wan't to do something real? Limit your purchase of plastic goods to an absolute bare minimum...buy stuff in aluminum, glass, or paper containers.... not plastic. WE are putting a shit ton of plastic and fertilizer/industrial waste into the ocean and we are seriously fucking up the ecology of our oceans.

 

[Borealis7]

You're all so concerned with Global Waming while Global Dimming is what you should REALLY be afraid of.

Let me Google that for you

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
You wan't to do something real? Limit your purchase of plastic goods to an absolute bare minimum...buy stuff in aluminum, glass, or paper containers.... not plastic. WE are putting a shit ton of plastic and fertilizer/industrial waste into the ocean and we are seriously fucking up the ecology of our oceans.

What if we recycle the plastic?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
You're all so concerned with Global Waming while Global Dimming is what you should REALLY be afraid of.

Correlated Trends!

We need more volcanoes and sulfates! :shocked:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Pedro69

Originally posted by: JS80

great job with the "facts" Pedro.

I see you can't be bothered to look it up yourself:

Climate change is real There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world?s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth ? in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ? including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide ? to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today ? higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth?s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/audio-video...bali-video-message.mpg

Still waiting on your peer-reviewed rebuttal my friend.

This just made the headlines for today:
Antarctic ice shelf on brink of collapse hangs on by a thread

Oh and another thing. When you are finished with gathering the facts here is the contact page of AAAS so you can let them know they are wrong: http://www.aaas.org/contact.shtml
I am sure they will appreciate it.

Do you realize your quote above is from the 2001 IPC study that has been revised a few times already, downward, because it was found to be overstating its case? In addition, the most they can say is:

"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2"

Likely? All their studies and that's the best conclusion they can come up with?

Look, I completely agree that "climate change" is happening. More than likely man-made emmissions is contributing somewhat to that process. However, I completely disagree that human activities are at fault for anywhere near the majority of our climate change. If it were that simple climatoglogists could easily model the factor of manmade emmissions into their euqations. Yet, for some reason, NONE of the climatologists have been able to produce a model yet that reliaby mimics what we see happening to the global climate. The conclusion from that is simple. Something is happening that is not being incorporated into the models. We are missing something and that something is not manmade, because we can account for own own contributions to the atmosphere.

I'll reiterate what miniMUNCH already wrote:

PhD chemical engineer here... several of my PhD friends did climate/polution modeling for their PhD (one of the top groups in the world).

Sorry... the conclusions being drawn from the data and models are bullshit. Even most of my climate modeling friends would never go so far as make any of claims being put forth by the IPCC.

Look OP and others on here... many of you don't understand the math, the modeling, how the data is acquired, processed, massaged and then statistically mapped and compared to the models. They are making way more claims than the radical uncertainty of their data and models merit. Bottom line.

Many renown climate experts have said the same... some even who authored the original IPCC report.

You wan't to do something real? Limit your purchase of plastic goods to an absolute bare minimum...buy stuff in aluminum, glass, or paper containers.... not plastic. WE are putting a shit ton of plastic and fertilizer/industrial waste into the ocean and we are seriously fucking up the ecology of our oceans.

Best post made in here so far.