Global Warming models shot to hell!

[MKSheppard]

http://spacedaily.com/news/020910020829.wq287cho.html

Extreme cold over South Pole reveals global warming models are wrong

AUCKLAND (AFP) Sep 10, 2002

A discovery that it is much colder over the South Pole than believed has exposed a major flaw in the computer models used to predict global warming, a new scientific paper claims.

US scientists based at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station say they have measured the temperature of the atmosphere 30 to 110 kilometres (18 to 68 miles) over the pole and found it is 20 to 30 degrees Centigrade (68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than computer models showed.

Various models are used to predict global climate and some assumptions have had to be made, including air temperatures over Antarctica.

Chester Gardner, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois, Weilin Pan, a doctoral student at Illinois and Ray Roble of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research writing in the American Geophysical Union Letters say the models are wrong.

"Because of the obvious challenges, until now, the only temperature data we have had from either the North or South Poles has been from surface measurements and weather balloons that don't go any higher than about 20-30 kilometres (12-18 miles)," Gardner told AFP.

The researchers used a laser radar system from the South Pole to make the first measurements of the temperature higher up and found it was much colder than assumed.

Global warming could be caused by greater concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is a strong absorber of infrared radiation.

In the lower atmosphere CO2 absorbs the heat. While CO2 also emits heat other CO2 absorbs it. In the thinner stratosphere and mesosphere, much of the heat emitted by CO2 is radiated into space and so in the upper atmosphere the primary affect of CO2 is cooling.

"Thus as CO2 levels continue to rise in the atmosphere, we expect the lower atmosphere to continue warming while the upper atmosphere ... will cool."

During winter Antarctica receives little sunlight and its atmosphere is sealed off by a vortex of winds preventing warmer air from lower latitudes travelling to the pole.

"As a consequence the region cools to very low temperatures in winter, primarily by radiation of heat into space."

In May, June and July the stratopause was considerably colder than model predictions. The greatest difference occurred in July, when the measured stratopause temperature was about minus 17 degrees C (0 degrees F) to about 4 degrees C (40 degrees F) predicted by the models.

"Current global circulation models apparently over- predict the amount of down-welling, because they show warmer temperatures than we observed," Gardner said.

Their measurements will be a baseline for future temperature studies.

"We believe a major flaw in current models is the way they account for compressional heating associated with down welling over the polar cap in winter," Gardner said.

"Of course you and I are really not interested in what happens above the South Pole. We do care about what happens where we live. Models can help predict those changes due to rising CO2 levels but only if we believe they give accurate results.

"Our South Pole measurements will help the modellers and theoreticians better understand the atmosphere and incorporate that understanding in their models, making their future predictions more accurate."

[Singular Quartet]

Okay, fine. Some fo the models are wrong. But that doesn't mean globel warming isn't happening. For the last few years, Massachusetts has been having extremly mild winters.

Also: The computer models are all different. There have been a few hundred kicked around the scietific community for the last few years, and they'll fall back on some of the other ones. This just probably goes against the one that most people were thinking was correct. Remember, the farther ahead you get, the less likely the Weather is going to properly predicted.

[Mr Bean]

Just more examples of Chaos theroy and why not to trust computer models as.... cannon

[Wicked Pilot]

Okay, fine. Some of the models are wrong. But that doesn't mean globel warming isn't happening. For the last few years, Massachusetts has been having extremly mild winters.

Global warming has been observed. But the real question is if it's human caused, or if it's part of a larger climate change. The temp has only rised about 2 degrees Farenheit since the turn of the century. That's nothing compared to other natural climate changes in the past. Sure we could try to cut down carbon dioxide emmissions, but there is no guarentee that will have any effect. But in the process, it would seriousily hurt the world's economy. Global warming is a serious issue, and diserves serious study. But we need to be thorough about this before we start trying to change the world. Besides, there are other more pressing environmental needs, like smog in the cities, toxins and heavy metals in lakes, overflowing landfills, etc. Let's concentrate on problems that we know exist, before tackling those we are unsure of.

[Sea Skimmer]

Okay, fine. Some fo the models are wrong. But that doesn't mean globel warming isn't happening. For the last few years, Massachusetts has been having extremly mild winters.

.

Actually, global warming should give you much worse winters in many cases, as there is a lot moister in the atmosphere.

And of course, Russia for the last two years had had extream cold..

[Durandal]

Global warming is only one aspect of a larger issue. Whether or not it's accurate is essentially irrelevant, and it's only been made that way by politicians.

Here's the main argument that the environmentalists are using. You'll note the words "global" and "warming" are absent.

IT'S NOT HEALTHY TO PUMP CARCINOGENS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Global warming is a possible side effect that is being studied, but you'd have to be intolerably stupid (read: George W. Bush-stupid) to think that we don't need to reduce the amount of shit with pump into the air every day.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Anyway, the environmentalists admit that it's not humatiy's fault for global warming. They've decided to blame it on America.


We're comparing the temperature change for 100 years past, but not 1000 years past, or 100,000 years past.

[weemadando]

Though I am concerned about the immediate effects of global warming, the fact remains that we don't know for sure whether or not it may be a natural climate cycle.

Sure industrialisation might have accelerated it, but evolution will prevail!

[Joe]

Sadly, the Romans never got around to launching weather satellites. We simply don't have enough data to compare recent warming trends against. No way around it.

[The Kaiser]

Sadly, the Romans never got around to launching weather satellites. We simply don't have enough data to compare recent warming trends against. No way around it.

Damned lazy Romans.

[Sea Skimmer]

Sadly, the Romans never got around to launching weather satellites. We simply don't have enough data to compare recent warming trends against. No way around it.

We'll ice core sampling can give you the general trend, which hosws that our current climate changes are not radicall at all and that far more extram things have happened on a regular basis for some time.

[Alyeska]

I have seen several computer models that note that Global Warming will cause the tropics and mid climate areas quite warm while the arctic and antiarctic will actually become much colder.

[Crown]

This isn't really in direct responce to this thread, however the theme is the same. I apologise if I generalise here, but this really gets my goat....


I am soo sick of bloody sceptic Americans; Ooph global warming doesn't exist, Oooh the ozone layer is fine. You know what I say to that. FUCK YOU!

Come down to the land down under for one fucking summer, and then we will see how quickly you fucking develope skin cancer. We will see how you feel when washing your car, makes you feel like a fucking criminal because there is a fucking drought been going on for three years!

You fucking polluting, non thinking bastards!

Once again I apologise for the generalisation. It just really gets my goat. Crown.

[Joe]

Yes, damn us Americans, who actually require solid scientific evidence to back up ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality before taking steps to correct a nonexistent problem!

And we have hot weather in America, too, believe it or not. Ever spent a summer in Arizona?

[Sea Skimmer]

This isn't really in direct responce to this thread, however the theme is the same. I apologise if I generalise here, but this really gets my goat....


I am soo sick of bloody sceptic Americans; Ooph global warming doesn't exist, Oooh the ozone layer is fine. You know what I say to that. FUCK YOU!

Come down to the land down under for one fucking summer, and then we will see how quickly you fucking develope skin cancer. We will see how you feel when washing your car, makes you feel like a fucking criminal because there is a fucking drought been going on for three years!

You fucking polluting, non thinking bastards!

Once again I apologise for the generalisation. It just really gets my goat. Crown.

Lets see America has about 48% of the worlds GDP and produces 25% of the pollution while using 12% of the power.
Who is the polluter, America or the rest of the world, which creates three times the pollution to create the same GDP?

[Nick]

Yes, damn us Americans, who actually require solid scientific evidence to back up ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality before taking steps to correct a nonexistent problem!

Riiight. . .

Scientist: We have reason to believe that pumping excessive amounts of C02 into the atmosphere is a generally bad plan. We aren't sure of the _exact_ effects we can expect to see, or exactly how bad they will be, but the phrase "definitely not good" comes to mind.

Conservationist: So, reducing CO2 emissions is likely to be beneficial?

Scientist: Yes. Limiting technological C02 emissions keeps us closer to the pre-industrial status quo. Our models require a great deal of refinement before we can be confident in their long-term accuracy, but many models with a wide variety of starting assumptions indicate that a lower rate of CO2 emissions will have beneficial effects on the state of the environment.

Conversationist: Right, we'll take reasonable steps to limit our CO2 production, then.

Preservationist-moron (aka Greenpeace-nutter): Ban all industry!

Industrialist-moron (aka Dubya): Leave us alone to produce as much CO2 as we want, until you can provide us with the exact description of why CO2 is bad, and exactly what the effects of our current level of production will be, and provide us with 100% that you're not some lefty scum trying to screw over our profit margins!

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, damn us Americans, who actually require solid scientific evidence to back up ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality before taking steps to correct a nonexistent problem!

Industrialist-moron (aka Dubya): Leave us alone to produce as much CO2 as we want, until you can provide us with the exact description of why CO2 is bad, and exactly what the effects of our current level of production will be, and provide us with 100% that you're not some lefty scum trying to screw over our profit margins!

More like "Provide proof that these proposed changes will have any effect what so ever on the climate change. Will reducing emissions actually matter at all beyond costing money and stunting economical growth?"

The answer in most cases has been NO; the change to the climate can't be reversed or significantly slowed by such measures, but they sure will cost hundreds of billions."

Any you wonder why only one nation in Europe, and the whole of three IIRC world wide ratified Kyoto..

[Crown]

Yes, damn us Americans, who actually require solid scientific evidence to back up ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality before taking steps to correct a nonexistent problem!

You are not actually claiming that evidence of the damaged ozone layer hasn't already been presented are you?

And we have hot weather in America, too, believe it or not. Ever spent a summer in Arizona?

Ahh, you see that is a brain bug, because skin cancer isn't solely dependant on the presence of heat, but the concentration of UV radiation. You see higher Latitudes, the sun is lower on the horizon and thus the UV rays, have to travel through more atmosphere before they reach the surface, thus they are dispersed. However, you can even be burned through heavy cloud cover, one might think that clouds actually stop UV rays, but they don't.

Now you might ask how does that work since Australia has one of the worlds highest levels of skin cancer, and I would respond I am glad you asked! You see there is this thing that is known as the ozone layer, the is basically O3, that absorbs the harmfull UV rays. However scientists have detected a hole in this layer centered over Antarctica. Now this hole allows the harmfull UV rays to pass through with minimal absorbtion, thus countries in the southern hemisphere are at more risk.

The good news however is that NASA scientists also state that there is a second hole opening up over the Northern hemisphere, so our Nothern compatriots no longer have to miss out on all the malonoma fun!

Lets see America has about 48% of the worlds GDP and produces 25% of the pollution while using 12% of the power.
Who is the polluter, America or the rest of the world, which creates three times the pollution to create the same GDP?

Nice figures mind if I borrow them? America produces 25% of the worlds pollution? So a country of popullation say 250 million people, out of a world population of 6 billion produces 25% of the worlds pollution, right? I am correct? So doing the math, 250 million of a total population of 6 billion, is 4% of the worlds population. So according to you 4% of the worlds population produces 25% of the pollution. And you don't see anyting incriminating in that?

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, damn us Americans, who actually require solid scientific evidence to back up ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality before taking steps to correct a nonexistent problem!

You are not actually claiming that evidence of the damaged ozone layer hasn't already been presented are you?

And we have hot weather in America, too, believe it or not. Ever spent a summer in Arizona?

Ahh, you see that is a brain bug, because skin cancer isn't solely dependant on the presence of heat, but the concentration of UV radiation. You see higher Latitudes, the sun is lower on the horizon and thus the UV rays, have to travel through more atmosphere before they reach the surface, thus they are dispersed. However, you can even be burned through heavy cloud cover, one might think that clouds actually stop UV rays, but they don't.

Now you might ask how does that work since Australia has one of the worlds highest levels of skin cancer, and I would respond I am glad you asked! You see there is this thing that is known as the ozone layer, the is basically O3, that absorbs the harmfull UV rays. However scientists have detected a hole in this layer centered over Antarctica. Now this hole allows the harmfull UV rays to pass through with minimal absorbtion, thus countries in the southern hemisphere are at more risk.

The good news however is that NASA scientists also state that there is a second hole opening up over the Northern hemisphere, so our Nothern compatriots no longer have to miss out on all the malonoma fun!

Lets see America has about 48% of the worlds GDP and produces 25% of the pollution while using 12% of the power.
Who is the polluter, America or the rest of the world, which creates three times the pollution to create the same GDP?

Nice figures mind if I borrow them? America produces 25% of the worlds pollution? So a country of popullation say 250 million people, out of a world population of 6 billion produces 25% of the worlds pollution, right? I am correct? So doing the math, 250 million of a total population of 6 billion, is 4% of the worlds population. So according to you 4% of the worlds population produces 25% of the pollution. And you don't see anyting incriminating in that?

Nope, because we accomplish far more with it then the rest of the world.

And guess what, the south Ozone layer's hole is filling IN. It is moving, but within 100 years it will be completely gone. So much for the end of the earth perdictions.

[Crown]

Nope, because we accomplish far more with it then the rest of the world.

Really, and tell me O perpetrator of 1001 unfounded claims; what exactly do you accomplish with this pollution? Do you metamorph it into gold? Using age old Alchemy techniques? Hmmm?

And guess what, the south Ozone layer's hole is filling IN. It is moving, but within 100 years it will be completely gone. So much for the end of the earth perdictions.

Now, I will assume that you are telling the truth, I am very trusting in that regard. Why is the Ozone 'fillinf in'? Would it be because of the educational campaign that was wagged in order to stop the manufacture, production and use of CFC's, Ozone's most damaging enemy? Then wouldn't your point be an argument for heeding the warnings for global warming and Ozone protection? Or do you fail to see that too?

[The Kaiser]

Nope, because we accomplish far more with it then the rest of the world.

And just what, precisely, are we Americans accomplishing? Between our pathetic attempts at education (this comming from a recent high school graduate), that jem I call the media and that juggernaut of an economy it doesn't look like we're really using that 25% like we should.

I suppose I should throw in my two cents, though I doubt anyone cares. It would be pointless to run around in circles, screaming bloody murder. But American industry hasn't made much of an attempt at research, have they? As one of the supposedly most scientifically oriented nations in the world it seems like we could make the effort. But then, why would the tabacco industry sabatage itself by admitting they cause cancer?

[Sea Skimmer]

Really, and tell me O perpetrator of 1001 unfounded claims; what exactly do you accomplish with this pollution? Do you metamorph it into gold? Using age old Alchemy techniques? Hmmm?

America accomplishes a 10 Trillion dollar GDP. The rest of the world has about the same, but accomplishes it by creating three times the pollution. America makes more money, a huge amount of which goes into medical technology which does befit the whole world, and quite a bit gets shipped overseas thanks the US's trade deficit. The US economy is far more productive then any other per capita, and also quite clean for the GDP.

Now, I will assume that you are telling the truth, I am very trusting in that regard. Why is the Ozone 'fillinf in'? Would it be because of the educational campaign that was wagged in order to stop the manufacture, production and use of CFC's, Ozone's most damaging enemy? Then wouldn't your point be an argument for heeding the warnings for global warming and Ozone protection? Or do you fail to see that too?

Do you fail to see that I never said reducing CFC production was a bad thing; you brought up the entire ozone topic on your own BTW. However CFC's where known to be the cause of ozone depletion before production was phased down, and reliable models were produced which showed such was a worth while thing, today we do not know why the hole is closing and can only suspect, though CFC reductions are likely behind it. Course we don’t even seem to know how long the hole had been growing for.

Human produced CO2 is NOT however known to be behind global climate change, it is however known that far more radical climate changes have been happening since before humanity discovered fire. It is also not known if feasible CO2 production reductions would have any effect on the change at all, many models which assume CO2 is in fact behind the changes, indicate that it would in fact not have any effect.

Then of course there's the fact that while ground stations, many of which are located in very built up urban areas, show a warming trend, weather satellite show a cooling trend for the world and balloons returned mixed results.

Conclusive proof does not exist, and even if it did the rest of the world pays little more attention to it then the United States does. Kyoto was signed by over a hundred nations, ratified by the whole of three with the rest rejecting. All three that ratified were subject to less strict regulations then America or Western Europe and Japan. In Kyoto the worst polluting factories are the ones, which receive the least regulation…

Then there's the revised Kyoto, something so watered down most experts who supported the first one were angered and said it would have no effect at all. Course even this watered down treaty has met with only moderate support. To come into effect nations representing 50% of the signers pollution quotas must sign it. About 40% of the nations at the second conference wouldn't ratify.

And in the end, Russia was given such a huge share, far more then they need even without any addition restriction on pollution that they can sell the remaining and make tens of billions.

Real effective hun? One of the worlds largest industrialized nations doesn’t even have to cut production so CO2 to comply with the Treaty. That should go a long way towards emission reduction..


So you can kindly stop dumping on the efficient United States when those you create more for less still only take minimal and by all accounts worthless, measures to curb them.

When the percentage of pollution matches that of GDP, then the US should by all rights make efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, assuming that by the time that happens someone can actually pout together a real case for human caused climate change without having new evidence or another study at the same time invalidating it.

[Nick]

So, are we arguing about whether CO2 might be having a negative effect on the environment, or are we arguing about whether the Kyoto protocols were practicable?

See, what your doing SeaSkimmer, is shifting the burden of proof the wrong way. Ecologists have provided plenty of evidence that suggests CO2 might be having a harmful effect on the environment. Consequently, attempting to limit global production of CO2 is a good idea. However (like most people commiting the burden of proof fallacy), those who would bear the brunt of the costs of reducing pollution seize on the existence of doubt and say "Well, you haven't proven that CO2 cause environmental damage, so why should we incur the costs of limiting our output?"

Let's consider the options here:

1. CO2 is a problem, CO2 output is reduced
The ecologists are right, the CO2 output gets reduced, and direct benefits occur (even if they are not easily attributable). The cost of reducing the CO2 output was actually worthwhile, but the people who paid it will grumble and claim the benefits don't actually exist.

2. CO2 is not a problem, CO2 output is reduced
The ecologists are wrong, but the CO2 output gets reduced anyway. The cost of reducing the CO2 output wasn't actually worthwhile, so the people who paid it will grumble and point out the benefits never actually eventuated.

3. CO2 is not a problem, CO2 output is not reduced
Status quo. Everyone's happy.

4. CO2 is a problem, CO2 is not reduced
Planet goes to shit and everybody is fucked.

Now, I don't know about you, but scenarios 1 & 2 are sounding pretty damn good to me. . .

If polluters want to continue polluting, then they need to provide hard evidence that scenario 4 is not going to happen. And they can't do that - so they bluster and bellow and pull logical fallacies out of their ass, trying to claim that their profit margins should be considered more important than the possibility of permanent ecological damage.

[Crown]

Really, and tell me O perpetrator of 1001 unfounded claims; what exactly do you accomplish with this pollution? Do you metamorph it into gold? Using age old Alchemy techniques? Hmmm?

America accomplishes a 10 Trillion dollar GDP. The rest of the world has about the same, but accomplishes it by creating three times the pollution. America makes more money, a huge amount of which goes into medical technology which does befit the whole world, and quite a bit gets shipped overseas thanks the US's trade deficit. The US economy is far more productive then any other per capita, and also quite clean for the GDP.

You said that America accomplishes more with it's pollution than the rest of the world, not with it's GDP. Now unless you are arguing that pollution = wealth, you really should clarify your meaning. And this isn't a discussion of GDP you nitwit, it's a discussion on how you can justify that 4% of the worlds popullation produces 25% of it's pollution! And then actively campaigns against reform, you try to justify it with GDP, however that is a brain bug. When the debate of CFC's was raging companies were complaining that using non-CFC's the cost of their product would increase, however since all of them were forced to do it, no detrematall effects were caused to the companies, or their profits, since they were all playing the same game, with the same set of rules.

Do you fail to see that I never said reducing CFC production was a bad thing; you brought up the entire ozone topic on your own BTW.

Well thankyou for telling me what I originally said, it was like really hard to read my own post, but here it is againg in it's entiratiy;

This isn't really in direct responce to this thread, however the theme is the same. I apologise if I generalise here, but this really gets my goat....


I am soo sick of bloody sceptic Americans; Ooph global warming doesn't exist, Oooh the ozone layer is fine. You know what I say to that. FUCK YOU!

Come down to the land down under for one fucking summer, and then we will see how quickly you fucking develope skin cancer. We will see how you feel when washing your car, makes you feel like a fucking criminal because there is a fucking drought been going on for three years!

You fucking polluting, non thinking bastards!

Once again I apologise for the generalisation. It just really gets my goat. Crown.

So what did I say, first I admitted outright that this wasn't in relation to the topic of this thread, just in the theme of it. So yes I know I brought up the ozone layer first, I wrote that!

And what did you reply with;

Lets see America has about 48% of the worlds GDP and produces 25% of the pollution while using 12% of the power.
Who is the polluter, America or the rest of the world, which creates three times the pollution to create the same GDP?

So now you claim that I brought up the ozone first (correct), and then you replied with the GDP rebuttle (and I use that term loosely) to my post. Now since I know and you know that I was talking about the ozone in my post, and you responded with GDP, why are you trying to point out that I brought up ozone first? Yes I know and you know, so why are you trying to make it out it was off topic when I said it was off topic, and then you respond with GDP to justify yourself? Is this some kind of joke? Is this something that Yankee cunts get but Aussie cunts don't? Because I am not laughing Sea Skimmer.

Human produced CO2 is NOT however known to be behind global climate change, it is however known that far more radical climate changes have been happening since before humanity discovered fire. It is also not known if feasible CO2 production reductions would have any effect on the change at all, many models which assume CO2 is in fact behind the changes, indicate that it would in fact not have any effect.

Well I am again unclear as to what you are trying to say, because if you are actually saying that we don't have any scientific proof that CO2 concentration increases heat absorbtion, here is a simple experiment you yourself can perform at home;

Aim; To investigate the effect of different gases have on heat absorbtion.

Apparatus:

• Three equal volume clear plastic bottles.
• Three thermometers.
• Some sticky tape.
• Two cubes of dry ice.
• One cube of ice
• Sunny day.

Method:

• Make a hole in each of the lids of the bottles large enough for one thermometer to fit through.
• Place thermometers in the holes, and seal tightly with sticky tape ensuring it's as air tight as possible.
• Now in one of the bottles just screw on the cap with the thermometer.
• In the second bottle, place on of the dry ice cubes in the bottle, and screw the cap on again as tightly as possible.
• In the last bottle, place the remaining dry ice cube and the ice cube in the bottle and screw lid on.
• Place in sunlight and measure results.

You should see that bottle number 3 has the higher temperature, and why did I place a normal ice cube in there? Because while CO2 is a good greenhouse gas, H2O is that king! And there in lies the danger in global warming, once a significant amount of water vapour is in the atmosphere WE ARE SCREWED! We well become like Venus (climate wise, not toxic wise)!

And as for the Kyoto protocal, I seem to recall that Europe, Australia and Japan were all willing to sign, untill the US backed out. And if the US doesn't sign something, then the rest of the world won't either, it's a sad fact of life.

I obviously haven't addressed every point in your post, I just don't know all the facts off the top of my head...

[Sea Skimmer]

So, are we arguing about whether CO2 might be having a negative effect on the environment, or are we arguing about whether the Kyoto protocols were practicable?

See, what your doing SeaSkimmer, is shifting the burden of proof the wrong way. Ecologists have provided plenty of evidence that suggests CO2 might be having a harmful effect on the environment. Consequently, attempting to limit global production of CO2 is a good idea. However (like most people commiting the burden of proof fallacy), those who would bear the brunt of the costs of reducing pollution seize on the existence of doubt and say "Well, you haven't proven that CO2 cause environmental damage, so why should we incur the costs of limiting our output?"

Let's consider the options here:

1. CO2 is a problem, CO2 output is reduced
The ecologists are right, the CO2 output gets reduced, and direct benefits occur (even if they are not easily attributable). The cost of reducing the CO2 output was actually worthwhile, but the people who paid it will grumble and claim the benefits don't actually exist.

2. CO2 is not a problem, CO2 output is reduced
The ecologists are wrong, but the CO2 output gets reduced anyway. The cost of reducing the CO2 output wasn't actually worthwhile, so the people who paid it will grumble and point out the benefits never actually eventuated.

3. CO2 is not a problem, CO2 output is not reduced
Status quo. Everyone's happy.

4. CO2 is a problem, CO2 is not reduced
Planet goes to shit and everybody is fucked.

Now, I don't know about you, but scenarios 1 & 2 are sounding pretty damn good to me. . .

If polluters want to continue polluting, then they need to provide hard evidence that scenario 4 is not going to happen. And they can't do that - so they bluster and bellow and pull logical fallacies out of their ass, trying to claim that their profit margins should be considered more important than the possibility of permanent ecological damage.

The burden of proof is on the person who first makes the claimed, in that is that global warming is the result of human activity throwing to much Co2 into the atmosphere.

They have certainly NOT prove that or even come close. You can find a half dozen new studies put out a month, all of which say something different and 2-3 say global warming is a load of crap. Then you have the 7th which says the Earth as a whole is not even getting warmer as a whole, but rather localized areas were a disproportional amount of the reading are taken are.


Your number four could happen, but the world and humanity have survived far worse then this current tiny blip on the radar of global temperature.