for contrast

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf

Doom ladened missive

Note current CO2 content of Atmosphere is 0.039803%

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/a...e-climate-change-coverage

UK Gov attacks BBC for not being Pro Climate Change enough (via the Grauniad)

Priceless

That's laugh out loud funny.

Who needs Satire ??

By the way it will cost more to crunch in France
the Council of State has recently given reason to EDF to put an 5pc increase (above the 2pc the last prime minister authorized EDF to do earlier).That's 40euros in average for every home.
And not the least, EDF and all the private competitors are asking
together a 5 pc increase in 2015.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/clim...on-as-we-are-9256708.html

"Without further action, temperatures will increase by about 4 to 5C [by 2100], compared with pre-industrial levels"


I counter



This is what has happened over the last 2 years 3 months and 12 days

Globally the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is 0.039806% last published February. . before all the leaves arrive in the Northern Hemisphere when that tiny proportion of the atmosphere CO2 helps to turn into the bulk of plant matter that makes up and feeds all life on Earth through photosynthesis

It has negligible effect on the average temperature of Planet Earth which is in the most part controlled by the activity of this thing

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/aiahmi/latest.php?t=aia_0304&r=1024
This is the Sun over the last 48 hours
Which isn't as active as it was at the beginning of the Century

Sekerob:

I submit to you that Mr. Autumns has presented a wealth of evidence in this forum, evidence that calls into question the conclusions of the IPCC, evidence that has in many instances gone unrefuted. I suspect Mr. Autumns realizes that climate science is the single most complex intellectual undertaking in the history of humankind, and that it will take at least a century of study to get all the QUESTIONS lined up - never mind all of the answers. I must disagree with your charge that he is not learning - he has learned very well to question popular misconceptions, because of the emergence of contrary evidence - as all good scientists have done since Galileo Galilei saw something in the sky that did not agree with the notions of his day.

Referring to the chart you presented: When scientists measured the snow cover in the 1960s, did they use the same satellites that are used today? Did they use satellites at all? Could it be that those data were based more on estimates, while the more recent measurements are an order of magnitude more accurate? (I've asked Rutgers this question, but have not yet heard back) If that COULD BE the truth, then there is reasonable doubt, which would mean that the science isn't settled. Also, the slight downward trend shown in those graphs over the past 50 years could very easily be part of a much longer cycle (500 or 1000 years?) that no single human could observe first hand.

Climate change IS HAPPENING, there can be no doubt. But when scientists (or political leaders) state that the science is settled, they are being non-scientific, which means they have other motivations.

PLEASE remain in the conversation - without debate there can be no truth. Thanks as well for all of your contributions to WCG.