Waiting on climate is 'escapism': top UN scientist

Dec 08, 2011 by Jerome Cartillier

Leaders who wait for further evidence about the perils of greenhouse gases are flirting with escapism, the head of the UN's Nobel-winning climate scientists says.

"You cannot possibly keep waiting forever for new evidence of global warming to act," Rajendra Pachauri, head of the (IPCC), said on the sidelines of the UN in Durban.

The 12-day marathon, ending on Friday, seeks to limit warming to 2.0 Celsius (3.6 degree Fahrenheit), a commonly-accepted danger threshold.

Underpinning this goal is a raft of scientific evidence -- the IPCC's 2007 4th Assessment Report among them -- which says the data for dangerous, man-made global warming is unequivocal.

On current trajectories, according to an assessment by German academics released on Monday, Earth is headed for a sizzling increase of 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

Previously published research says this scenario is a near-guarantee of disaster-inducing storms, and floods across swathes of the globe.

But major actors in the climate drama -- China, India, the United States to name three -- have said during the talks that some key decisions should be postponed until after the IPCC's multi-volume 5th assessment report, due out in 2013-2014.

The IPCC produces every five to six years the definitive reference guide for policy makers on and its impacts.

"The (2007) 4th assessment report has enough substance which provides the basis for taking action," Pachauri told AFP in the interview on Wednesday.

"If the world accepts this scientific reality, then surely they should do something about it.

"Certainly, the next report might close a few gaps, make a few refinements. But to say that we will wait for the next report seems like escapism," he said.

Pachauri applauded South African President Jacob Zuma for underscoring in his keynote address the importance of chaining action on greenhouse-gas emissions "to the demands of science."

In a Special Report released in November, the IPCC warned that change was on track to, in effect, create weather on steroids, boosting the intensity or frequency of extreme events ranging from heatwaves to hurricanes to diluvian downpours.

Pachauri refused to assess the state of play in the talks, where negotiations can get bogged down in mind-numbing details.

But he suggested that they lacked an appropriate "sense of urgency."

"Personally, I think it would be very helpful during the negotiations if each day started with a presentation on some aspect of science," he said, betraying a hint of frustration.

"That, perhaps, would at least remind people of the realities."

Despite the evident gap between politics and science, Pachauri remained guardedly optimistic.

"Hopefully, human beings -- being rational as they are supposed to be -- will probably decide collectively, in some form or the other, to take action," he said.

He pointed to the Montreal Protocol, the global pact that banned the chemicals ripping a hole in the atmosphere's protective ozone layer, as proof that the world's nations can pull together to solve a global problem.

"This of course is a much larger challenge. But I expect that, as a rational species, we'll do something about it."

Explore further: Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Jan 23, 2010

The head of the UN's climate science panel said Saturday a doomsday prediction about the fate of Himalayan glaciers was "a regrettable error" but that he would not resign over the blunder.

UN science chief defends work, welcomes review

May 14, 2010

(AP) -- The head of the U.N. scientific body on climate change defended Friday the work of the thousands of scientists who contribute to its reports, even as he welcomed a review of procedures that produced ...

Report: Climate science panel needs change at top

Aug 30, 2010

(AP) -- Scientists reviewing the acclaimed but beleaguered international climate change panel called Monday for major changes in the way it's run, but stopped short of calling for the ouster of the current leader.

UN to get report on climate panel August 30

Aug 20, 2010

A UN-requested review of the world's top panel of climate scientists, accused of flaws in a key assessment on global warming, will be unveiled on August 30, the investigating committee said on Friday.

Scientists warn of climate catastrophe

Jun 18, 2009

The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected, according to research by international scientists released Thursday.

Recommended for you

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

6 hours ago

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

Dec 19, 2014

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
But major actors in the climate drama -- China, India, the United States to name three -- have said during the talks that some key decisions should be postponed until after the IPCC's multi-volume 5th assessment report, due out in 2013-2014.


If my theory is correct, 2013 and 2014 should be extreme scorchers world wide, so if it comes out in 2013 or early 2014, they probably won't have time to include the data from 2014 certainly, and maybe not even part of 2013.

2014 is the first year that the keeling curve's seasonal minimum will be higher than 2011's seasonal maximum.

2013 should be the year the current solar cycle will hit it's maximum heat output, with 2012 and 2014 being roughly tied for runner's up.

So that means either 2013 or 2014 will be GLOBALLY the hottest year in human history, maybe they'll end up as 1 and 2, and will likely keep the title for maybe 5 years or so thereafter, excluding volcanism.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
This is simply extrapolating the existing trends, and noticing that the solar maximum will coincide with the keeling curve minimum being strictly worse than this year's maximum.

Clearly, 2013 and 2014 should be exceptionally hot, since CO2 will be 4PPM and 6 PPM worse those years, and coincide with the worst part of the solar cycle.

By 2024 and 2025, a further 11 years out, the CO2 will be a further 22PPM worse and I wonder how much hotter it will be at the solar maximum?

By 2025, all ten of the ten hottest years on record will likely have been AFTER 2011...

Now if you have a VEI6 eruption that would give you a slight reset for maybe a year or two, and could throw this alignment off, but that can't be known from any science we have, so for the purpose of this theory, I ignore it.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2011
Waiting on climate is 'escapism'

Most people in authority are old (and rich). They can afford not to act. Who cares about future generations?

This is simply extrapolating the existing trends

Let's see. Your ad-hoc linear extrapolation vs. decades of painstaking data gathering and simulation?

Hmm. Nope. Not convinced.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2011
The human civilization already exhausted its economical potential given with level of technical development. We should move further. There is no other feasible way, how to escape from fossil fuel economy without suffering with deepening of financial crisis or risks of nuclear catastrophe, than the cold fusion.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
Let's see. Your ad-hoc linear extrapolation vs. decades of painstaking data gathering and simulation?


No.

I developed the extrapolation as a pure thought experiment independent of the data.

Then I discovered the data matched the extrapolation within margin of error.

That website is not mine, clearly. I used it as a reference to support what I was saying.

That growth rate in melting has recently been uncovered in Greenland by at least two other groups who also discovered it is melting twice as fast every 5 years compared to the previous 5 years.

Again, this is not a coincidence, and is exactly what was predicted by my thought experiment using simple geometry.

EVERY DOUBTER read this article, but keep in mind it's already two years old.

grinzo.com/energy/2009/09/02/how-fast-is-greenland-melting/

And this one:

spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661192,00.html

Now see next post...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2011
I developed the extrapolation as a pure thought experiment independent of the data.
But pure thought experiments which take place in deranged minds are suspect. Perhaps you should listen to your critics. They are offering you empirical evidence.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
Now, you know from the first article I just linked above, he shows a sequence where the annual net loss was about 20km more each year than the previous year, however, 20 is not a magic number, it's just a round number that happens to be close to 15% larger than other round numbers.

i.e. 20 is a round number near 15.

100, 120, 140, etc.

these are round numbers close to 100, 115, 132, 150, etc.

Now' there's a trick fo radding up sums.

N(N 1)/2 = sum of first N integers.

And if you multiplied that by 20, it would be sum of a cumulative loss for N years, where 20 is the number you are accumulating by.

If you divide the approximate volume of the ice sheet by 20, you get 142,500.

If you then take the square root of this number, you get an approximate number of years to total greenland meltdown, assuming a linear increase in the rate of melting being accumalted at 20...

Or 377.5 years.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2011
'Must... calculate... extrapolate... typetypetype... must exhibit... my genius... for the world... to see... typetypefapfapfaptypetypetype...'
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2011
I developed the extrapolation as a pure thought experiment independent of the data.
But pure thought experiments which take place in deranged minds are suspect. Perhaps you should listen to your critics. They are offering you empirical evidence.


Perhaps you should read the ARTICLES I LINKED TO, MORON.

They show the evidence exactly matches what I said.

hell, they even call it an EXPONENTIAL CURVE, WHICH THEY PLOT FOR ALL THE DATA.

YOU IDIOT, QUIT HARRASSING ME AND READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record-lower-still.html

I reported you for abuse because of your LIBEL which you continue to perpetuate against me.

Unlike you, I actually back up my claims by LINKING TO DATA from the experts to show it actually agrees precisely with me.

Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
And at any rate, as was pointed out by "Lou" in the first article, the rate of accumulation is itself increasing, so the flat number of 20 is insufficient.

The flat number of 20 was an approximation using round numbers, because it fits the data roughly, but the real curve is an exponential.

And I quote, from about 45% down the page:

"We can clearly see 2011 has set a new record. Here's Wipneus' graph that shows the monthly average with EXPONENTIAL trend." - Emphasis mine.

And they even have a color coded graph so as to help your small mind comprehend that, Ghost.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2011
They show the evidence exactly matches what I said.
Uh, dumb luck? What else could it be? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Consider that the learned scientists who are actually involved in the research would have already considered simplistic notions such as yours, or had known enough not to pursue them. Because they are TRAINED in the discipline and have the EXPERIENCE in it which you do not.

Right? This is not conjecture on my part. Your track record of fail after fail after fail can attest to this.
Unlike you, I actually back up my claims by LINKING TO DATA from the experts to show it actually agrees precisely with me.
I suppose I could link to all the many previous threads which demonstrate your magnificent self-delusion but that would be a pain.
tadchem
5 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2011
Not all trends are linear. Liu Y, Cai Q F, Song H M, et al. have analyzed a 2,486 year record of tree rings from the central-eastern Tibetan plateau with Fourier analysis to reveal eight *periodic* trends (with over 99% CL) that 'extrapolate' to a cooling spell from 2006 AD through 2068 AD. We will have to wait to see.
tadchem
not rated yet Dec 08, 2011
The reference for the above comment is Liu Y, Cai Q F, Song H M, et al. Amplitudes, rates, periodicities and causes of temperature variations in the past 2485 years and future trends over the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Sci Bull, 2011, 56: 2986-2994, doi: 10.1007/s11434-011-4713-7
rubberman
not rated yet Dec 08, 2011
Regardless of his (quantums) past record, I'll get on board with 2013 as the next outlier. Solar input, El nino and of course the 390PPM should make it a scorcher...but I'm just guessing of course....as I sit here in ontario, looking out my office window counting dandelions...Oh look!!! IT must be short shorts day at the college....
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (54) Dec 08, 2011
'Must... calculate... extrapolate... typetypetype... must exhibit... my genius... for the world... to see... typetypefapfapfaptypetypetype...'


LMAO!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2011
I reported you for abuse because of your LIBEL which you continue to perpetuate against me.
Oh not libel dear sir as your errance is a matter of record. Lets see there was your insistance of dry ice in the antarctic and your various attempts at orbital mechanics, all disproven, and SO many others. Libel is saying something which is not true.

I and others only cite your many delusions which consistantly turn out to be exactly that. We point out your inability to recognize them as such, and to continue posting new ones because you seem to think that whatever occurs to you must be of extraordinary value.

And, like dry ice in the antarctic, it doesnt occur to you to check to see if these things have been considered before. Because, after all, you are a freeking genius fapfap and so they couldnt possibly have occurred to anyone else.

You have been cited for abuse many times for your flooding. How many posts today? Trying to cut back are we?
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2011
Waiting on climate is 'escapism': Rajendra Pachauri, Head of the UN's Nobel-winning climate scientists


Manipulating global temperature data is fraudulent science [1-4]

1. Climategate Time-line

http://joannenova...imeline/

2. The BBC and climate change: A triple betrayal

http://thegwpf.or...-bbc.pdf

3. Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

4. The 1975 Endangered Atmosphere Conference, 21st Century Science & Technology (2007)

www.21stcenturysc...Born.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com

Voleure
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2011
and then Oliver walked in, slowly they turned...

The politics won't likely come around until things get bad enough for the populace to vehemently overrule the incumbents in this global drama. We tend to change only after hitting walls unfortunately.
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2011
Perhaps I am mistaken but isn't "the top UN Scientist" actually a railway engineer?
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2011
We live in interesting times, . . . with intrigue in places of political power.

Fortunately the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains life on Earth is benevolent and far beyond the control of politicians.

That is the video message of Hope that friends will try to communicate to a world in despair this Holiday Season, as Earths seasonal climate changes accompany the turning of the calender pages of life from 2011 to 2012.

http://judithcurr...t-148248

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com/
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2011
The video will use Einstein's fundamental discoveries to refute the scare stories that Al Gore and the UN's IPCC have been promoting.

Today I saw two paragraphs of the video script and the first two references:

"The force that sustains life, powers the Sun and causes changes in Earths climate has been revealed over recorded history to prophets of all religions and scientists guided by observation, contemplation, and meditation on Reality, rather than by politically-correct consensus models of Reality."

"We live today because the force that sustains life as a part of our dynamic cosmos is benevolent, powerful and beyond the control of world leaders and their army of publically funded scientists."

1. A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper, Annalen der Physik 17, 891 (1905)

2. A. Einstein, Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energie-gehalt abhängig?, Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2011
People act as they have always done with climate, improvise and adapt.
My ancestors followed the retreating glaciers to settle in Norway.
Later, they followed the melting ice to settle in Greenland and Iceland and even tried to settle in North America.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2011
So, what, exactly are we supposed to do? Set off some nukes in the upper atmosphere? Build an orbital sun shield to block the sun? Move the Earth further away from the Sun?

Oh, if we say we aren't waiting we'll be able to magically control the entire thermal and atmospheric system that wraps around the Earth? Probably more like, lets everyone go back to living in mud huts so we don't hurt Mother Earth any more.

Sounds more like human hubris raising it's head along with a healthy does of environmentalists trying to shove their agenda in to, "Man must be responsible for changing the entire Earth's Weather and Climate, we're so darn important and powerful in the Universe."
MorituriMax
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2011
Perhaps I sound cynical, I am just tired of scientists telling us one thing for years which is unrefutable, then they turn around and say the exact opposite. And as a layman I have no way to tell if one group or the other is any more reliable than the other.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2011
Perhaps I sound cynical, I am just tired of scientists telling us one thing for years which is unrefutable, then they turn around and say the exact opposite. And as a layman I have no way to tell if one group or the other is any more reliable than the other.

I think you mean the media, not science.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Dec 11, 2011
Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974

"Perhaps I am mistaken but isn't "the top UN Scientist" actually a railway engineer?"

Is Gregor ever mistaken?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Dec 11, 2011
I know of no such examples.

Perhaps you are foncusing fantasy with science because you are incapable of evaluating the validity of your sources.

"I am just tired of scientists telling us one thing for years which is unrefutable, then they turn around and say the exact opposite." - Morit

As an example... OmaTard is not a reliable source. Nature is.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Dec 11, 2011
"So, what, exactly are we supposed to do?" - Morit

You have to reduce your carbon footprint by 80 percent.

In general this means reducing your energy consumption by that amount. Move to CF lighting, improve the insulation of your home. Drive less, Drive slower, Move closer to work, Take a bus, ride share, drive a bike, walk, eat less meat, install passive heating/cooling systems, purchase more efficient appliances. Unplug those wall warts, wash in cold, install a white roof, etc. etc. etc.

It isn't rocket science.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Dec 11, 2011
"Oh, if we say we aren't waiting we'll be able to magically control the entire thermal and atmospheric system that wraps around the Earth?" - Morit

Then your numbers will be reduced by that atmospheric system that will turn your wheat belt to desert, and bring instability to the rest of your agriculture.

Mother nature really doesn't care about you.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Dec 11, 2011
"Sounds more like human hubris raising it's head along with a healthy does of environmentalists trying to shove their agenda" - Morit

Sounds like you are a spectacularly ignorant fool who thinks that the world is so big there is nothing man can do to change it.

Science is telling you a dramatically different story, and you have chosen to be willfully ignorant of it.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2011
Perhaps I sound cynical, I am just tired of scientists telling us one thing for years which is unrefutable, then they turn around and say the exact opposite. And as a layman I have no way to tell if one group or the other is any more reliable than the other.

I think you mean the media, not science.

The media makes up the science they report on? If so, where are the professional science organizations issuing press releases to refute false media reporting?
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
Perhaps I sound cynical, I am just tired of scientists telling us one thing for years which is unrefutable, then they turn around and say the exact opposite. And as a layman I have no way to tell if one group or the other is any more reliable than the other.

I think you mean the media, not science.
No, if that were the case why is there a constants supply of scientists to support either side of any discussion?

You have to reduce your carbon footprint by 80 percent.
No. I don't.

Mother nature really doesn't care about you.
Absolutely, and she also doesn't care about carbon footprints, and making everyone cut back due to climate hysteria. I'll use that line the next time someone tells me I am hurting the planet. Dude. Nature doesn't care about you and your climate agenda.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
Sounds like you are a spectacularly ignorant fool who thinks
You know why the debate never goes anywhere? That right there, Vendi. Personally attacking people who disagree with you. Hey, if you got it all figured out, give us a plan right now that is guaranteed to bring the Earth back to how it was a million years ago.

Or perhaps people are under the mistaken assumption that just because the weather has been mild enough for humans to advance to where we are today in relative comfort, that this is the normal condition of the planets ecosystem. It could just as easily be that the normal climate on this planet is incredibly hot or incredibly cold.

I remember that over 90% of all the species that ever existed are extinct now, and it certainly didn't all happen in the last 2,000 years when all the climate environmentalists started their campaign to bring us back to where we were 2,000 years ago.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
Nature doesn't care about you and your climate agenda.

The problem is that you (should) care.
Natuer doesn't care whether you live or die. But I bet YOU do.
So if self preservation is an instinct you posess then all should be clear.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
The problem is that you (should) care.
Why? There are ALWAYS people out there who will spin a given topic so we care about THEIR agenda. People being people, I have no reason to believe that the people screaming "the (climate) sky is falling" are any more honest than all the others who want a slice of my wallet. OF COURSE they're going to give us worst case scenarios.

But there are other scientists who say that it isn't settled science. Of course you are going to say YOUR scientists are the ones I should listen to. I don't have the money to give to everyone with a different "version" of the science.

To me, listening to you all go at it, it's like watching a debate on god vs Big Bag, or Evolution vs Intelligent Design. Except from where I sit, it's turned around, the science people here are doing the same things as the religious people usually do. Calling names, saying the science is absolute like the bible claims. If its so settled why are these articles so full of posts?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
But there are other scientists who say that it isn't settled science

To a man these aren't climate scientists. Those who do the actual work all are convinced. Actually they don't need to be convinced - the data is there for all to see. If you go look at the data then there is really no argument. only if you continually refuse to do so and continue to confuse "climate" with "weather" then you coul, conceivably, if you really want to be massively obtuse, create a scenario where a tiny smidheon of doubt remains.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"The media makes up the science they report on?" - RyggTard

All you have to do is watch an hour of Faux news to draw that conclusion - at least about that lying infotainment outlet.

As for the other news services, they generally get things right, or approximately right. At least as correct as the budget that is set by their Conservative owners.

"If so, where are the professional science organizations issuing press releases to refute false media reporting?" - RyggTard

Pretty much everywhere.

Here is one.

http://www.aip.or...014.html

Here is another..

http://www.ncdc.n...2010.php

And yet another...

http://climate.na.../causes/

And still another....

http://www.metoff...evidence

And still another...

http://www.ipcc.c...ts.shtml

Get back to us when you read these reports....
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
Hmmm... You can count on your fingers the number of former scientists who deny the reality of global warming and count on one hand the number of active scientists. But would spend several 24 hour days counting the number of active scientists on the other side.

Mostly what you are hearing from the denialist side is Alzheimers.

Just look at OmaTard who posts here. He was a real scientist until his mental illness became obvious.

He believes that the sun is a neutron star made from iron.

He also maintains that his 4 children are lying in their charges of sexual molestation against him.

The other denialists have similar dysfunctional mental states for the most part.

"No, if that were the case why is there a constants supply of scientists to support either side of any discussion?" - MiriTard

Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"Absolutely, and she also doesn't care about carbon footprints, and making everyone cut back due to climate hysteria" - Morit

Correct, so your political objection to the laws of physics just doesn't fly does it?

Nature will respond as nature will. And in this case Nature will respond by converting most of the central and southern U.S. into a desert within your children's lifetime.

Which is why, out of self interest, they should put a bullet in your minute brain.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"That right there, Vendi. Personally attacking people who disagree with you." - Morit

There was no personal attack. You are a spectacularly ignorant fool. Your comments prove it.

You see... In science, this is what we call classification, categorization, and labeling.

If you find it insulting to be a fool, then stop being a fool. You have only yourself to blame.

"Hey, if you got it all figured out, give us a plan right now that is guaranteed to bring the Earth back to how it was a million years ago." - Morit

There you go again. Proving yourself to be a fool.

You do a remarkably good job of it. It is one of the things that fools excel at.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
This could only be true if you are willfully ignorant of earth's climate history.

Which you apparently are.

You remind me of a denialist fool who proclaimed that because he couldn't predict next years global temperature that there was a 50% chance that it would be warmer and a 50% chance it would be colder and on that basis concluded that in 100 years the odds were the same.

Sorry. He wasn't a fool. He was a moron.

".. that this is the normal condition of the planets ecosystem. It could just as easily be that the normal climate on this planet is incredibly hot or incredibly cold." - Morit
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"I remember that over 90% of all the species that ever existed are extinct now," - Morit

I see, so you can't be morally responsible for extinctions because there have been extinctions in the past.

With that logic I must conclude that if your are murdered, then your murderer can't be morally responsible for your death since there have been deaths in the past.

Such is the result of Conservative Logic.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"Why?" - Morit

Those who question why they should care about the fate of nature or mankind are those who need to have their throats slit for practicing existence without a license.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"But there are other scientists who say that it isn't settled science." - Morit

Absolutely.. The sun is a neutron star made from Iron.

You are a butterfly dreaming that you are a man.

Gawad put dinosaur fossils in the ground to test your faith.

Sorry Tard Boy.... The science is settled, and has been for almost 150 years.

What remains are simply the details.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (35) Dec 11, 2011
"If its so settled why are these articles so full of posts?" - Morit

Have you noticed that you aren't arguing science?

Nope. You are far too much of a fool to notice that.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.