The earlier disaster scenario predictions didn’t come true, the warming has been lower than expected or just not visible at all in some datasets, CO2 lagged behind warming from earlier periods which were shown as examples that were ‘intended’ to show correlation between warming and CO2 increase as cause of it when the total reverse was true!!

So all the scientists are wasting their time, I think it's you who's in bed personally.

Fair play, i suppose to sustain your belief you must have to ignore websites like this:
ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/criti...ea-temperature-rise/

As the country experienced its warmest year on record, coverage of climate change on major U.S. television networks and across media outlets dropped in 2012.

Worldwide climate coverage decreased by two percent between 2011 and 2012, according to The Daily Climate, marking the fewest number of published stories since 2009.

Despite the decline, they note, "Stories linking climate change to sea-rise, weird weather and other events showed an all-time high." Newspaper editorial boards also gave more attention to climate change in 2011.

Along with being the warmest year on record, 2012 was also second only to 1998 as the most extreme. Climate Central notes, "In response to global warming, some extreme events, such as heat waves, are already becoming more likely to occur and more intense."

Researchers have shown that further delays in international action will make climate change goals more expensive and then eventually impossible.

Halting climate change will require "a fundamental and disruptive overhaul of the global energy system" to eradicate harmful carbon dioxide emissions, not just stabilize them, according to new findings by UC Irvine and other scientists.
In a Jan. 9 paper in Environmental Research Letters, UC Irvine Earth system scientist Steve Davis and others take a fresh look at the popular "wedge" approach to tackling climate change outlined in a 2004 study by Princeton scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow. They had argued that the rise of dangerous CO2 could be stopped -- using existing technologies -- by dividing the task into seven huge but manageable "slices."

Davis and his co-authors conclude that while the approach has great merit, it's not working, and it's not enough.

"We have enormous respect for that earlier work," he said. "But almost a decade after 'wedges' made a solution to climate change seem doable, we now know that holding emissions steady, difficult as it would be, is literally a half-measure -- and one that we have yet to take. Our emissions are not being held constant or even slowing; they're growing faster than ever."

The 2004 plan involved such tactics as doubling the number of nuclear reactors worldwide and increasing automotive fuel efficiency from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. Each "wedge," if accomplished, would after 50 years avoid 1 billion tons of carbon per year -- and seven wedges combined, Pacala and Socolow estimated, would prevent the worst effects of climate change.

However, Davis and fellow authors of the new paper calculated that as many as 31 wedges could be required to stabilize Earth's climate at safe CO2 levels and that sharp reductions in total emissions would have to begin much sooner than half a century from now.

Again with the straw man questions.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/us-cli...-2012_n_2434290.html

In 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that global warming could cause sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century. A new study published this week says the actual levels of sea rise could be much higher — up to three feet higher.

The consequences of sea level rise at that proportion would be "horrible," the study's co-author told NBC News. Millions of people living in coastal areas would be displaced and mega-cities such as New York City and Tokyo would need to spend billions of dollars to improve their infrastructure to avoid flooding.

The study was published Jan. 6 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

the reality is you've made yourself out to be ill informed in this thread twice now, with the stupid old Ice cube in a glass bull and the misunderstanding about the melting temperatures of pourous ice

But because you create this illusion of being informed, by singing from the CT song sheet, you can promote your reactionary, and obscure right wing economic theories most times unchallenged.

Now your resorting to the Bjorn tactic of diverting the whole subject of discussion to African poverty, you really are a cunt.

It's a disgraceful tactic tbh but you've consistently shown yourself to have no shame here imo.

Like I said you're an idiot who think's he's right about everything.
You think you know what Marxism is after reading a Pamphlet about Communism 20 years ago, you're a sleeper.

you're off your fucking trolley aswell.

Guevarista wrote:
Were you bottle fed?

you're off your fucking trolley aswell.