Well, I'm no expert on global warming or climate change... namely, because I have no relevant credentials (do you?) nor have I ever published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic (have you?)
Hmmm....I think with all the links (did you read them?), it would appear to most people that I was just citing revelations that others made (perhaps compiling them in one post for the first time - I do not know that nor do I claim it). So the question should be, I can read, can you?
What I find incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing is that the voices speaking out against "global warming" or whatever you choose to call it are employing the exact same tactics that big tobacco used back in the day when they were still saying that smoking didn't cause cancer. Rather than focus on the actual science from an unbiased standpoint, the naysayers are dedicated solely to disproving, or at the minimum, sowing doubt and confusion with very little actual science employed on their end. Also, they are treating "global warming science" as if it is a single, unified entity or political party, which it certainly is not. Instead of being a two-sided argument, it is a 17 sided argument but it seems the media pundits at FOX have boiled it down to the ultra simple (and rather ridiculous) pro or con debate. Kinda like the current U.S two-party farce, in which everyone loses!
I guess you missed my earlier article - Follow the Money! Again,an attack by misdirection (comparing tobacco) instead of addressing FACTS. The Tobacconists in this case is Phil Jones, Al Gore and Rajendri Pachauri. Not the ones question the smoke and mirrors they have put up. That is evident to anyone with any kind of critical thinking, but obscure to the ones that refuse to question and accept the rantings of greedy people at faith value.
It is not the skeptics that are treating it as a single unified entity, but those pushing an agenda that are. It is not 17 sides, but just 2 sided. Those looking for good science, and those using bad science to advance an agenda. Which side are you on? damn the science and full speed ahead on the agenda? Or good science to see where it leads?
And while there is 1 link to a FOX story (out of 20), I used it to show diversity, not reliance on a single source. Clearly you did not read the links since 95% of them have nothing to do with Fox.
Do I pay attention to or care about IPCC reports? Not really. However, I do pay attention to reports and scientific studies done in my own country.
Take a look-see here;
Ok, you quote a news story of a pro AGW site, and I quote a major science institution - University of Illinois. They are the keepers of the Arctic Ice. And regardless, if you are trying to prove AGW by the arctic ice, then you are using bad science. We just had 3 ft of snow in DC. Does that prove or disprove AGW? The answer is neither. The ice cap melting of 2007 was due to a change in trade winds, and the ice healed itself by last summer. What caused it? no one has bothered to check that out yet, so I fail to see how your puff piece (by advocates of AGW) does anything but prove my point. bad science (or in this case just hysteria that has no identified cause).
370 scientists from around the world spent the last two years performing exhaustive studies on the Canadian arctic and have come to the conclusion that the sea ice is melting much faster than the most pessimistic estimates. Now, whether it is due to human activity or a so-called "natural cycle" it will have far reaching and drastic consequences.
And your point? Again, it is not unprecedented, as the warming during the MWP was greater than it was today (or are you one of the bad science people that maintain the vikings farmed permafrost?). All it shows is that the North Polar ice caps expands and shrinks, but does not tell us why, or the cause? So we are going to saracfice millions (perhaps billions) of people to an "I don't know"? when it could be natural?
Also of interest, was the fact that they found a large amount of industrial pollutants and contaminants in the ice, evidence that us pesky humans can have a universal impact on our planet even from thousands of miles away, that there is no "safe area". There are more than 6 billion people alive today, meaning there are 4 times more people than there were at the turn of the century. No matter which way you cut it, that's a lot of mouths and a lot of assholes and to think that we can just go on business as usual without having any impact is foolhardy, even from the perspective of an idiotic non-scientist like myself!
Again, so? Are you trying to drive home my point? Did you know they found the evidence of krackatoa in the arctic ice as well? Are you maintaining that was man's fault as well (ala danny Glover)? All you are proving is that air moves, not that man has caused warming (the core principal of AGW). And that when it precipitates, the air gets frozen in water crystals (sometimes called snow) and the trace gasses and particles are in those molecules. WOW! Now that is a whole new theory! Publish it! Again so what? If you re-read the article, you will see I am not promoting polution, yet you would have some believe it by your post. Why?
The science that I've seen, from local sources, says we're all in for a world of hurt. Whether or not we're the cause, we should be doing everything we can to try and mitigate a disaster -before it becomes a disaster-
Oh, things are changing! I don't think I (or any of the non-moonbat skeptics) claimed otherwise. But disaster? I sure did warn about scaremongering like that. It comes back to the same thing - if it is not AGW, then what are we doing trying to change it? Indeed, an institution no less prestigious than Standford University Says it aint all bad! And if man is not causing it, I have 2 questions:
1. What makes some people so arrogant to think man can do a damn thing about it? - and-
2. Would not doing something that does affect it have a worse impact in the long run? if it is natural and we are coming out of the LIA, then retarding the warm up would mean we would head into another ice age that could be far worse. And what, in the esteemed scientists opinion is worse? A Warming period (ala Vikings colonizing Greenland) or an Ice age (think glaciers covering all of Canada)?
Or, we can sit back, guffaw at the tabloid press and down another cheeseburger. On second thought, it might be fun to sit back and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket. So long as the beer doesn't run out!
I challenge you to find one link from the tabloid press in my sources. But it seems you have your only link in that genre! So I can only conclude you read the words, and never bothered to check the citations or sources. Why? I can only surmise you already knew the answer (as did Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenbeth, Gore and pachauri). In other words you do not feel a need to find the truth, as it was given to you from on high (the high priests of AGW).
That is your faith, and I will not argue your faith. But if you want to discuss AGW and the bad science behind the movement, let's discuss more. If you want to talk polution and solutions to it, let's discuss more. But don't try to do a chicken little number with AGW as the source of all ills and the source of all solutions. It aint.