This story is archived

Climate Change: Case Closed? »

Posted by: TimALoftis 2 years, 9 months ago

Archived 17 0 drops

"Very likely" - Those two words - the product of 2,500 scientists, 130 nations and 6 years of work translates into a certainty of over 90%, up from the 66 to 90% chance the panel reported in its last major climate change assessment in 2001. That might not seem like a big difference, but in science, 90% is as good as it gets.

Read Full Story at time.com »

Submitted By:

TimALoftis

A Proud And Dedicated Member Of The Propeller Community. If You Like Social News, Join Us For A Mature And Intelligent Discussion On The Latest ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 4

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
TechnologyExpert
Feb. 2, 2007, 2:28 p.m.
It's good but it will never be closed. Because you can always find "rogue" (I heard this term from a scientist on NPR, so don't nec. attribute it to me!) scientists who will take the opposition view, and people who will believe and defend them.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Virginia
Feb. 2, 2007, 5:25 p.m.
Let's vote for an administration and a Congress that does not support 'rogue' scientists. I listened on CSPAN to a House of Repr. committee investigating the administration and its changing of federal scientist's reports. They removed any conclusions allowing for global warming and wouldn't allow that word or climate change to be used. It was a real eye opener to me as to how far this administration will go to put humanity and the planet in danger.
Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)
digthepast
April 26, 2008, 4:56 p.m.
Ha Ha Ha HA.
There will always be "rogue" scientists who feel that the previous paradigm to account for climate change (natural variation in the amount of sunlight reaching northern hemisphere land masses), better explains events over the last 20,000 years than the IPCC's CO2 hypothesis.
When the IPCC is able to explain climate change back past the last couple of hundred years, they may be able to bring the "rogues" on board. Not until.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
digthepast
April 26, 2008, 5:12 p.m.
I'm an environmentalist and environmental activist. I'm no fan of what the administration is doing to science. Should we be throwing carbon into the air we breathe? Of course not.
But I'm also a scientist whose field requires a LONG view of the relationship between human beings, technology and climate change. We are coming out of a 1,770-year period of climatic cooling. In AD 1000 there were Norse colonies in Greenland. By AD 1500, they were gone, because the climate had cooled and could no longer support them. It is very possible that the current era of carbon-fueled technology is at least partially an adaptation to that cooling, which bottomed out in the 1850s. Since then it has been getting warmer, as it has eight other times in the last 20,000 years.
We'll run out of carbon to burn long before the temperature peaks again (probably about AD 3500, if this cycle resembles the previous ones).