When I first heard of global climate change… I was listening to a public lecture at Rice University on a variety of environment-related topics almost four decades ago… I withheld judgment: as BadTux says, one paper doth not a consensus make.
Thirty-odd years later, the consensus among respected climate scientists is overwhelming, and you… you, Duffy, not the rest of us on this thread… now have to pick and choose your ideologically correct contrarians, avoiding that consensus altogether, because the consensus that emerged did not conform to your socio-politico-economic views. Again, as BadTux might say, that’s not how science works.
But your children and grandchildren are the ones who will face the realities of what is coming. Enjoy the rest of your time; you probably won’t experience any of the bad stuff. But they probably will.
]]>The actual numbers leave no doubt that the average temperature of the world is increasing.
This increase causes localized changes. For example, Britain has been kept warmer than normal for its latitude by the presence of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is powered to a great extent by the downwelling in the Arctic as the current cools. As the current is not cooling as much as it did because of the warming in the Arctic, the Gulf Stream is weakening, and Britain should see cooler temperatures, more in line with the Canadian provinces that are due West.
Global climate change, which I have been using since 2006, is considered to be a more accurate term. It describes the effect of the global warming that is taking place.
]]>Of course, you don’t understand science, you just attack scientists. Why don’t you go back to living in a cave and hitting moose over the head with a big stick for your evening meal, then, since you hate science so much?
]]>