[Quote="Daily Mail"]No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
[/quote]
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg[/img]
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html"]Daily Mail[/url]
My first inclination is to want to doubt the integrity of that graph.
daily mail
edit dang late
[QUOTE]So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?[/QUOTE]
i can smell the bias from here
Not exactly a reliable source, but they do make a point, climate change predictions do have a habit of falling short.
24 hour postal service
Period of time based on the rotation of the earth delivered via an assortment of means.
Oh man, the global temperature isn't rising as fast as many predicted, better jump back into our Hummers, scrap all research into alternative energy, and eliminate all emissions and energy usage standards because clearly we don't need any of that.
I don't think they realize how global warming works...
For me, their predictions are spot on, North Missouri, had days reaching over 100F, and only rained 3 inches the entire summer last year.
um the actual temperatures are within the 95% certainty projections so far...
[editline]18th March 2013[/editline]
in fact the actual temperatures haven't once fallen out of the estimated range, so their predictions are pretty fucking accurate.
60 degrees in February in Massachusetts totally normal
What if the data doesn't meet the predictions?? What if we made the world a cleaner place for nothing? How terrible.
Besides, it's still in the 95% certainty range. Move along folks.
the trend is well within the the predictions. shit article by a shit paper.
As the data is still clearly within predictions and they are saying explicitly that it does not, could they not be held legally responsible for this? There are a lot of laws in Canada against presenting factually incorrect news, and I'd imagine the UK would have similar laws
why is it so hard for people to accept that global warming is real?
[QUOTE=Lazor;39953085]the trend is well within the the predictions. shit article by a shit paper.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Elspin;39953096]As the data is still clearly within predictions and they are saying explicitly that it does not[/QUOTE]
yep.
somehow saying "buh-buh-but it's [B]going to crash!![/B]" doesn't ring as valid news, or statistics to me whatsoever.
so actuality didn't go 100% to prediction, that's kind of [I]how predictions work, daily mail.[/I]
While I agree that the data is currently within the 95% certainty (that is 95% chance of the temperature being within that range.) the trend seems to show that the data will sooner or later go completely off their 95% predictions.
Ultimately I think the issue goes down to the past hyping of the severity and speed of the climate warming as compared to what the writers of the Mail take from this data.
That's why it's called Climate Change, not Global Warming.
[QUOTE=krail9;39953107]why is it so hard for people to accept that global warming is real?[/QUOTE]
Regardless if someone thinks it is real or not we should all focus on pushing for a more clean and efficient environment/energy. It only can benefit us, plus it would be nice to not live in a total wasteland and not have to pay out of the ass for energy.
Unless people want to start living like China (I know a bit extreme comparison) they need to get with the program.
The graphic itself is showing that the average temperature of the fucking earth is rising, it has already risen by half a degree in just 20 years, are we seriously going to wait another 20 to see if it rises a full degree? The world IS getting warmer, and the only difference in the past twenty years from today is us. It's all us. This isn't the world doing this stuff, it's us.
Years ago, I believed in the whole 'Global Warming is a hoax' thing because I wanted to feel smarter than everyone else.
That was basically middle school for me. Just trying to feel superior to everyone else, really.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;39953270]when talking about geological timescales, the graph dropping below the prediction for 1 or 2 years is completely irrelevant and can still be taken as correct, especially when talking about something so complex as the global temperature which is affected by hundreds of variables[/QUOTE]
I agree, I think the mail is more butthurt about the lack of severity as compared to some of the more sensationalist global warming reports.
I just get so disappointed when I see articles like this.
[QUOTE=krail9;39953107]why is it so hard for people to accept that global warming is real?[/QUOTE]
wealthy industrialists have spread [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt"]FUD[/URL], which is far more effective than having studies that try to disprove it
Even if the predictions were a little inaccurate, it wouldn't matter. We [I]seriously[/I] need to curtail our emissions, because all the shit we're currently pumping into the atmosphere [I]cannot[/I] be good for it.
I don't get DailyMail's game, usually their articles are meant to "scare" the reader
Pretty sure they forgot to consider the fact that the water is also absorbing some of the energy.
It's Daily Mail, but the sad part is that even some respectable news sources like Wall Street Journal are putting a lot of batshit crazy climate change skeptics front and center. Thankfully in the WSJ's case most of that is kept to the op/ed section. I suppose it's not a coincidence this started after Newscorp acquired it.
global warming is caused by humen bengs
the climate change however is not
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.