You see all along I've been ranting about how the media/popular-culture tends to exaggerate the "scientific consensus".
There is no "scientific consensus" that the Earth is headed for runaway global warming in the next 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.
I can't even fathom how you missed the word "runaway" there.
The scientific consensus in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Note however that this statement is about situations weaker than "runaway change".
On the Earth, the IPCC states that a “runaway greenhouse effect” appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic [human] activities.
Judging by the rest of your post and your quotes from Wikipedia, you are acting as though I was claiming Global warming is not happening and/or there is zero anthropogenic effect on the climate.
CLEARLY i have merely claimed there is no scientific consensus on the degree
of said warming.
A few time I used the word "catastrophe", as in we are NOT headed for one.
CLEARLY i have been ranting about how the media/popular-culture is overblowing the situation.
You are obviously not part of the solution Per.
Just the opposite I'm afraid.
There is no scientific consensus as to the effect this trend of warming will lead to:
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/ ... te-change/
A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences.
The study’s key findings include:
• “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50–50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50–100 years.
• “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8–10), 44% moderate danger (4–7), and 13% little danger.”
The media tends to present a more catastrophic future.
Which is perhaps why the scientists don't trust them:
Climate scientists are skeptical of the media
Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.
No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie “The Day After Tomorrow” or Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” as very reliable.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_wa ... 23_08.html
Another enlightening quote from that link:
Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
So yeah, fucking fearmongerers can go to hell!
(hey I hear it feels like runaway global warming down there).