Majority thinks global warming, clean energy should be priorities

No warming in 20 years completely refutes your links from 10 years ago.

Thanks.

In Fact the 2007 IPCC report had to be "corrected" because of faulty data.

You linking to it shows a knowledge gap on the topic.

Carbon trading falls to Junk status:

EUROPE’S flagship environmental policy has just been holed below the water line. On April 16th the European Parliament voted by 334 to 315 to reject proposals which (its supporters claimed) were needed to save the emissions-trading system (ETS) from collapse

https://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/04/carbon-trading?fsrc=rss

Global warming is so "vindicated" that Russian scientists are talking about global cooling:

"Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century

Read more: https://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/

there were a little over a thousand people in this survey

Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to con-

tinue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models

suggest virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice

sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m

if global average warming were sustained for millennia in

excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C relative to pre-industrial values. The

corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are compa-

rable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000

years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions

of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6m of sea level rise.

{3.2.3}

Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice

sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and

gain mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice

mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the

ice sheet mass balance.

It is strange that you excerpted my post and did not respond to it.

There is no actual evidence of the globe warming due to the activities of man kind.

Current models suggest virtually

The "current models" are spectacularly wrong.

I love the fact you're referring to models.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

The earth is not "warming"

There is no evidence it is, and in fact, the left are now using "climate change" instead of "global warming" because of this.

The earth is not "warming"

"There's clear evidence that greenhouse gases have been increasing by very large amounts since preindustrial times, and the vast majority of these increases are due to human activity," said Prinn, whose specific task on the panel was to assess this issue.

This is the fourth climate report issued by the IPCC since it was established by the U.N. in 1988. Prinn, who is the director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, was one of more than 100 lead authors for the three-year study, which involved climate researchers from around the world.

For the first time, the IPCC provides extensive evidence of the regional signals of climate change, including rising continental-scale temperatures, rising sea levels, shrinking of Arctic summer sea ice and decrease in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. It also offers predictions for how rising temperatures will affect the planet in decades to come.

Taken as a whole, the report presents a strong case that the United States, which is responsible for about 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, should take much more vigorous steps to curb its emissions along with the other major emitters around the world, Prinn said.

"Overall, the scientific evidence for human influence on climate has strengthened significantly in the past half dozen years, and the case for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is significantly more compelling than it was six years ago," he said.

Greenhouse gases, which include methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons and their replacements (hydrofluorocarbons) as well as the better-known carbon dioxide, trap infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere, inhibiting the planet's cooling capability. Burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but agricultural activities and deforestation also contribute.

"It's not just the highly industrialized nations that are involved here," Prinn said. "To some degree, every person on the planet is responsible, but some are much more responsible than others."

There is now a near-universal scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate change, but 10 years ago, Prinn himself was not convinced that that was the case. But, as the evidence mounted, Prinn concluded that the changes were too great to be explained by natural climate variations.

Other highlights of the report include:

• While global temperatures have risen significantly, the rise is less than expected from the greenhouse gases alone, because of the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, another type of pollutant caused by fossil fuel combustion. Efforts already underway to reduce those aerosols, which cause acid rain and are harmful to human health, could lead to greater future warming.
• For the first time, the IPCC has placed odds on the accuracy of its climate predictions: The report offers several different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and, for each one, predicts the likelihood of a certain temperature increase--for example, a two-thirds chance that global temperatures will rise 2.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius for one high-emissions scenario.

It is funny, and kind of tragic, that someone would post an IPCC prediction as proof the globe is warming.

It isn't, and nobody has any actual evidence to suggest it is.