Slashdot Mirror
International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming
mdsolar writes "An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace. The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors. The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound."
This comes alongside news of research into one of those short-term factors: higher than average rainfall over Australia. "Three atmospheric patterns came together above the Indian and Pacific Oceans in 2010 and 2011. When they did, they drove so much precipitation over Australia that the world's ocean levels dropped measurably." According to Phys.org, "A rare combination of two other semi-cyclic climate modes came together to drive such large amounts of rain over Australia that the continent, on average, received almost one foot (300 millimeters) of rain more than average. ... Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
It is "near certain" caused by human activity, so slow down.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century
- Only governments have the power to change this.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably won't be alive by the end of the century.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he is rich enough to move his beach mansion three feet higher.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably doesn't give a fuck about what happens to those who aren't.
Humans crave religion, but since we all agreed that the whole Sky Fairy thing was a bit far fetched, we're onto worshipping the Invisible Hand (Green be upon Him) now. So, unless the Invisible Hand (Green be upon Him) deigns to deliver us a solution, it would be sacrilege to intervene.
Those organizations with the power to do something are steadfastly pretending the problem doesn't exist.
On the upside, the Great Lakes region where I live is likely to become prime real estate, because it will be (A) not underwater, (B) well-supplied with fresh water, (C) relatively safe from hurricanes, (D) not on fire, (E) not a prime tornado target, and (F) less cold.
I am officially gone from
I wish that a similar amount of scientific effort would go into deciding what (if anything) to do about it.
Instead there is a rush to reduce greenhouse gases, without any scientific or economic analysis to ascertain whether this is the optimal response.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
No, they deny ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. That's my biggest beef with IPCC: they started with a conclusion, and the inherent bias of that made their conclusion inevitable.
The BETTER question to have asked is "Why is global climate changing ?", so that all possible causes and inputs could have been considered. . .
Bullshit. The greenhouse effect is well understood. So is the amount of CO2/methane/etc. we're putting into the atmosphere.
No sig today...
Isn't the book's argument that in a situation of low knowledge, facing low-probability high-impact events, we should actively prepare by adapting our social and economic structures in such a way that they are more resilient? That sounds a lot like the kind of preparatory work climate science is arguing for.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Unfortunately when anyone even proposes research into another response - geo-engineering, perhaps - it's branded apocalyptic climate alarmism and shouted down. As long as there's a well-funded lobby arguing that the problem doesn't exist, it's going to be an uphill battle to even test alternatives, much less actually apply them.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We're onto selective reporting. Within a day expect to see a few right-leading sites headlining 'SCIENTISTS SAY SEA LEVELS NOW FALLING!' and implying that this means that scientists made a mistake and therefore can't be trusted to get anything right.
An even better question will be to ask "How will we deal with climate change?" as only a fool blinded by dogma will deny that the earth's climate has changed (sometimes drastically) in the past. For example, let's fix the issue where droughts cause starvations in Africa as more frequent droughts are expected as the climate changes.
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
The greenhouse effect is well understood.
It's not, though - that's basically the crux of the current arguments. The sensitivity of the various variables in the model are unclear because many of the underlying mechanisms and confounding variables (e.g. cloud formation) are poorly understood. Many of the theories are built on models which are built on theories - the assumptions become self-embedding, not built from first-principles.
We'd have a model that makes great predictions if we understood all that stuff. Imagine if a bunch of physicists got together and proposed a grand unification theory that they were confident about, thought we should make policy decisions based on (because, "or else") but they were still unable to use their model to make useful predictions.
Heck, I was showing my grandparents, who lived near the ocean, some simulator models that were published in the late 90's. By those models, the oceans were going to be lapping at their front steps by a year and a half from now. If the ocean level has risen at all, it's in the range of millimeters. They looked at it and told me to be careful to not believe everything somebody who has an agenda says.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
According to the economic ramblings of those who deny human-caused climate change, the fat blowhard's failure to take advantage of the opportunities that climate change offers is his shortcoming, so even that isn't a disadvantage if you use their logic.
Oh man you are so wrong.
Fact: CO2 is actually a very small contributor to the "greenhouse effect" the main contributor being BY FAR water vapor. Moreover MOST of the CO2 come from NATURAL sources not human.
Fact: The skewed numerical models created to prove global warming through CO2 DO NOT WORK.
Fact: It has been showed that changes in CO2 level in the past was followed by a corresponding change in temperatures with a lag of ~800 years. Therefore it's not a cause... it's a consequence !
Fact: In recent history, temperature did not follow CO2 level.
Fact: Solar activity is much better correlated with temperature on earth.
Fact: IPCC is full of it.
No no no, that's only true when the little people fail to take advantage of something. If you inconvenience our monied overlords in any way, you're either an economy-killing, wealth-redistributing commie or a jackboot-licking statist parasite, depending on which flavor of fiscal conservatism you're up against.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Climate modellers are well aware of the uncertainty in their parameters. That's why in modern work, they run their model with ranges of parameters determined to be plausible based on empirical observation, and output a range of possible outcomes. Future observation and comparison with the model allows them to refine the parameter range to be more realistic.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We are still learning about the climate; we know enough, probably enough to say that pumping CO2 into the air is not a good idea and is likely the cause of climate change, but not enough to consider all the options and determing a geoengineering fix yet. But, people _are_ working on it.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
It will cost industry billions and billions of dollars. Of course this is the price they pay for polluting the environment. It has always cost a lot of money to clean up their messes (and there have been many). Rather than thinking ahead and being good stewards of the Earth they act like greedy bastards knowing full well that this won't come back to haunt them in their lifetimes.
The rich guys will still make their money. They'll just have to raise rates on those of us who are dependent on their industries.
We're way past that, we're in the middle of the transition from "it's happening and humans are causing it but it's not bad" to "it's happening, humans are causing it, and it's bad, but it's cheaper to adapt."
Then just one more stage to go, "It's happening, humans are causing it, and it's not cheaper to adapt...but we're not going to cooperate."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
In fact, natural events like volcanic eruptions gave us a rest, we should been far worse by now.
Regarding being expensive, put it this way, the rich responsible of this (and that influence government) will keep living comfortably, even if thing go wrong badly, so, why slow down the income? "After me, the deluge", is the motto for them, and probably will be accurate for most of the populated world if sea rises enough. And if they still live and things are becoming not comfortable here, they always can invest in Elysium instead of fixing what they broke.
NASA does not agree with you. They seem to believe that water vapor is a "major player in climate change".
sudo make me a sandwich
Microsoft cites near certainty on superiority of Microsoft products.
Creationists cite near certainly on validity of creation science.
Etc.
The whole purpose of the international climate panel is to drum out hysteria about climate change. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
Methane is not discussed because it is not politically convenient. It is easier to demonize some power company burning coal making EVIL profits than it is to demonize some rancher in New Mexico whose family has been raising cattle on that land for 150 years and 100% depend on raising cattle to support themselves and their families. Now, if the same man-made global warming crowd had stock or patents in the fields of lab-grown beef or genetically modified cows with reduced methane emissions, they would be clamoring for the end of cattle farming.
sudo make me a sandwich
To a large portion of the world, You're the fat blowhard who will have slightly less money. They meanwhile could find themselves facing starvation or freezing in the winter because food and energy prices shot up.
This isn't hyperbole, just look what Bio-diesel did to some of the world's poorest.
Fact: Putting 'Fact:' in front of recycled long-debunked garbage doesn't make it a Fact.
There is no disadvantage to less pollution. It's HOW you go about doing it. Ignoring China's and India's environmental impacts while taxing the hell out of every American and European person to line the pockets of politician and political benefactor's carbon market schemes, not only is pure crap, but is stagnating an already bad economy to certain ruin.
But apparently that is what some folks desire, for some reason.
I am not anti-anti-pollution. I love the outdoors and nature. And I can tell you that even basic laws and ACTUAL enforcement has turned a lot of rivers I could not fish, due to pollution, in the 70s and 80s into thriving ecosystems in the 2000s and 2010s. You don't have to ruin world economies to clear up the pollution, no matter how much certain politically motivated parties would have you think otherwise.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
The earth is a cold place. snow and ice are relatively new things in earths history and on geologic time scales they just started ocurring. The earth has historically had higher levels of CO2, and far warmer temperatures, Did this cause any problems? No it did not.
There were more species, greater plant growth, and more bio diversity than at any other time in earths history. Sea levels were higher but there were no ice caps and far from being a climate disaster, the warmer, higher CO2 earth could support MORE life.
Contrast that with the global cooling that's occurred in the last 20 million years and it's plain to see that having entire continents like Antarctica frozen solid and under miles of ice is not a normal or healthy state for our planet.
The irony is that so called 'green' movements actually seek to keep the global thermostat set on deep freeze, which HURTS plants, limits bio diversity, and we all suffer cold winters, countless deaths caused by incliment winter weather and millions of dollars of damage every year during winter months. Entire continents of our planet are uninhabitable frozen wastelands, and the most fertile soil in the northern and southern hemispheres goes to waste under months of permafrost every year.
There is nothing "green" about climate alarmists. They want to keep the earth cold when the greatest benefit to actual plant and animal life is to let it warm back up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY
A video worth thinking about.
Good grief. Have you even read the wikipedia page, let alone the book itself?
From the wiki page:
"The philosophical problem is about the decrease in knowledge when it comes to rare events as these are not visible in past samples and therefore require a strong a priori, or an extrapolating theory; accordingly, predictions of events depend more and more on theories when their probability is small. In the fourth quadrant, knowledge is both uncertain and consequences are large, requiring more robustness."
There has never been as rapid a rise of CO2 as is happening now. The rare event that is happening now is not visible in the geological record.
We started to understand the greenhouse effect way back in the 1850s. By the 1920s we had the knowledge to completely understand it and the data was collected to verify it all by the 1950s.
We've built excellent models for predicting the long term behaviour of the climate due to the CO2 forcings we've introduced. Even the early models from the 1970s predictions have held up to scrutiny and later models are better still. If anything, the various models have tended to underestimate the changes to the climate.
When we extrapolate the current models the potential costs are absolutely catastrophic. In the worst cases it's hard to see how civilization can survive and even human extinction isn't inconceivable. If we'd started mitigating strategies in the 80s it might have cost us a tiny fraction of growth but we chose not to and every year we wait the evidence that we must act gets stronger and the costs higher.
And you're saying that "well we don't completely understand absolutely everything so we should continue running headlong to where the majority of scientists say there is a cliff to fall off" and then you quote a book that says that financial experts tend to underestimate the downsides due to incomplete knowledge as support for your inane views.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=methane+global+warming&hl=en&authuser=0
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=methane+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
The issue isn't that we're concerned about the über wealthy losing money. The issue is that, unless you can get every single nation in the world to agree on certain environmental and worker health and safety standards, you're fighting an uphill battle. We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place. Then they have even less incentive to reduce their emissions. You have to solve the problem of globalization in order to solve the problem of industrial pollution. Otherwise we'll lose the jobs and pollution will likely get worse.
China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output, as its technocratic leadership understands the issue. When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse.
There's no such thing as absolute certainty in science.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I wish I had modpoints for this. Well said.
China builds a new coal powerplant every week but I'm ruining the environment because I don't ride my bike to work? It makes me wonder if the motivation for these "anti-carbon" scare tactics is to preserve the steady flow of grant money.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Our CO2 emissions have increased significantly these last couple decades, yet warming has been flat for 15+ years. What is the explanation? How can claim to be so certain of this causal link yet have no explanation for the last 15+ years?
Given the choice between forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while doing nothing, and forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while getting our own house in order, I'm going to take the high ground. Of course, if it's a net economic loss, that's bad - the whole idea of carbon taxation and trading is to be economically neutral, with the taxes offset by reduced harms from climate change - but that's a point of debate.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
My issue here is that environmentalists are more concerned with their so-called "proven science" than they are with the impact on people's lives and the actual effects of their "solutions".
I am from the Central Valley in California, where the Delta Smelt has reduced the available water supply to farmers by 90%. The entire region is in the middle of a drought and bordering on dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres sit unused, covered in tumbleweeds, with the families in poverty because there is no water for them to plant anything and make a living. 5,000 lost jobs seems like a small number, until you consider the agricultural area impacted by these insane policies only has a population of ~250,000.
Then to add insult to injuries, the residents of Los Angeles still have water for their finely manicured lawns.
sudo make me a sandwich
China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output, as its technocratic leadership understands the issue. When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse.
They talk a good game, but you're apparently willing to ignore the over 350 new large coal-fired power plants they're building over the next few years. China will reign supreme in CO2 generation (per-capita means nothing to the environment BTW) from here on out. India also plans to build over 450 new coal-fired plants.
As to a new "US avoidance excuse", US CO2 production is down to 1994 levels due to fracking and therefore increased use of natural gas, among other factors. Now all we need is a sane nuclear power policy, with nuclear plants replacing almost all coal-fired plants here, and CO2 production would be way down without harm to the economy. In fact, by exporting high-tech thorium generators, the US could make a ton of money.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Okay, I'll bite.
TFA says "a change of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 for the 20th century". Meanwhile NOAA http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf says 1.1-1.3 mm for the years 2007-2012. So for a layman, it would appear that the rate of ocean rise is slowing. Furthermore, if we project the most recent 1.2mm/yr average, it works out to be less than 5 inches over the next 100 years. Maybe enough to make me move my beer, but nothing to panic over.
Finally, this paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052885.shtml (which I only read the abstract) suggests a 60-Year Oscillation in Global Mean Sea Level. So, the choice of where in this cycle the measurements are taken, the results will vary drastically. And depending on the agenda of the funding source, the published conclusions can be drastically different.
Reading comprehension. His point was that lots of pollution HAS been cleaned up (in this case in local rivers) WITHOUT ruining economies, simply by enacting basic laws and actually enforcing them.
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
For rich people, such as 90% of Americans, it costs a few thousand per year. For the uber-rich, it doesn't matter much - they just need to invest in fake solar companies rather than energy companies. It's the very poor who are deeply, even fatally affected
Take ethanol fuel, for example, which has tripled the cost of corn. Before, $10 could buy corn for three people. Now that same $10 can only feed one person. That's a big deal if you're poor, or if you're average income by global standards.
It ripples through food prices generally, of course. Most processed food that used to have corn starch is now made with wheat flour, increasing the cost of wheat. An extra $500 / year on food isn't a big deal if you're rich, making $40,000. It's a very big deal if you make $2,000 / year.
It's the same with any non-optimal production. When stuff is more costly to make, less is made, and people have less. Hardest hit are those who can't get by with any less. Any food you burn in your gas tank is food that could have fed a starving person, so in the end the cost is in lives.
Obviously that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about environmental costs. It does mean you better carefully balance them against other costs. You dont want to engage in policies which have as their primary benefit making you feel good because you're "green", at the cost of having people starve to death. Irresponsible use of CFLs are a good example of this. A CFL is great in the bathroom. For the attic or hall closet, it makes far more sense to use a 50 cent non-toxic standard bulb and give the $10 you save to United Way. You'll keep mercury and other toxins out of the environment and help someone who needs the help.
My problem is with the flawed "scientific method" used by environmentalists to justify their actions. They can't get their agenda by popular vote, so they file lawsuits and make an unelected government official enact legislation through judicial diktat. Meanwhile, these same environmentalists have 10,000 square foot mansions, fly in private planes, drive armored Hummers, etc.
sudo make me a sandwich
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
It doesnt look like a straw man at all. They seek punitive taxes on energy, which will naturally result in less energy being used, which will predictably have exactly the effect the OP posits.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
There are many solutions which do not involve economic destruction, which a quick glance around the world and through history show will be far worse for human life than global warming adaptation would be.
We would decidedly not be better off had people in 1900 slammed the brakes on economic dynamism, leaving us in 2013 with less gw and a 1956 level of technology. History shows the more government burden and intervention, the more Soviet Unionlike you get. Goodbye to not just iPads but integrated circuits, and certainly to any consumer electronics even if not.
Advancememt swamps everything else in increasing quality and length of life. Put together. It doesn't care if the burden is kickbacks or warlords or bribes or legal donations or taxation, any more than evolution cares about why another organism is sucking its blood (and telling it where to step as it walks).
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The worlds oceans had been rising, then due to increased rainfall over Australia they dropped (Australia outback is sort of like a saucer so the water didn't (yet) make its way back to the ocean). Now that the rainfall pattern has returned to its norm in the last two years, the oceans have continued their rise at a somewhat faster clip.
Time, it makes a difference.
Unless, given that the Earth is a dynamic system, we manage to perturb it to such an extent we cause a runaway greenhouse effect such as Venus. Would you like your fries cooked on the sidewalk or just wave them through the air a bit?
Oh, and the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is changing the acidity of the oceans which is helping to destroy biodiversity there. And the oceans are the base of the food chain. It probably wasn't a big problem during the young Earth or when the dinosaurs still roamed, but now that there are billions of people, we rather care about it a bit more. And to listen to the fishermen, the topical and subtropical fish have been moving north and south. Maybe they are just tired of their environment and are moving for a change of scenery, yes?
Unfortunately, all that fracking and natgas usage is increasing the amount of methane being released to the atmosphere and that has a much stronger warming effect than CO2 in the short term.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
scientists can calculate the forcing effect of greenhouse gases with certainty.
Except they can't....Sure, they can do it in a jar without any difficulty, but on an earth with a dynamically changing atmosphere, where not all parts even contain the same amount of greenhouse gases, it's very very hard. Currently, we can calculate the total warming effect of the atmosphere to within roughly 10 degrees of accuracy (ie, compared to an atmosphereless earth acting with black-body radiation).
To compensate for this, instead of calculating the total forcing of the atmosphere (check the IPCC report, it's not there), they try to calculate the change that would occur. For example, if CO2 doubled, how would the global temperature change? Unfortunately, even there we have a huge range of estimates, from less than 1 degree C to over 7 degrees. That's the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'total chaos.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The area of NYC is somewhere between 650 sq.km and 950 sq.km, depending on how you measure. There are 44 European countries larger than 1000 sq.km - NYC is only larger than Andorra, Malta, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City. Even the 44th largest on the list, Luxembourg, is more than two and a half times bigger than NYC.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Oh, a lot of people pretend to follow a god, but few still live under the yoke of that belief.
Yeah, and those maps were generally accurate before a lot of current construction, creek re-routing, etc. were done.
IOW, don't trust them at all. They may give a hint, but examine the land as it is now, and be accompanied by a decent hyrorlogist (who will probably refuse to give an opinion without taking sample cores in many places).
FWIW, I currently live on a hilltop that's marked at in the 100 year flood plain. This is because before the creek was re-routed it flowed through a small valley that is now a street. It was rerouted about 200 yards away (at this point) and there's a set of small hills between here and there. And it's in a deep channel. The heaviest of recent (decades) rains hasn't resulted in ANY significant flow down our street, much less any flooding. This is true even when the creek has significantly overflowed it's banks.
So I have reason to doubt those maps, even though they MAY be correct, if there's been no significant local "terraforming".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" -- Benjamin Franklin.
The people / companies / governments that are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are 'doing something' and they have not weighed the pros and cons carefully. Not producing CO2 is the default, it's been the case for human history; rapidly changing atmospheric composition is recent and people that want to do that, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, are the religious nuts.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
Humans are changing the atmosphere, and that change is affecting the climate, the results have already not been good and are expected to become worse. That's the unintended consequence. At this point, I think the people that want to continue doing it are the ones that have to justify themselves, not the 'hysterical people' who want them to stop.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
United States MINIMUM wage, what high school students earn, is far higher than average adult income in the rest of the world.
If you make $200 per week , you are richer than 86% of people. So yes, given that US welfare recipents have more than most workers, Americans are rich -virtually all of us. Not as rich as we were in the 80s and early 90s, but much better off than most.
If you're a nerd on Slashdot, your total gross income including benefits is probably over $31K. Is so, congratulations - you're a 1%er.
The "recent slowdown recent slowdown in the pace of warming" is more accurately written as "the cessation of global warming since 1998." When AGW proponents make accurate but misleading claims, it's not a surprise when the rest of us look on in doubt.
That's funny, people kept telling me warming stopped in 1995. Why the change to 1998?
In fact it just keeps "stopping".
Anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1997... and in 1996, 1995, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978 and 1972 /
Watch this Heartland Institute video