Slashdot Mirror
UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post's account:
The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.
“If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse,” said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earth’s atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.
The new figures for carbon dioxide were particularly surprising, showing the biggest year-over-year increase since detailed records were first compiled in the 1980s, Tarasova said in an interview. The jump of nearly three parts per million over 2012 levels was twice as large as the average increase in carbon levels in recent decades, she said.
The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.
The diplomacy is already complete for imposing carbon tariffs on China. We should proceed now. http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
...maybe BRICS!?
(apologies to Dana Carvey)
As an anonymous coward with no ties to the oil industry I can tell that this is rubbish. The headline says "atmospheric CO2" that was my first clue. Everyone who brings up this insignificant gas is a commie socialist bent on taking away our god-given right to burn stuff.
You need a global array. Last December-January-February together were the seventh warmest on record globally. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
until something insane happens not much will happen. something that is a clear and present danger to all humanity.
hurricane sandy was pretty bad for nyc but in a global perspective, it meant nothing, it did nothing.
we need an event like submerging the entire state of florida. killing off a millions of people from heat or storms.
but i am not even sure that's enough...
we probably need to kill off billions, that should be enough to touch everyone, and let us know that this shit is doing down for real and it'll be you that's next.
but until then, fuck it. party like it's 1999.
I guess because it is discussing a peer reviewed study in an unbiased manner.
Even the scientist that support AGW say a 15 year hiatus would cause a re think of their models supporting AGW, gues what... We are now one month away from a full 15 years of no significant rise in temps.
Tues they better get back to the drawing boards...
I love the global warming debate. You are either an environmentalist nut-job or an anti-science global warming denier. We spend almost no time analyzing reports, comparing data and questioning our preconceived notions (a.k.a. rational thought), and instead dig around the internet for articles supporting our side of the argument and name-calling anyone who has any doubts about the methods or conclusions from our pet article. /. article where global warming is the subject, I can rest assured that at least 95% of the comments will either be by or in response to trolls. It's like I'm on reddit or something.
In any other scientific debate, you never hear about "Higgs Boson Deniers" or "String Theory Fanatics" or "Standard Model dinosaurs". As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the only scientific area where EVERY commentator acts as though they are experts. Whenever I see a
The story below says "US Rust Belt Manufacturing Rebounds Via Fracking Boom" and asks 'do the associated environmental risks of new "tight oil" extraction techniques outweigh the benefits to these depressed economic regions?'
Well, do they?
There will be a march for the climate to put pressure on the UN to take action on September 21 in NYC. http://peoplesclimate.org/marc...
graph showing belief in the science over time among the D/I/R political groups
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh good, they actually have a testable quantifiable prediction that CO2 will continue to increase at the same rate and exceed 400 ppm in the next two years. If their prediction proves to be correct that will lend credibility to their models. But if CO2 does not do this, will they admit they don't know what exactly is going on with the environment? Or will they still claim that the less than expected raise in CO2 is also proof of climate change due to some previously undisclosed factor?
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." ~Leo Tolstoy
So, according to the World Meteorological Organization, the entire earths atmosphere increased in CO2 and Methane at a rate of ... 3 parts per million.
Really..
How was this measured? The WMO states that they have measured the atmosphere so accurately that they can account for 2.9 parts per million increase? 2.9 parts in a million.. They somehow measured this, in the entire planet's atmosphere? Really..
There is no chance that this increase is simply a mathematical rounding error? Statistical error? Someone added 2.9 parts to a total of a million parts that were being counted?
This all implies that humans are causing this increase. The article doesn't say why 2.9 parts per million increase (if that is even realistic) is a problem. 396 parts per million is just a number. Nothing happens when it gets to 400 parts per million. Or 4000 parts per million. Unless that change is overnight (which I presume the article was not suggesting), then the problem is not a scientific one - its a political one.
I still find it hard to believe they published this under the guise of global climate change and their evidence is.. 2.9 parts per million. Over the entire planet.
Hilarious.
Is this the Huffington Post? Is this Gawker?
Why not just run daily stories about evil white racists and white Christians opposed to queers who sodomize each other in the asshole receiving marriage licenses?
Did any of these basement dwelling nerds walk outside this summer when it was in the 60s for weeks in the fucking deep south?
GET OFF THE COMPUTER AND LIVE LIFE
Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess.
And even with all that additional CO2, global temperatures have not gone up. Tells me the models are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Humans need water. If I plunge your head into a tank of water and hold it there for fifteen minutes, you ought to be super healthy, right?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
your post shows you have zero familiarity with how the research funding process actually works.
for starters: they dont get to pocket the grant money as income.
their livelihood is in no way dependent on research funding.
and it has nothing to do with power. you reflect the typical Civics 101 fail of more tea baggers who dont even understand what a government is.
we could end GW today, just by stopping all fossil fuel use. we have the tech today right to do it, be it nuclear or solar or wind. we oculd do it. its just a matter of political will, or the lack thereof (fueled by massive lobbying dollars from the fossil fuel industry). the monies the FFI spends on this makes the little that GW researchers recieve look a pittance. so dont come in here with that same tired trope of the rich scientist. its manure. nothing but.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Remove science, add emotion - GO!
Higher acidity [CO2 dissolved in water forms an acid] in seawater is known to disrupt the life cycles of many marine species — from reef-building corals to shellfish beloved by humans — by interfering with the creatures’ ability to use sea-borne calcium to build their shells.
This bit should be scaring the pants off us. Not because we'll suddenly not be feasting on oysters, but because of zooplankton that form delicate calcium-based shells. If those critters go bye-bye, we will likely see the collapse of more ocean fisheries as food sources dry up.
And, in something of a double-whammy, coastal regions in the tropics are often protected by reefs from the ravages of some tropical storms. If those reefs slow down their growth (that replaces damaged reefs structures), or start dissolving, we're going to be have a tidal wave (bad pun!) of starving refugees.
You don't need to believe in global warming to see those two issues becoming problems. You need enough empathy to see this as being a problem, even if it's not in your own backyard.
If you do believe in global warming, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the oceans will rise high enough to wipe out their homes before acidification lays a licking on marine ecosystems.
Everything is in keeping with the models.
When your model says everything is attributable to Global Warming, you really can't lose, can you?
The reefs in the Caribbean have been dying for decades, but not from acidification.
About a quarter of the way down on this page, http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/201... , you can see what happens as the stony corals die off. The branches of the corals break off and no longer supply refuge to small fish from predators. And there's less ... well ... hard stuff in the way to slow down waves. It's kind of depressing to snorkel or dive in Florida since you can see all the old coral skeletons lying on the ocean floor, slowly being covered with silt. While, of the three images, the one on the right looks the most vibrant, most of what you're seeing is soft coral (no calcium carbonate skeleton) and sponges that are, you know, spongy. Soft corals provide little or no protection to juvenile or feeder fish.
You CAN review the data, it IS public, and so are the tools to analyze the data.
There's a thriving skeptic group actively doing just that, so you can still feel you're among your own kind when you look into it.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
There's a thriving skeptic group actively doing just that, so you can still feel you're among your own kind when you look into it.
A "skeptic" group already did this. The other "skeptics" didn't like the outcome:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This is an excellent example of where a microscopic amount of critical thinking would go a long way.
CO2 dissolves in water, yes. Atmospheric levels used to be immensely higher, yes. Ocean life very similar to today's survived just fine, yes.
Hence: "should be scaring the pants off us", no.
It is this lack of critical thinking, this "oh noes, the world is ending" that I find totally irritating about the AGW folks. Is the earth warmer that it was 100 years ago? Sure it is, so what? It's a minor increase, climate is dominated by negative feedback loops (blindingly obvious). No need to panic, and anyway, warmer is historically better...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Actually, physics is full of nut jobs and deniers. If you are backing String Theory you are automatically a fanatic. As to the Standard Model, it is most certainly a dinosaur-like model. And every single physicist backing one of the "big three" theories -- relativity, QM & string theory -- is a denier, to one degree or another.
If you wanted to make your point with an analogy, you should have chosen chemistry.
Yup, we do have a null hypothesis.
The 20th century temperature rise is well within the range of natural fluctuations, and is not unusual, so no anthropogenic cause is necessary to explain it.
It is up to the warmists to prove their case against that null hypothesis.
CO2 has risen monotonically since the Keeling curve was measured and plotted, but temperatures have remained stable for 10-20 years depending on which temperature record you look at. Santner said a flat trend of 17 years is enough to disprove the models, and the models are looking pretty bad now.
The best temp record for the US is the USCRN (google that), a evenly spaced group of climate stations in the US (so no funky "adjustments needed) iin pristine sites (no airport tarmacs heating things up) with tripple redundant state of the art Pt temp sensors.
And what does it show for the last ten years- NO warming at all. This is the best least corrupted record we have.
Okay, so we cut back CO2 production, snazzy, snazzy. And yet now we're having the highest ever.
OR
Could it be that we're having one of the highest levels of volcanic and tectonic activity? I mean how many volcanoes are ablowing? Yellowstone aglowing? Who's aknowing? Perhaps we'll reduce CO2 only to go BOOM!
TROLOL
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
Sea level has been rising since the little ice age and the big ice ages.
But, there is NO acceleration of the rate of rise of about 3mm/year.
So, a slow rise that has been happening for hundreds or thousands of years...humans have been adapting for a long time-look at the Dutch.
Models are not data, and there is no evidence of a catastrophic problem here which would necessitate destroying our energy infrastructure.
So let's do something useful.
Anyone with a grass yard should be planting a small forest of actual trees. Carbon sinks. Much better for the environment, also because there is much less energy spent maintaining them.
It's almost as though all the carbon cutting being done in the US and Europe is being rendered completely irrelevant so long as we let china keep fucking everything up.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
I think people are exhaling more than they did 20 years back.
Well, this was the coldest summer in my memory. I don't think I've ever experienced 50 degree weather in July/August (and I used to live further north).
Oh, this is just localized. Except, wow...I've got friends over in Europe experiencing the same. Okay, perhaps it is just the northern hemisphere of Earth. I haven't checked with my Aussie and S. American friends as to whether this year was warmer or colder for them.
But if this is in fact the highest CO2, and one of the warmest global temperature years. Something is very lacking on the observable real anectdotal evidence. And yes, folks dismiss anecdotal evidence. But if anecdotal evidence is in fact in conflict with your theory. You should pause and reconsider. If you say, penguins can't fly, and suddenly see a penguin fly.....it's time to pause and re-analyze and assess whether you've discovered a new type of penguin or whether your premise is not globally valid. Perhaps one must revise to "most penguins" don't fly.
Now granted, we have not discovered any flying penguins. But we've found a lot of equivalent questionables in regards to Global Warming claims. Enough that I think there needs to be some honest re-evaluation.
Not.
Freeman Dyson
Tax complainers are largely a bunch of selfish, ignorant, complaining jerks with character disorders. (some or all of those.)
I've had a millionaire bitch to me how taxes were "killing him" as he picked up the tab for lunch and just after how he was talking about the PAIN of owning 5 (FIVE) houses, one in Hawaii. I pay more taxes than he ever did and that % I pay is felt by me more than the lower % is felt by him! If you are wondering, educating these people is impossible; the behavior is a symptom of psychological problems so fixing an issue of ignorance or whatever just manifests as something else until they get their broken minds fixed. Sadly, my experience is that them having money makes them more mentally healthy and better than normal people; so they are far less likely to ever seek help or take advice. (If you luck your way into money, then you are less likely to think that way; it's a matter of perspective. Entitled superiority vs lucky joe )
Environmental taxes are not a significant problem. Way more tax money is spent on other things we don't need. In the USA, we don't have hardly any environmental taxes. I'm going to assume the poster is thinking of regulations as opposed to taxes but not address that BS to keep the post short.
The LACK of sane environmental policy is indirectly costing me FAR more than the taxes-- in MONEY. Non-monetary things matter too and should be a factor over just numbers. I WANT more environmental taxes!!
My insurance rates are HIGHER and despite shifting companies, the rate of increase is higher than decades ago; business owning friends have had it much worse.
The energy commodity trading market is a sham (Enron like) and adds MORE to the price of gas than gas taxes do; under the guise of stabilizing the market when at least in modern times it has not done so.
You are not being taxed "the hell out of" if you live in the USA. Look at all the other 1st world nations (which might not be fair since the USA arguably is no longer 1st world but in transition backwards with the majority of factors already there... not that all such metrics are equal which is why I'm not concluding it myself at this time.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Simple. The Kochs and their whores can't make money off any of that.
Kill off a billion people and CO2 levels will most likely drop. At least once the bodies stop burning.
That is a huge mistake people keep making. Tomorrow has weather. Predicting the weather and predicting the climate are too very different things.
Predicting the climate is akin to predicting when you will need certain repairs on your car. Climatologists cannot say exactly when the median temperature will increase by 1 K, but they can say it will happen and predict about when it will happen. The engineers at BMW cannot predict exactly when your water pump will fail, but they can tell you that eventually it will fail and that it probably will fail around 150,000 km with about 10% accuracy.
Predicting the weather is akin to predicting whether your water pump will fail tomorrow. It's much harder to do. Maybe it sounds funny, but it might take months to fail. Maybe it sounds fine but develops a sudden unexpected leak.
It amazes me that with all the education we have, people are still confusing climate and weather.
And antarctic ice is a a record level fro the satellite era record.
Arctic ice is making a nice comeback the past year or two, now within the +/- 2 sigma band.
And in between lake Superior had some ice into June and July.
The sun is in a quiet mode-similar to other cooling periods and the ocean oscillations have switched to their cooler phase.
So, we are probably in for a few decades of cooling, which will be much worse for humans than a few degrees of warming.
I live in Canada, and considering the number of articles in recent years which have listed the impacts of global warming on the country, it's looking like a huge win. Even if only some of the permafrost melts, this is a huge increase in arable land and will allow as much as a doubling of agricultural output. Access to additional fresh water also increases significantly, which is notable given how much hoopla is made about water as an ever-more scarce resource. Increasing population density further north, and making the north actually productive. Better access to natural resources in the north, including mining and gas/oil extraction in the arctic. Levying fees on ships going eventually year round through the northwest passage. The boon global warming, if real, will bring to this surpasses by an order of magnitude anything its politicians could bring about. So yes, please, bring it on!
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I agree with you entirely, rational debate about the facts and their support is entirely subsumed by the factional rivalry. But, there is a great and similar split in the followers of String Theory - those that assume it to be the only and obvious explanation of the world vs. those that don't even consider it science. The only difference is that because ST doesn't touch upon public policy there is a larger third community - those who don't care.
I think that fundamentally the difficulty with the AGM debate is that it is very hard (i.e. impossible) to separate the policy issues from the science issues.
Australia just kicked their warmist politicians out of office and repealed their carbon taxes.
Canada abandoned and stepped out of the Kyoto treaty.
People are waking up to the scam all over.
Interesting. That means that as human emissions have increased, so have the CO2 sinks....so back when we were emitting 2x, the environment magically knew to absorb 1x, and now that we're emitting 20x, it absorbs 10x.
Here's the question - if the CO2 capacity of our sinks is upwards of 10x today, why did it only absorb 1x when we emitted less?
http://theresilientearth.com/?...
Here's an alternative - CO2 levels are driven by something else besides our emissions, and regardless if we emit more, or emit less, the "set point" will be adapted to, either by more absorption, or less absorption.
25 years at 3mm/year, is about 3 inches, would you notice that with the variations in tides and waves?
Long term records show the levels have increased and decreased before. What does it mean? Is it bad? Or is it just a distraction. There is a very real issue of toxic pollution that gets ignored in the hype over CO2.
if they had those gigabytes of data? that you want to see the actual printed paper logs in order to check the handwriting?
Face it, we are on to your tricks. It's not as if you are all that clever anyway.
Capturing the CO2 in a nice table makes more sense to me than burying it.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty usual. It takes a rare individual who can be convinced even by plain facts that he is wrong. Usually he can weasel his way out, like moving the goalposts, or the weird ways in the data is attacked in this very thread. There will always be an excuse for why the other side is always the incorrect one, and as I get older I've come to believe that it's the majority of people who are like this, not just hoax-believers and conspiracy theorists.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty unusual.
Fixed that for me. :-/
Let's be very clear here:
1) oceans are *basic* not acidic. Reducing pH of oceans at this point is *neutralization*, not acidification;
2) ocean pH varies orders of magnitude more than any proposed amount of neutralization:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
"It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day."
How can you possibly assert that as an explanation? Let's assume, for the moment, that the missing sink is the oceans (rather than say, increased plant life, or some other part of the carbon cycle we don't understand) - the moderator of how much CO2 they could absorb every year must be the amount of surface area of the oceans, yet without changing the surface area of the oceans, you're asserting that they magically figured out how to absorb *more* CO2 in later years?
Please, *why* would the oceans in 1980 absorb x CO2 from the atmosphere, but then in 2014, they absorb Y > 10x?
Possible suggestion: Absorption of oceans is driven by ocean temperature, and from say, 1980 - 2014, increasing ocean temps absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere. So then what regulates ocean temperature? Cloud albedo and solar activity primarily, with maybe some minuscule contribution from underwater vulcanism. Sadly, we've got no model linking cloud albedo to CO2, or solar activity to CO2, much less human CO2.
In any case, the fact that natural CO2 absorption has varied so greatly over the years indicates some other moderator than human CO2 emissions on final global CO2 levels.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century (it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop. Pray it is the former.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO. Pray it is the first one.
Dr Abdusamatov in 2006 said we are at the top of the temperature sine wave and it will be 200 years of cold weather. Pray he is wrong.
Why do I join with them and side with their predictions? While past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness it is a lot better record than the IPCC and their dozens of models of which none have been accurate. They are all based on CO2 controlling the climate and the other 3 are all cyclical natural cycles. I'll go with those who have a good track record at predicting future climate. Dr Libby is the most impressive as her prediction is 30+ years going and still accurate.
Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants,
The inability to absorb CO2 may have flipped and acidification may be
generating CO2 from oolitic sands and coral.
If acidification has flipped the oceans from a net sink for CO2 to a source
of CO2 we have issues with acceleration and underlying models in the
science.
Sadly the global warming side may prove to be right for many wrong reasons
and the nonbelievers may be wrong for other reasons.
This is a case where two wrongs does not make a right----.
I find myself at odds in this because I see bad science that puts
me on one side of the issues and then I see observations that make
it clear that as bad as the science is they are getting essentially
the right answer. In this case it may only be necessary to get the
sign correct.
Any that study statistics and the camel will understand.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
your post shows you have zero familiarity with how the research funding process actually works.
for starters: they dont get to pocket the grant money as income.
their livelihood is in no way dependent on research funding.
Actually, that is how medical research works in the USA. The grant goes in part to pay the salary of the researcher (have to pay of those med school loans, after all). Another part gets stolen, err, I meant to say "taxed" by the university where the research is taking place, after which it is laundered, err, I meant to say "moved into the general budget" (and there is no further traceability by snoopy and obnoxious members of the public that might have the unreasonable expectation of knowing how "their" money is being spent).
Whatever is left over gets spent on research.
Researchers who bring in big grants, and are likely to bring in more such grants, get something called "tenure". This insures the university a continual flow of funds to pay for things like a nice office for the President.
Lots of useful medical research does get done, so despite it's problems, the system actually works. That's not to say it's necessarily a well thought out system, or that it couldn't be improved. But there is certainly nothing wrong with having government fund scientific research.
I have no personal experience with the non-medical type of research, so I couldn't say whether or how it is different. Still, it seems highly UNLIKELY that the livelihood of the typical researcher is in "no way" dependent on funding.
Don't let your passion for the side you have chosen in this debate lead you into sloppy and easily avoidable errors: you'll simply convince the other side you're an incompetent thinker.
That's just the selection over time. Everybody started out skeptical about AGW, most were convinced decades ago. The few who were still skeptics recently and eventually announced their change of mind were more stubborn.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
We have had >7C change in LIMITED AREAS (e.g. the poles) today, in LESS THAN 30 YEARS.
And we have even more to go.
Then hince there's nothing in the iPCC reports to claim thatthere would be significant acceleration in a few decades, how the hell can this be a problem for the climate models?
And since that still means there's warming, as much as before, the how the hell is this ANYTHING other than "AGW continues"???
This is why governments should not be funding any science research, and why no credible scientist takes government money.
This is Slashdot. It's news for nerds, not news for idiots. Government funding for science research is responsible for all kinds of important developments, which then get used in commercial products. Stuff like improvements to agriculture, allowing more people to have food, or improvements to medicine, allowing more people to live healthy, happy lives. All kinds of basic science research was and continues to be funded by governments, and most Nobel prizes in science result from research funded in part, often in whole, by government. Few commercial entities are willing to fund this kind of long term research.
Albert Einstein worked for the US government on a number of occasions. Presumably in your deluded mind he was not a credible scientist?
Do you really believe any study the UN puts out? Not like it's a conflict of interest or anything. Anyone ever hear of Agenda 21 and its world-wide implementation by the UN. Then tell me how anything credible can come out of the UN.