How Bad Is Global Warming?

[justdrew]

Scientists: Growing Antarctic ice is strange sign of global warming
Posted: 10/11/2012 12:01:00 AM MDT
Updated: 10/11/2012 08:38:12 AM MDT
By Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching farther than ever before. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice might be a cockeyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say.

This is Antarctica, the polar opposite of the Arctic.

While the North Pole has been losing sea ice over the years, the water nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a record 7.51 million square miles in September. That happened just days after reports of the biggest loss of Arctic sea ice on record.

Climate change skeptics have seized on the Antarctic ice to argue that the globe isn't warming and that scientists are ignoring the southern continent because it's not convenient. But some scientists say skeptics are misinterpreting what's happening and why.

Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year — both related to human activity — are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say. This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.

"A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences," researcher Ted Maksym said this week from an Australian research vessel surrounded by Antarctic sea ice. He is with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

Sea ice is always melting near one pole while growing around the other. But the overall trend year to year is dramatically less ice in the Arctic and slightly more in the Antarctic.

It's most noticeable in September, when northern ice is at its lowest and southern ice at its highest. For more than 30 years, the Arctic in September has been losing an average of 5.7 square miles of sea ice for every square mile gained in Antarctica.

Read more: Scientists: Growing Antarctic ice is strange sign of global warming - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_21745000/scientists-growing-antarctic-ice-is-strange-sign-global

[Ben D]

No they don't. they clearly show many of those observable temps within the range of the predictions

Joe, by implication, those observable temps that are not included in the many you observed that were within the range of predictions, do not fall within the range of the predictions. Understood!

Yeah, but so what?

Are you expecting models to be 100% accurate all of the time?

That is not gonna happen.

You said..

And there has been clear increases in temps over the last 16 years, Its consistently 0.4 to 0.5 of a degree hotter than it was 16 years ago. Have a look at the graph.

And I said... please show me on that graph where you get your 0.4 to 0.5 degree C increase after 1996/7 which sits at around the 0.4 degree C anomaly mark?

And now you said..

The graph doesn't show anything 16 years after 1997 so I can't actually do that.

Exasperating is the word...

Yeah cos the graph doesn't have 2011 or 2012 figures. So ... perhaps I should have said "over the last 16 years shown on the graph...." Its exasperating cos the 2010 observed temps are between 0.5 and 0.6 degrees hotter than the baseline, and the 1994 ones, (16 years earlier), were between 0.1 and 0.2. Thats a difference of between 0.3 and 0.5 degrees, over a 16 year period up until the last measurement on the graph. I never said from 96/97 - I said 16 years ago. I was referring to the last 16 years on the graph you provided - which show an increase of up to 0.5 of a degree, I'm sure you can see thru my poor grammar to recognise the point I was making - the one about that graph showing an increase in observable temps of up to 0.5 degrees over the last 16 years of data.

Btw Joe, you may as well accept it, the Met Office has officially admitted that there has been no significant warming over the last 16 years, they put it at 0.03 degree C, which can be statistically equated with zero when you consider the margin of error of the measurement that greatly exceeds 0.03 degrees.

The met office also said they'd recording a 0.12 to 0.15 degree increase from 1979 to 2011 and that they thought that trend was more indicative of a rise on temperatures over long periods of time. They specifically said the last 16 years, which showed warming at a far slower rate - 0.03 to 0.05 deg, not just 0.03 deg, was too short a period to make a judgement about long term trends, especially given that every decade for more than 30 years has been hotter than the previous one. Ie 2000s were hotter than 1990s which were hotter than 1980s. Which were the hottest decade on record.

So since 1979 there has been an increase of on average 0.4 to 0.5 degrees a decade, even allowing for the 2000s where the increase was there, but smaller.

You have said you accept behind the idea that CO2 causes warming, and I don't think anyone here arguing with you thinks computer modelling is perfect or that it will be 100% accurate all of the time, yet you are claiming that because it isn't 100% accurate all the time there's no such thing as climate change.

Your position doesn't hold up.

Joe, do the sums, if there has only been 0.8 degree C warming over the last 160 years (sorry C2W, last time I promise), how can there be on average an increase of 0.4 or o.5 degree C temperature per decade since 1979? Oh wait, there may be a loop hole there, let's go with plan B,..here's the go. have a look at Drew's graph above and read off the change in temperature since 1980,..my calibrated eyeballs say about 0.4 over the 30 years..yes!

Look, I've been over the points you raise over and over, not only with you, and am getting weary,...here's a copy of something I said to DrEvil, it may help clarify...it's not about the modelling having to be perfect, it's about correlation and accuracy of the models prediction of temperature based on the rise of CO2 over time, if they are to be considered a scientifically sound by all scientists...

The whole scientific world is watching how these climate models perform against reality, they will not go away,...as much as Hansen et al would like them too. It was just fortuitous that in the context of the steep increase in global temperature prior to 1996/7, that there was reasonable correlation between temperature projection and actual measurement and that was when the world stood up and took notice.

Now the newer projections that come on line in time are based on modifying the model to better fit the real temperature so as to attempt to more accurately predict future temperature. So the the sequence of FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4 would represent thee evolutionary attempts to fine tune the AGW computer models. But over the last 16 years, the global temperatures have remained around the same level, and subsequently the deviation from projections has increased until now when they fall completely outside.

Remember these computer models are based on AGW greenhouse gas forcing, which gases have been growing at least at the rate as pre-1997, and this lack of correlation between the increase in CO2 levels over the last 16 years and the global temperature over the same period highlight the shaky credibility of AGW theory at this time.

Oh and btw, when the AR5 projections are finalized, all those temps that fall outside the present model projections will fit inside its shaded area of AR5.

And lastly, so far as 16 years being insufficient time to say the global warming has slowed, all I can say is,..bring it on,...with patience this matter will be resolved.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben wrote:

Iamwhomiam wrote:Drew a disreputable Septic Skeptic broke his oath and leaked this portion of the still actively being compiled draft of AR 5. Watts published an edited version, leaving out the most important details, which "clear minded" Ben was unaware of when he posted it.

Tasmanian Devil or Hungry Ghost, which is it...

What did Watts leave out Iam? Or rather Alec Rawls, he worked on AR5 and was the one that leaked it.

Rawls. This:

“The last roll of the dice for climate change sceptics is an appeal to cosmic rays from outer space,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“It’s a wacky theory, the evidence is pretty weak and if Alec Rawls had been honest enough to print the end of the section that he selectively quoted it is clear that the conclusion that the evidence is weak and it is unlikely to be an explanation of climate change.”

:roll: Tasmanian Devil or Hungry Ghost, which is it

You'll learn soon enough, when reality slaps the silly shit out of your Bendy ass for the last time this go-round.

But just before the time comes, let me know. I may be able to help you out; I know powerful 'people' in high places. They may require you to engage in some kind of act of contrition, though. Heartfelt repentance... and even then, only a partial absolution's possible.

Best case outcome might be a wallaby.

Way better than becoming a Hungry Ghost for an eternity or few. And not yet threatened by extirpation.

[Ben D]

Ben wrote:

Iamwhomiam wrote:Drew a disreputable Septic Skeptic broke his oath and leaked this portion of the still actively being compiled draft of AR 5. Watts published an edited version, leaving out the most important details, which "clear minded" Ben was unaware of when he posted it.

What did Watts leave out Iam? Or rather Alec Rawls, he worked on AR5 and was the one that leaked it.

Rawls. This:

“The last roll of the dice for climate change sceptics is an appeal to cosmic rays from outer space,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“It’s a wacky theory, the evidence is pretty weak and if Alec Rawls had been honest enough to print the end of the section that he selectively quoted it is clear that the conclusion that the evidence is weak and it is unlikely to be an explanation of climate change.”
You'll learn soon enough, when reality slaps the silly shit out of your Bendy ass for the last time this go-round.

Tasmanian Devil or Hungry Ghost, which is it

But just before the time comes, let me know. I may be able to help you out; I know powerful 'people' in high places. They may require you to engage in some kind of act of contrition, though. Heartfelt repentance... and even then, only a partial absolution's possible.

Best case outcome might be a wallaby.

Way better than becoming a Hungry Ghost for an eternity or few. And not yet threatened by extirpation.

Those comments are irrelevant to the question at hand, Rawls posted the whole draft AR5, therefore he didn't leave anything out...right!

What he quoted from it relevant to the context of his personal reason for leaking it is a completely different matter, everyone has access to all the content of the draft AR5 document if they want...

Oh,..and God Bless you Iam...

[compared2what?]

if there has only been 0.8 degree C warming over the last 160 years (sorry C2W, last time I promise),

No problem.

(REFER).

[Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

Can we retire this one now, too, though? Because this is now also the third thread on which I've seen you wave that one around as if it in some way contradicted or undermined climate models, although it's been repeatedly explained to you that it doesn't. Remember the last time it came up? When I explained that there have been nine such periods since 1972? Which doesn't mean that global warming has stopped, slowed or been proven false in any way, shape or form? As only someone who couldn't grasp simple mathematical concepts would understand?

Maybe a little refresher'll help:

Anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1997…and in 1996, 1995, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978 and 1972



On 29 January 2012, the UK's 'Mail on Sunday' newspaper published an amazingly inaccurate article which began with the extraordinary statement: "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years".

Self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' have for the past few years been recycling the myth that anthropogenic global warming has 'stopped'. Indeed, an opinion article by former French politician Claude Allègre and 15 friends, published in the 'Wall Street Journal' on 27 January, included among its many erroneous pronouncements "The lack of warming for more than a decade - indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections - suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause."

But what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account.

Here is a graph of global average annual temperature since 1970, using the HadCRUT3 data published by the Met Office on its website - the vertical axis shows values of temperature anomaly - the difference between the annual global average temperature and the mean value from the period between 1961 and 1990.



Using simple linear regression (ordinary least squares) we can detect and measure a clear trend over the 42-year period between 1970 and 2011, indicating an average temperature increase of 0.151°C per decade. This trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level, the standard test which means the probability that there is no warming trend at all in the data is less than 5 per cent.

It is important to note that simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is not really the most appropriate method for assessing these data as it depends on assumptions which are violated by global temperature measurements. Nevertheless we consider simple linear regression here as it is often used by many 'sceptics' to underpin their claims that global warming has 'stopped'.

So now let us look at just the last 15 years of annual average global temperatures, plotted in the graph below.



Using simple linear regression, we can see that the measurements for 1997 to 2011 define a warming trend of 0.034°C per decade, but this is not statistically significant at the 95 per cent level. This is the sole basis of the 'sceptic' assertion that there has been no anthropogenic global warming since 1997.

But now let us look at every consecutive 15-consecutive-year period of data within the entire dataset for 1970 to 2011. If we apply ordinary linear regression to each period, the results we obtain are listed in this table.



We can see that there are nine periods in which the data does not define a trend that is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level (p-value is higher than 0.05). Using 'sceptic' logic, no anthropogenic global warming was taking place during these periods.

Applying the same logic and technique, some 'sceptics' only look back over the past 10 years and claim anthropogenic global warming stopped in 2002. If we apply the same test to every 10-consecutive-year period since 1970, we obtain the results listed in the following table.



We can see that there were only five 10-year periods since 1970 when there was a statistically significant trend. On this basis, anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, etc.

What does this show us? When one uses flawed logic, inappropriate statistical methods and very small global temperature datasets, one is unable to detect underlying trends amid the noise. In essence, one cannot see the wood for the trees. To analyse the underlying trend in global temperatures, you need enough data to be able to detect and measure it. Otherwise you can mistakenly conclude that absence of evidence means evidence of absence. It is completely arbitrary to limit an analysis to just 10 or 15 data points. If, for-instance, one considers the last 18 years of data, and not just the last 15, one finds a statistically significant warming trend of 0.118°C per decade since 1994.

Climate scientists are interested in what the noisy global average temperature data of the last 15 years shows us. They do not conclude that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have suddenly stopped causing the Earth to warm, as it is based on sound physics. But they do suspect that other factors may be 'masking' the anthropogenic global warming trend, such as a cooling effect caused by an increase in the amount in the atmosphere of aerosols from the burning fossil fuels which reflect sunlight, or changes in solar activity.

So next time you read or hear that anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1997, remember just how flaky that claim is.

Please.


(Link)..

[compared2what?]

Btw Joe, you may as well accept it, the Met Office has officially admitted that there has been no significant warming over the last 16 years, they put it at 0.03 degree C, which can be statistically equated with zero when you consider the margin of error of the measurement that greatly exceeds 0.03 degrees.

Actually, they said "statistically significant."

...

Well. I know I've mentioned the omission of that word in that way before. But since I think it was only once, I guess it's too soon to add it to the discard-request pile.

...

Anyway. The missing "statistically" aside -- Why yes! They did say that. But it doesn't really qualify as an admission of anything other than the rate of warming over the last 16 years, which does not -- N-O-T, not -- mean that global warming has stopped!

Whee!

_________________

About that missing "statistically," btw. It does alter the meaning of what they said to leave it out.

[Ben D]

if there has only been 0.8 degree C warming over the last 160 years (sorry C2W, last time I promise),

No problem.

(REFER).

[Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

Can we retire this one now, too, though? Because this is now also the third thread on which I've seen you wave that one around as if it in some way contradicted or undermined climate models, although it's been repeatedly explained to you that it doesn't. Remember the last time it came up? When I explained that there have been nine such periods since 1972? Which doesn't mean that global warming has stopped, slowed or been proven false in any way, shape or form? As only someone who couldn't grasp simple mathematical concepts would understand?

Maybe a little refresher'll help:

Anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1997…and in 1996, 1995, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978 and 1972



On 29 January 2012, the UK's 'Mail on Sunday' newspaper published an amazingly inaccurate article which began with the extraordinary statement: "The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years".

Self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' have for the past few years been recycling the myth that anthropogenic global warming has 'stopped'. Indeed, an opinion article by former French politician Claude Allègre and 15 friends, published in the 'Wall Street Journal' on 27 January, included among its many erroneous pronouncements "The lack of warming for more than a decade - indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections - suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause."

But what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account.

Here is a graph of global average annual temperature since 1970, using the HadCRUT3 data published by the Met Office on its website - the vertical axis shows values of temperature anomaly - the difference between the annual global average temperature and the mean value from the period between 1961 and 1990.

Met Office graph the difference between the annual global average temperature and the mean value from the period between 1961 and 1990.



Using simple linear regression (ordinary least squares) we can detect and measure a clear trend over the 42-year period between 1970 and 2011, indicating an average temperature increase of 0.151°C per decade. This trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level, the standard test which means the probability that there is no warming trend at all in the data is less than 5 per cent.

It is important to note that simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is not really the most appropriate method for assessing these data as it depends on assumptions which are violated by global temperature measurements. Nevertheless we consider simple linear regression here as it is often used by many 'sceptics' to underpin their claims that global warming has 'stopped'.

So now let us look at just the last 15 years of annual average global temperatures, plotted in the graph below.



Using simple linear regression, we can see that the measurements for 1997 to 2011 define a warming trend of 0.034°C per decade, but this is not statistically significant at the 95 per cent level. This is the sole basis of the 'sceptic' assertion that there has been no anthropogenic global warming since 1997.

But now let us look at every consecutive 15-consecutive-year period of data within the entire dataset for 1970 to 2011. If we apply ordinary linear regression to each period, the results we obtain are listed in this table.



We can see that there are nine periods in which the data does not define a trend that is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level (p-value is higher than 0.05). Using 'sceptic' logic, no anthropogenic global warming was taking place during these periods.

Applying the same logic and technique, some 'sceptics' only look back over the past 10 years and claim anthropogenic global warming stopped in 2002. If we apply the same test to every 10-consecutive-year period since 1970, we obtain the results listed in the following table.



We can see that there were only five 10-year periods since 1970 when there was a statistically significant trend. On this basis, anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, etc.

What does this show us? When one uses flawed logic, inappropriate statistical methods and very small global temperature datasets, one is unable to detect underlying trends amid the noise. In essence, one cannot see the wood for the trees. To analyse the underlying trend in global temperatures, you need enough data to be able to detect and measure it. Otherwise you can mistakenly conclude that absence of evidence means evidence of absence. It is completely arbitrary to limit an analysis to just 10 or 15 data points. If, for-instance, one considers the last 18 years of data, and not just the last 15, one finds a statistically significant warming trend of 0.118°C per decade since 1994.

Climate scientists are interested in what the noisy global average temperature data of the last 15 years shows us. They do not conclude that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have suddenly stopped causing the Earth to warm, as it is based on sound physics. But they do suspect that other factors may be 'masking' the anthropogenic global warming trend, such as a cooling effect caused by an increase in the amount in the atmosphere of aerosols from the burning fossil fuels which reflect sunlight, or changes in solar activity.

So next time you read or hear that anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1997, remember just how flaky that claim is.

Please.


(Link)..

Hey,..I told you I was feeling frazzled and you do a post like this,..how considerate is that..

Look, the climate models are being undermined by the lack of warming in the 21st century so far, they admit it, and badly need an increase in temperatures to help to validate their AGW theory and restore credibility among the waverers. You, they, can refute the skeptics all they like, but if the temperatures keep the way they are for another 5 years, or they start to go down, the game is probably over for AGW.

Now with the Sun apparently going into a Maunder minimum period, there are many scientists predicting a very cold world coming up. I'm not calling it at this stage, just being patient and watching the data come in year by year, and updating folks at RI who are interested in the state of play.

[Ben D]

Btw Joe, you may as well accept it, the Met Office has officially admitted that there has been no significant warming over the last 16 years, they put it at 0.03 degree C, which can be statistically equated with zero when you consider the margin of error of the measurement that greatly exceeds 0.03 degrees.

Actually, they said "statistically significant."

...

Well. I know I've mentioned the omission of that word in that way before. But since I think it was only once, I guess it's too soon to add it to the discard-request pile.

...

Anyway. The missing "statistically" aside -- Why yes! They did say that. But it doesn't really qualify as an admission of anything other than the rate of warming over the last 16 years, which does not -- N-O-T, not -- mean that global warming has stopped!

Whee!

_________________

About that missing "statistically," btw. It does alter the meaning of what they said to leave it out.

No problem, I was going on my memory from that time on another thread when the subject came up for discussion, and just used the words that came to mind to provide the gist. So,...'no "statistically" significant warming over the last 16 years' it is...

[compared2what?]

(Link)..
Hey,..I told you I was feeling frazzled and you do a post like this,..how considerate is that..

I mean well, believe it or not.

Look, the climate models are being undermined by the lack of warming in the 21st century so far,

No they aren't.

they admit it,

No they don't.

and badly need an increase in temperatures to help to validate their AGW theory and restore credibility among the waverers.

No they don't. And also, no they don't.

You, they, can refute the skeptics all they like, but if the temperatures keep the way they are for another 5 years, or they start to go down, the game is probably over for AGW.

Sigh.

Ben D, if things keep the way they are (or if temperatures go down by any realistically possible amount) over the next five years, it will be warming on track with climate models.

Did you not read the nice little disquisition on simple linear regressions that I just posted?



(About that "News guy wept and told us/Earth was really dying" -- no on-topicity intended. I just like the song.)

[Ben D]

(Link)..
Hey,..I told you I was feeling frazzled and you do a post like this,..how considerate is that..

I mean well, believe it or not.

Look, the climate models are being undermined by the lack of warming in the 21st century so far,

No they aren't.

they admit it,

No they don't.

and badly need an increase in temperatures to help to validate their AGW theory and restore credibility among the waverers.

No they don't. And also, no they don't.

You, they, can refute the skeptics all they like, but if the temperatures keep the way they are for another 5 years, or they start to go down, the game is probably over for AGW.

Sigh.

Ben D, if things keep the way they are (or if temperatures go down by any realistically possible amount) over the next five years, it will be warming on track with climate models.

Did you not read the nice little disquisition on simple linear regressions that I just posted?



(About that "News guy wept and told us/Earth was really dying" -- no on-topicity intended. I just like the song.)

Thank you.

Yes they are, yes they do, yes they do, etc..

No I didn't.

Look C2W, we presently have different perspectives on the science of climate, time will reveal which one of us is correct, or neither. I am happy to discuss new issues as they arise, like for instance this AR5 leak, but the debate of climate change in general is never going to be resolved here in these pages...though it can involve resolution of errors of present individual understanding.

Btw, have you ever tested your AGW climate science understanding on WUWT, that would reveal how solid it is, there are some highly qualified regulars there. I follow the discussions and have learned heaps, mainly from the debates in the comments between the warmistos (term used for the AGW folk) and the skeptics.

[compared2what?]

Nah. But as you know, I do not love Tony Watts like I love you. So somebody might get hurt. Probably me. Or banned at least.

[Ben D]

Nah. But as you know, I do not love Tony Watts like I love you. So somebody might get hurt. Probably me. Or banned at least.

Shucks C2W,...actually Anthony mainly just acts as a facilitator, the mods allow any and all contrarians to present their case or refutation as the case may be. You've got to be pretty outrageous to get banned there...oh wait...

[wintler2]

Study finds the insurance industry paying increasing attention to climate change

December 13, 2012

The insurance industry, the world's largest business with $4.6 trillion in revenues, is making larger efforts to manage climate change-related risks, according to a new study published today in the journal Science.

"Weather- and climate-related insurance losses today average $50 billion a year. These losses have more than doubled each decade since the 1980s, adjusted for inflation," says the study's author Evan Mills, a scientist in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)'s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

[Laodicean]

Climate Change Studies: Less than 1% Reject Global Warming

[Ben D]

Climate Change Studies: Less than 1% Reject Global Warming

That's right, but what about the question if that warming involved human activity? How about 56% not fully accepting AGW...

But also keep in mind that real science is not determined by the polls, media propaganda, vested interest's marketing and spin, etc., a theory will endure only so long as it has not been falsified...

Pew Climate Change Poll Reveals That Less Than Half Of Americans Make Anthropogenic Connection

Recent polling conducted by the Pew Research Center suggests that a greater number of people in the U.S. are accepting the reality of climate change. 67 percent of Americans said that there is "solid evidence" that average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades, signaling a gain of four points since last year and 10 points since 2009. Yet only 42 percent say this warming is "mostly caused by human activity," according to Pew.