Reports of a steady stream of scientific findings on global climate change, in particular reports on observed and
projected consequences of global warming, have increased the level of concern among policymakers and the public.
Not exact matches
Interestingly, although the [Summary for Policy Makers] clearly talked about the
projected global warming being up to 6.4 degrees above 1980 - 1999 average (which is 6.9 degrees above pre-industrial), you often see AR4 cited as suggesting that
warming could be «up to 4 degrees,» which I think is partly a
consequence of the way a key figure was presented.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director
of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup
of greenhouse gases and its
consequences pushed
global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists
project could occur from
global warming — Earth's population would be devastated.
Isn't it the CAGW alarmists who are
projecting catastrophic
consequences of global warming?
The purpose
of this paper is to provide a layman's critique
of the Anthropogenic
Global Warming (AGW) theory, and in particular to challenge the fairly widespread notion that the science and
projected consequences of AGW currently justify massive spending and government intervention into the world's economies.
Ignore the temperature data because the projections are what we want to happen.This includes the many predictions
of dire
consequences of global warming that are
projected to occur but haven't yet manifested themselves.
If
global warming continues as
projected, the
global consequences of deteriorating conditions in the tropics will soon be a lot more serious than a foretaste
of summer weather in late winter.