Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
This is a peer-reviewed paper from the Publication of the National Academy of Sciences.
|
Let's view both sources of your claims.
"Center for Research on Globalization" is a valid research organization? It is a newspaper chock full of political news - not science. A classic example of a source with a political agenda.
An Australian newspaper article also cited as a research source? The newspaper claims, "lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements ... show little if any global warming since 1979". Completely contradicts what has been reported by virtually all responsible science. Even contradicts the Economists' analysis from six major research organizations well regarded for their science. Organizations that do not report politics - as your paper does.
Your citation cites political sources as proof that global warming does not exist. Then says this should not happen with increased "emissions of radiatively active gases" and greenhouse gases. Problem with your source: their premise is based in political newspapers. Not is numbers from science. Responsible science reports temperatures have increased. A chart provided by the Economist reports numbers from science; not from political newspapers.
Your paper makes no valid claim that temperatures are falling. Just claims from political newspapers. Did I make the point blunt enough yet?
Meanwhile it also says, "The finding that the recent hiatus in warming ... does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In short, your paper also acknowledges that mankind is largely responsible what causes global warming. Once their assumed natural downturn in temperatures is over, then global warming will increase with a vengeance. Did you also forget to grasp that from your paper?
It continues: "The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to rise." In short. We must go increase massive pollution to avert global warming. Making air cleaner for human and other earthborne life increases global warming.
Well yes, responsible science also has been saying that pollution slows global warming. The computer models also suggest that. Increases pollution has been proposed by responsible science as a solution - with little useful conclusions. Other resulting damage (including reduced crop yields) are too negative.
Your citation does not quote responsible science to prove temperatures are remaining stable. Instead it cites sources that are political newspapers. According to your citation, if we attempt clean air, then global warming will only get worse. That is what your citation says. That is not what you have represented it to say.
Please report what your paper is really says. It says mankind is a significant contributor to global warming. That once a natural event reverses, then global warming will be worse. And it discusses how pollution slows global warming. Read what your citation says; not what extremists want a soundbyte "executive summary" to say.
Meanwhile, responsible sources of science (not political news) report global warming is ongoing at unhealthy levels.
Please quote numbers from science. Not from newspapers with a political agenda.