World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario 760
Layzej writes "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."
Phew... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank goodness that "global warming" is bullshit.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)
Last summer some dolt tried to convince me it was 40C outside. I pointed to my drink, which was sitting on the table at a lovely 4C, as evidence it couldn't be that warm, or my drink would be warm too. He got all huffy and mumbled about ice-cubes moderating the temperature, but it was obvious he was just making that shit up.
I finished my drink 5 minutes later, and it was cool and refreshing to the last drop.
THATS IT! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm leaving ...
Re:You know, (Score:4, Funny)
The IPCC figured people someone would actually listen to them and start to make cuts, when they made their worst case predictions. They were wrong.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like you're in a discussion related to the climate. Would you like help?
Re:What worst case? (Score:2, Funny)
There is a finite amount of fossile fuels underground, the worst case scenario is that we develop a way to extract and burn most of it, wich would raise global temperatures by about 6 degrees, regardless of speed.
At 6 degrees we are all dead.
Re:What some people don't get (Score:5, Funny)
Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.
There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
I'm guessing you're no scientist.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)
Look pal, pseudo-skepticism only works if you blindly repeat Heartland Institute talking points. There is absolutely no room for actually knowing a fucking thing about AGW.
Now get back in your Ferrari, you cock-smoking teabagging super-rich scientist with your big house and your ten 18 year old girlfriends and your seven digit bank account, and leave those poor wittle oil companies alone.
Fucking climatological bully.