So what is Global warming? In order to look into this I went to the bastion of liberal leaning knowledge wikipedia to answer this question. We must answer this question in order to answer the thesis question(s) of this post: Is our planet warming, is this warming caused by man, and will this warming be detrimental enough to invest vast amounts of money?
Definition of Global warming according to wiki is-rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
Is our planet warming? Wiki makes this claim:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
So lets begin with wiki's first link which says 2009 ends the warmest decade on record and makes this case. Scroll down and we have this quote:
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures, despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America, Europe, and Asia. The year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years—1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007—as the second warmest year since modern record keeping began in 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
First question as a sceptic: Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities are warming our planet and yet we have a mixture of hottest years on record with coolest years on record all in the same decade, is this not a contradiction?
The ridiculous statement made above by wiki is backed up by 4 different links. The first link is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which says this:
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
Then right below that is say this:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
The second link says this:
Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.
Second question: The quote above by wiki says more than 90% certain when the actual link is less than 90% uncertainty in a range of >95% to >90% to >66% to >50%. How is less than 90% unequivocal (leaving no doubt)?
The third and fourth links do nothing to substantiate the bogus statement that the warming is unequivocal and is caused by deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
So what about the IPCC? In this whole debate (just like evolution) there are credible people who have become not at all credible because they have mixed politics with science. A panel put forth to review the IPCC said:
The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself. Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence
On top of this it is not hard to find serious flaws with some IPCC claims.
So far in debunking the whole Global Warming/Climate Change fiasco that says humans are going to warm this planet to the point it will be catastrophic I have shown: Wikipedia plays very loose with the facts, the IPCC has lost credibility, and while anyone can say our planet is warming it is not warming the way they said it would be. Since Al started this bullshit the planet according to him should be: 1998 hottest year on record, 1999 breaks record, 2000 breaks record, and so on. Plus this nonsense of a less than 90% uncertainty is just ridiculous because we are talking about global AVERAGE temperatures. Data that is based on averages can be seriously inaccurate and favor either side and this is especially highlighted by the fact the DRASTIC increase in average global temperatures according to the Global Warming people in only a few degrees.
It is also worth mentioning that a new NASA report states that our planet is releasing more heat into space than was first thought. The whole Global Warming premise lies on the fact that green house gases get trapped into our atomosphere and cause the planet to heat up more and faster than normal. Everyday the Global Warming hysteria crowd is losing credibility and watch in the next decade our battle will be Global Cooling.
" I went to the bastion of liberal leaning knowledge wikipedia"
yes, facts have a known liberal bias. LOL
The rest of your post is just an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse people. Here's a graph of global temperatures since 1980