Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.

According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.

archive.fo/l1b8a

Other urls found in this thread:

petitionproject.org/index.php
breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/23/delingpole-all-of-recent-u-s-warming-has-been-faked-by-noaa/
youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nothing new. There's been organized resistance to the global warming fearmongering for awhile. MSM just blackwalled it

petitionproject.org/index.php

That's juste one model. Over time they'll say we're good for 20 more years, and so on so froth.

Which is obvious...if the climate system would be suspectible to dramatic changes life would have never developed on this planet.There is no dangerous anthropogenic climate change.Is a plot to skim off money for virtually hot air.

I want Trump to fund LFTRs.

>The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached

Ahmm, dude, we are actually increasing our CO2 emissions in this world. Nobody is even trying to reduce the emissions within "3 to 5 years"...

Anyway, forget climate change, I want cities where cars aren't sound polluting my nights and Sundays, aren't diesel and gasoline stinkers, where I can jog through my city and the air is fresh and healthy. I want to go out to the countryside and pick strawberries next to an Autobahn and the strawberries are perfect without any diesel particles covering them.

Yeah, it was obvious back in the early 90s that much of this was hyperbole, since the only people they could get to talk about it were foaming at the mouth.
Its almost been 30 years since then.. And London still isn't under water.. Dashing my fucking hopes!

I'm with you m8, climate change is complete bullshit.
However cleaning up our environment of pollution and noise is something that is achievable, and would improve quality of life.

I'm all in favor of getting off of fossil fuels because sooner or later we're going to run out of them. It's better to switch over to renewable or long-lasting power sources before we have to deal with peak oil and peak coal.

I'm a big fan of both solar power and nuclear power. Geothermal is pretty good, too, but not every place on earth can use it. Wind is total shit and a massive meme. Let's also hope fusion comes along within the next decade.

Pollution is the BIG problem we shoukd tackle.
Climate change is nothing but a distraction from pollution.

>because scientists got their modelling wrong
been telling faggots this for years you can't use a linear function on non linear equations

t.computer scientist

Why don't CC deniers make their own models? Why do they only criticize other models?
Maybe that is because it is easy to denigrate, but harder to create something that others could critique?

Burden of proof you dumb nigger.

your a piece of shit toilet cleaner because your polish.

Why don't you prove me wrong, don't worry about how i proved how shitty you are, don't spend time breaking down how stupid my accusation is.
Go build a skyscraper out off gold so you can convince me your worth your weight in dog turds.

This is totally how things should be done.

Howwwww could this happen???

I thought every single histrionic libtard who freaked the fuck out out about global warming did strenuous research into the methodology and results of these climate change studies.

A-are you saying that all along they were just being fear mongering retards who freak out at whatever they're told to freak out about?

I thought they fucking loved science!

If the old models were wrong, why would I believe the current models are right?

Actually looking at the methodology of a study and critiquing it in an intelligent manner is quite difficult. Most people aren't willing to put in the effort, they'd rather rely on arguments from authority.

we have our own models

historical models

if it weren't for the cow farts and car exhaust we're pumping into the atmosphere we'd be in another ice age

is that what you want faggot

LOOK

IT

THE

FUCK

UP

breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/23/delingpole-all-of-recent-u-s-warming-has-been-faked-by-noaa/

The onus of proof is on the climate change conspirators, not the so-called deniers.

oh yeah all these insane weather phenomenons one after another battering our world is normal

wake up, you're get jewed by the real jews: any form of information salesmen, especially conservative media

>THEY IZ CONZPIRING TO MAKE US BELIEVE CLIMATE IZ CHANGIN
Okay, who profits from that?
I guess scientists who get grants to research climate change, but then that implies that a bunch of scientists have more power/influence and money than oil companies and various big industries.

>insane weather phenomenons
Nothing insane about them. They've been happening for billions of years.

Name one thing that has happened that hasn't been happening ever since we've been recording weather events.

Or alternatively, it's the renewable energy field, but then again, that implies those people have more power than oil and gas companies and big industries, ie. the richest and most powerful conglomerates in modern world.

Kek. Of course it is. Just implement carbon tax and you' save the world goyim.

Weren't parts of the US supposed to be underwater by now? Idk how anyone can buy this crap.

it's the intensity and frequency between them that's crazy you imbeciles, get your heads out of your echobox asses and do some research

Unironically post proofs faggot

al gore admitted climate change is just a scam to make money.

Scientists have to lie and exaggerate to get anyone to pay attention to them

People who want to impose bigger government or those developing renewable energy sources I'd imagine

I remember how they tried to brainwash us with this climate change crap in elementary school
they said in 20 years the water levels will rise so much that the sea will reach our city (we're like 100km away from the sea)
well 20 years later the sea is still where it has always been

Like no cat 3+ hurricane's hitting USA in twelve years? Fuck off

(((Shocking)))

The (((NWO))) started taking over the "environmentalist" movement decades ago. Their goal is to pass as much globalist-communist policy as possible before people catch on. The average leftist will abandon US sovereignty if the bill uses propaganda rhetoric as "environmentally friendly". The power of simple words on idiots.

Ah, and now the back pedalling. They can't out right claim it's a non issue, since their jobs and kick backs depend on it, but they will climb down on it so they don't get fucked by their manufactured moral panick back firing on them.

Imagine my shock

Oyyyyyyyyyyyyy)))

Agreed, we should clean up our environment but we shouldnt do it because of some ridiculous global warming scare, we should do it because its worth doing on its own merit

An accurate climate model is not just hard, its ridiculously infeasible. There's way too many inputs and nobody knows how they actually interact. The criticism is not "we could make better models", its "nobody should be using these things because we're nowhere near being able to make them well enough"

True enviros (the ones that believe that humans are a cancer on the face of the planet and have to be exterminated) are much worse than globalists who are in it merely for shekels and power.

As it always goes with the climate cult... Doom is perpetually 20 years away and can only be stopped by giving them money and power.

What this actually means is that they realized they need to give it more time, because by their old hoax predictions we would already be dead.
The tax increases and globalization isn't moving as fast as they predicted, so they need to change their climate hoax bullshit to fit the narrative. If they didn't do this, we would all be calling for blood in the next 10 to 20 years when it turns out they were lying all along.

wowwwwww nooooo wayyy. all this time i was being villified as an evil centrist, who wants to flood africa, i was just not being an alarmist sheep?

hang on you mean to say that just some computer simulations that had political bias and had evidence of tampering werent 100% legit the truth?

you mean there is an open discussion on practices in climatology, and people can have different opinions?

CO2 isn't a problem. There's every reason to believe CO2 is historically a product of earth's temperature cycles as opposed to the cause, hence a faulty correlation-causation. Globalists with (((agendas))) are trying to whip up hysteria over it and for decades are repeatedly shown as bullshit conflating cause and effect. The additional amount added by humans if not negligible seems if anything more likely to help dampen this approaching ice age. Actual pollution is a different topic. Most people don't want smog and nasty chemicals. Neither do I. That would require a different type of focus but right now globalists are more interested in crisis hysteria to cuck countries into a one world government.

As if debunking manmade climate change is doing to cause the carbon taxes to be repealed. Get real, this has always been about laying avenues to world government, it was never real and they've still managed so much on just a few lies and purposefully botched models. We'll get our climate change treaties and resulant international law, even if the story changes to "THE WORLD IS FREEZING!!!!".

they got their model wrong??
but was there not a consensus of 600million scientists??

But then (((they))) will have to find a new scam to mine shekels.

One model says we have time

Thousand models say we are fucked

A few models say we are fucked and nothing we can do about it

good thing science is a popular vote

>way too many inputs

More greenhouse gases, more energy trapped in the atmosphere. It's really very basic, the consequences are obvious too.

>jogging and picking strawberries

If we had quiet electric cars, cucks like you would get run over while listening to Katy Perry too loud on your headphones, so it's all good...

>Quote a non scientific article without peer reviewed information

Ok faggot

Less local oil and gas production in importer countries -> oil and gas exporters benefit
Local power generation replaced with wind and solar and gasoline cars with electric cars (both bought for exorbitant prices) -> Chinese manufacturers benefit
Electrical grid becomes unreliable (wind and solar only produce 20-30% of the time) and has to be constantly backed up with gas turbines or diesel generators (coal and nuclear can't do back up) -> oil and gas exporters benefit
Fear of the apocalypse causes people to be more willing to become voluntary slaves to their states that promises protection -> governments benefit
All the models are produced by western universities.

>he isn't aware of the previous 5 mass extinctions on the planet, including one where 90% of all life was wiped out

That depends on your definition of "greenhouse gases" and not using a faulty correlation-causation model for it, as well as your evidence of what earth's warming climate cycle would've been in man's absence and whether it is anything more than a negligible difference.

Is that why most models are notoriously wrong? It's not easy. To make matters worse, the ones devising the faulty algorithms often have agendas to create short-term panic.

i.e. Extinction events that have no causal evidence to be the result of CO2, contrary to what television theatrics would have everyone believe.

You're the one who wants my money, you prove it.

What's it to you whether I put Katy Perry on my Apple iPod for runninng and eat crushed strawberry?

Who's denying the climate is "changing" or even "warming"? It's very much changing as it always is. The concern at hand is whether man's involvement is significantly influential from large changes already occurring irrespective of man's industrial age.

>More greenhouse gases, more energy trapped in the atmosphere.
Not so fast, climate change denier!
youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M