Are AGW proponents hedging their bets? Do we have "another" ten years?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm

Answer 1

Why 10 years?  Is it because it's a nice round number?  I guess no one who believes in global warming is familiar with objective science.

Algore has been telling us for 30 years that we only have 10 years left.  Prince Charles told up 6 months ago that it was only 18 months we had to act, to spend 75 trillion dollars or we were doomed.  I'll bet things will be great next year.

Another group pegs the end of days at 100 months.  Again, I'm guessing that because it's a nice round number, 99.12472 just doesn't have the same marketing impact.

None the less, these same groups will always be predicting our impending doom just as they have since the beginning of recorded time.

Answer 2

Who knows we could have 50, 200 or even a thousand before a climate event as warm as the medieval optimum comes along. What we must be aware of is that we are over due from all historical evidence of going into another real ice age. With our current population levels I hate to think of the wars and migrations from northern climes to the temperate and tropical zones. Billions of people could die in just a couple of years from such an event.

Answer 3

We'll have another ten years until the end of the world! Then the AGW people will be like, "Oh my gosh, we were right, SEE, if you only had listened to us, we'd be alive!" Even though it will have nothing to do with "climate change"

*Down with Big Brother*

Answer 4

It occurs to me that the biggest disaster of the global warming debate has been the scientific method.  

Step one:  Make an observation (average global temperatures are rising? - not sure how they missed that one)  if the hotest year on record occurred in the 1930's.

Step two:  Formulate a hypothesis to explain the observation.  Rising CO2 levels are causing the mean earth temperature to rise.  Create a math model to predict the increases in temperature.

Step Three:  Make additional observations and test the hypothesis.   (Earth average temperatures do not rise for 10 years, and fall for the last 4, even though CO2 levels continue to increase)  

Reject the hypothesis and come up with another.  Or in this case assume the hypothesis is correct but that "other" factors are causing the data not to fit the model? What?

I missed the step where "Scientific Consensus" trumped actual data.  A defect in my education.  But I don't see where that fits into an actual Scientific investigation.

Conclusion:  Global Warming is not based on science but politics.  Argument is based on consensus and ignores data.

Answer 5

Those denialists who scoff at computer models and dissect single years to avoid analysing long term patterns must face yet another contradiction if this article is correct. They must explain how AGW has stopped when computer models based on AGW predict a break in the warming due to natural climate fluctuations.

I suspect the public is too ignorant and impatient to accept AGW if this is true. If no further warming happens in ten years, fat chance getting anyone outside of the scientific community to sacrifice at all to stop AGW. People are animals.

Answer 6

The AGW cult has developed a catch-all for anything that happens weather-wise.  The '10-year' window has been moving forward for the past 10 years.  The first 10-year window in which we HAD to act in order to avoid catastrophic global warming has already expired and been replaced by a NEW 10-year window in which we have to act in order to avoid catastrophic CLIMATE CHANGE (no longer 'global warming').

The truth of the matter is that the 'business' of climate now sees more opportunity to make even more big $$$ and they're trying to keep the religion alive.

Answer 7

I don't know but the global warming theory keeps piling up it's failed predictions, one after another.