On Mar 16, 2:08 pm, (Nick Leverton) wrote:
given the range of projections that might not happen; you might see
the warmer weather of 1-2 degrees increasing food yields.

We've already seen a rise of that order, and it's not even really got
going yet. And lest anyone is looking forwards to relaxing in their
back garden in balmy Mediterranean temperatures, even if we did stop
increasing CO2 right now we will have 200 to 500 years of extreme wind,
storms, heatwaves, big freezes, floods and drought to go through before
the climate stabilises :-(

climates are never stable, they are constantly changing...

You nay-sayers
anyone who wants to talk about GW seems to get branded a nay-sayer and
their views ignored. People who question things might not be against
GW but against misunderstanding of it.

can argue all you like but the risks are incredibly high.
yep, so having the most detailed information, scrutinized by people on
both sides of the debate is a good idea.

Why is there so much suspicion
about the latest measurements of the atmosphere ?

its not the latest ones i question, just the ones from a while back.
Given that we need them all to be accurate to predict trends they are
important and if not accurate they will muck up any computer
simulations. As the computer simulations are what we use to plan our
answer to GW i'd like them to be as accurate as possible.

Mans attempts to control or change nature in the past have been less
than successful so even if we combat GW at full speed we could yet
make things worse rather than better. Having accurate information to
base decisions on could possibly help avoid this though.

Fod