At the bottom it claims the Antarctic has recovered by about 1.3% in 2013. So yes I did read and most of it points towards, global warming being a farce.

No, it doesn't. What it does say is that the IPCC's estimates of global sea level rise didn't take into account the effects of ice sheets in the Antarctic or Greenland, which will overall contribute positively to sea level rise (by some estimates that's by an added 10cm, by others it's much more significant), and that while the Antarctic ice sheets have recovered by 1.8% [i]per decade[/i] since 1979, those in the Arctic have been reduced by 4% per decade. If you read that article and come away with anything contradicting the conclusion that the scientific consensus among climatologists is that the Earth is warming, sea levels are rising, and humans are to blame, then your cherry-picking and selection bias is so blatant it's bordering on illiteracy.

Humans are not to blame. We don't have the capacity to cause this planet to grow warmer in just 300 years, it's just impossible. Also last I checked if the south pole vanishes then we enter an ice age, hardly warming.

[quote]Humans are not to blame. We don't have the capacity to cause this planet to grow warmer in just 300 years, it's just impossible.[/quote]And you're basing this on what? Just [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination]your own incredulity[/url]? Because the vast majority of the relevant scientific community disagrees. [quote]Also last I checked if the south pole vanishes then we enter an ice age, hardly warming.[/quote]What are you talking about?

I love how you are saying im wrong yet provide no facts or evidence to back up your claims.

[quote]The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[/quote] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change]Follow the IPCC links for the direct sources if you want them.[/url]

[quote]In the last report, published in 2007, there were a handful of well publicised errors, including the claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The wrong percentage was also given for the amount of land in the Netherlands under sea level. The IPCC admitted it had got it wrong and explained that, in a report running to 3,000 pages, there were bound to be some mistakes. The Himalayan claim came from the inclusion of an interview that had been published in the magazine New Scientist. Continue reading the main story What is the IPCC? In its own words, the IPCC is there "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts". The offspring of two UN bodies, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, it has issued four heavyweight assessment reports to date on the state of the climate. These are commissioned by the governments of 195 countries, essentially the entire world. These reports are critical in informing the climate policies adopted by these governments. The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis. In 2009, a review of the way the IPCC assesses information suggested the panel should be very clear in future about the sources of the information it uses. The panel was also scarred by association with the "Climategate" rumpus. Leaked emails between scientists working for the IPCC were stolen and published in 2009. They purported to show some collusion between researchers to make climate data fit the theory of human-induced global warming more clearly. However at least three investigations found no evidence to support this conclusion. [/quote] The ICPP the very organization that got things wrong you mean? [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323][ Prof Pachauri’s insistence that warming has not slowed hints at a focus of debate this week in Stockholm: Global temperatures have not been increasing as fast as scientists predicted, and several governments insist that this puzzle is properly addressed in the final summary. Prof Pachauri’s leadership of the panel has been strongly supported by developing countries, although he has faced criticism in the West. He told me he had no plans to retire after the forthcoming report.[/url] Sure.

[quote]The ICPP the very organization that got things wrong you mean?[/quote] It's not just the [u]IPCC[/u] who've demonstrated and expressed the scientific consensus on climate change and its human causes. If you had a scrap of intellectual honesty you'd have realised that. Regardless, though, your attempt to discredit the organisation is pretty pathetic - that they made some relatively minor mistakes (that were then picked up by others in the scientific community and corrected) in a 3000 page report really doesn't say anything of substance. You're reaching, and I think you know it because you can tell you're running out of anything to stand on.

The planet has been warmer in the past than it has been now. It was warmer in 1998 than now, satellite images from the Nimbus -1 in 1964 shown the Ice caps look exactly the same as they did then compared to now. Animals cause vastly more CO2 than humans do which is at least 4% compared to billions of other species and animals living on this planet The planet was warmer than the 1940's world in the middle ages. The planet has just come out of an Ice Age so the planet is going to warm up regardless of what we do. The planet was filled with Rainforests millions of years ago with active volcano's spewing ash and CO2 into the air at incredible levels. Suddenly humans have industry for 300 years and suddenly the earth is in danger? I don't really don't think so. Oh and Age is melting and will increase the water level despite displacement taking effect as it happens, nice to see that's ignored as well.

You're still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the relevant scientific community recognises that human activity has almost certainly played a significant role in the warming of the planet over recent years.

Significant? Nope. Im not saying we are exempt from some portion of the blame but we are barely putting a dent in it. The Ice caps melt and freeze back over annually, they melt and reform before and after an ice age. Climate change is a natural cycle for the planet and the ice caps are melting whether we like it or not and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Oh and we are not speeding it up, plus I see you ignored my link about a reputable establishment having some evidence of fact fixing.

[quote]You're still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the relevant scientific community recognises that human activity has almost certainly played a significant role in the warming of the planet over recent years.[/quote] Also, from your original link: [quote]The panel was also scarred by association with the "Climategate" rumpus. Leaked emails between scientists working for the IPCC were stolen and published in 2009. They purported to show some collusion between researchers to make climate data fit the theory of human-induced global warming more clearly. However at least three investigations found no evidence to support this conclusion.[/quote] You've got nothing to stand on, kiddo.

Just because a large majority think something doesn't always mean its true. If 99 people out of 100 said one thing, why ignore the 1 that disagrees with the 99? Iraq had WMD's remember......Oh hang on a minute the greatest intelligence agencies on the planet where wrong and used false information to start a war. Billions of people believe women have no rights and LGBT's should be killed and are inhuman, should I agree I with them because they out number the other side of the argument? No. Facts should be supported by themselves, if 2 sides are arguing they are right then there are no established facts and so you need to come up with you own conclusion on the evidence presented to you. That's why I do, look at all the arguments and come up with my own opinion. Also don't you think it was strange that this global warming thing shown up in the news and suddenly taxes and fines are increased or implemented quickly to take advantage?

Science represents the culmination of empirical human knowledge so far in specific fields - it's not just asking random people on the street. When there's no broad consensus it's usually impossible for people who don't have the education and experience in the field (like you or me or every single other person in this thread) to engage with the topic meaningfully, but, luckily, we don't have to have that education and experience because there is broad consensus in this area. Relying on the consensus of experts isn't perfect; experts have been wrong before and they'll be wrong again, but they're right far more than any other measure we have of determining reality. (Also, there's a pretty big difference between lying and being wrong.)

Your right there is a difference between lying and being wrong but when your doing both it's hard to work out which is which. Also you act like those with "knowledge" have never bent it to suit them. Intelligence agencies and governments for example and the biggest one being religion for 1000 years. Science is a mix of theory and fact and if you don't question them you'll never learn anything new which is why you still get the whole "Milk is bad for you" in the paper 1 week then "Milk is good for you" the week after. We are still trying to break the laws of physics everyday despite every scientist on the planet agreeing those are the laws that bind the universe together. Accepted by all? Sure, but there is always room for being wrong....Even Stephen Hawking was wrong on black holes.