Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i have already posted the exact text numerous timesyou've already proven yourself a shameless liar, until you point out the ACTUAL TEXT instead of your retarded interpretations of it i'm just gonna LOL.
30 billion tonnes.
you pretend you didnt see it, but hey dipshit, here it comes again.
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
~http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
vs Wikipedia's :
"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report
so the IPCC's temperate verbiage, and carefully chosen weasel words become wild doomsayings and vague predictions of cataclysm in the mouth of Wikipedos.
yeah, wikipedia is totally correct, and the IPCC is wrong.
Protip: the observed warming was 0.4 degrees C over 60 years as opposed to 1.0 degrees C over 120 years (thats less than half the warming) and the "anthropogenicness" factor changed from "almost all" to "more than half" which actually means 51% at their "extremely likely" confidence level. the higher confidence level, "Virtually Certain" puts the "anthropogenicness" at ~45%.
but i explained all this many times before. youre just too stupid to understand it