The Economist has been fairly consistent in its stand that carbon dioxide emissions from man-made sources are the chief cause of global warming. But in an editorial this week, it sounds less certain.

Global warming predictions haven’t panned out as predicted in the past decade, but the why is a bit fuzzy, the magazine admits.

Greenhouse gas emissions have soared during the past 15 years, the magazine notes, with 100 billion tons of carbon having been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. Still, both air and ground temperatures during that time have remained virtually unchanged.

In fact, the editorial notes, surface temperatures have been at the bottom of the projected range of various models since 2005. If they remain flat, they will actually begin to fall below projections shortly.

Read: http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/Economist-Mismatch-Greenhouse-Gases/2013/03/30/id/497052?s=al&promo_code=12FC0-1#ixzz2PEQhYb4a

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comments

  • The Club of Rome (where the buck stops)

    http://agendatwentyone.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-club-of-rome-wh...

    Australia’s Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21 and The Club of Rome

    http://youtu.be/sES6_OXPwOU

  • "but the why is a bit fuzzy" because it was not based on nature

    "and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now," because it was not science in the first place, it was a bunch of made up data to look like science.

    “the puzzle does need explaining.” Like it's what the planet does and have done since the beginning of time.

    "a temporary lag " Really? You think the planet is holding its breath while thinking about it? What the HELL does that mean, "temporary lag?" Either pollution is affecting the planet or its not. The anomaly is in the fake science of this insane theory.

    “could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.” So because scientist who buy into this bullshit in the first place cannot figure out a better way to make up information, their only response it to issue a statement of panic and fear? Not very scientific if you ask me... sounds more like politics as usual.
This reply was deleted.