[Sgt_Schultze]

Apparently, if you continue to tweak the "models" you can heighten the severity and the alarm.

We are so freaking screwed (and doomed).

[TommyDale]

Whose data are they using to further falsify this junk science?

[HamiltonJay]

And yet not one of these climate models replicates the glacial periods and thaws that are the overwhelming bulk of the last million years.... Anyone who buys into this crap needs their heads examined.

[yazoo]

The fewer people who believe in Global Warming the more the fear mongers ratchet up the fear.

[lafroste]

The situation is a hundred million times worse that I imagined! We're all going to die! Horribly! AAAGGGGHHHH

Geez, these people are caricatures of themselves.

[Peter ODonnell]

So it’s going to be twice as bad as nothing ... that means, umm, just working this out, bear with me ...

NOTHING

so I say relax.

[Winstons Julia]

...i watched a part of that documentary last night on my lemur ancestor and it said Germany used to be rain forests...

[Myrddin]

It's an academic research program that needs to keep the red flags flying to keep the money coming in for support. There is no reason to be objective. That would just kill the money tree. Their pecuniary motive kills their credibility.

[HerrBlucher]

Hey, if the models say so it musts be true, after all, there is no way models can be manipulated to a deliver particular result.

[Mikey_1962]

Another “model” that is devoid of actual Data.

What a crock.

By my model my 401K should be 11.8% higher this year than last. Actual data may prove different.

[lafroste]

indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Except for the pesky fact that the planet has been static since 2002, and has recently been cooling.

[dfwgator]

[cripplecreek]

Lets just cut to the chase and say its one trillion times worse than we ever believed.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

I would be impressed if we fed the past 50 years data into the MIT model and it accurately predicted last year’s weather worldwide.

Did it do that?

[Always Right]

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The most comprehensive model is still crap. Not ONE of these models predicted that the earth's temperature would level off for the last 10 years (actually slightly declined), but yet it did. These models would have given our Climate about a ZERO percent chance at having our current weather. The models all predicted a rapidly accelerating pace of global warming. They were ALL wrong. Now running models based on the same theory, but with new add variables will NOT help these crappy models become more accurate. Comprehensive DOES NOT mean accurate.

[TChris]

This kind of political advocacy does immeasurable damage to the credibility of MIT and to the very name of science.

[Frank_2001]

So the only way to manage global warming is to stop carbon-based economic activity. This would mean abandoning the modern world. Wake up everybody-these global-warming people are INSANE!!!

[ExTxMarine]

Dang, it looks like I picked the wrong year to quick sniffing glue!

[rfp1234]

I used to regard MIT, Caltech et al., as awesome academic institutions. What a joke the are becoming with this AGW crap...

[Mogollon]

Their computer models still don’t account for the action of clouds. Therefore they are absolutely wrong.

[microgood]

I remember when science was highly respected. But the previous generations did not poison it with politics and junk science like the current ones are doing. This will be part of our sad legacy.