You'll find the relevant IPCC First report here. You're looking for page 336 of the PDF for the temperature predictions. If you go the USGISS sources you can get the measured global average's and see temperature has gone up about 0.4C from 1990 till now. The IPCC report from 1990, even with a freezing of emissions at 1990 levels predicted 0.5C. Regrettably no error bars on the work back then though. The 2001 IPCC third assessment though is almost 15 years old now so a reasonable test as well. It additionally has error bars on the predictions. Thus far 2014 falls at the very bottom end, but still just barely warm enough to stay within the error bars. Although, we would need to have had nearly 0 temp increase through till 2020 to actually get outside the error bars. Observation though clearly shows that even the more recent 2001 predictions are so far very, very much on the high end.

Don't just wave your arms around and claiming I'm lying. The data's plain as day there you just have to be sure to watch that temperature anomalies are constantly being referenced against different years so you have to make sure you adjust correctly for that linear shift to the predictions/measurements.

The IPCC results have not been "very accurate", The First IPCC assessment made temperature projections based on multiple emissions scenarios. ALL the scenarios predicted temperatures much warmer than today for 2014. Even the scenarios based on us freezing emissions at 1990 levels. The results are still posted on the IPCC site so go right ahead and confirm for yourself if you don't believe me.

Now, sure, the IPCC temperature estimates in reports since then have steadily revised down the temperature predictions for 2014. Don't tell me that is because their methods have improved that much though, their projections for 2014 got better and better as 2014 got closer and closer, but the projections out to 2050 and 2100 haven't changed nearly as much. We need a prediction that actually gets things right 15 years later before claiming accuracy. Right now a terribly naive pure math trend analysis on temp from 1880-1990 gives a result as accurate as the IPCC projections from 1990. When your complex and advanced model doesn't fare any better than a highschool level pure math trend projection you don't get to claim high accuracy.

Which is an argument from pure and total ignorance. We are able to look at and manipulate the DNA of our crops and farm animals. We are able to see the random mutations we've selected for in the past, we can see the specific mutations we select for currently. From EVERYTHING we know and everything we can see the sole difference is whether we select mutations based on randomness or not, and the end results are exactly the same.

Despite having no known reason for there to be a difference, despite all current accumulated knowledge showing the working mechanisms to be absolutely identical, you want to insist that there is still much greater risk.

This is madness akin to refusing a different path to work than normal for fear of possible world shaking consequence. This is akin to fear of putting the left sock on first instead of the right. This is akin to knowing my magical rock that keeps away tigers should never be given up because so far it's always worked and we wouldn't want to risk getting eaten by a tiger.

More succinctly, your insistence is far more akin to superstition than science.

All I can read in your response is that you don't understand what it actually means and that scares you.

Here's the difference between the old and new. In both cases, a seed supplier wants to find a seed with round-up resistance.

The thousands of years old method: Supplier plants thousands of acres of the original seed and sprays each crop with roundup. They take the few surviving plants as seeds for the next round. After several years of this spraying and selecting process hopefully they get a seed that largely survives the round-up through some random unknown mutation.

The new method: Supplier identifies the working mechanism of round-up on a plant, and modifies ONLY the genes that are needed to survive being sprayed with round-up.

The new method will yield a plant with DNA that, line for line, has MORE in common with the original non-resistant seed than the thousands year old approach. But sure, with no evidence to back you up, we should believe that the new method is radically and dangerously different and worse than what has been safely improving our lives for thousands of years.

The unknown factor with plants genetically modified in a lab is LOWER than the unknown factor with plants genetically modified by trial and error selective breeding. For thousands of years we have been taking on risks by selecting for genetic modifications that have arisen entirely by RANDOM CHANCE and with no knowledge of what kind of genes were changed to get the effect we selected for. Civilization has not only failed to collapse, but has flourished in that time. Now that we can be MORE selective and careful with our selection of which mutations to select for it's suddenly a problem? Sorry, the only new problem is technologies that people don't understand and therefore are frightened of,

We'll adopt civilian nuclear reactors on massive sea transports first. We have the existing technology to build massive ocean transports powered by uranium, that need refuelling 2-3 times per CENTURY. We just need to decide to build them. If the need arises and we do, they'll even drastically REDUCE the cost of international ocean shipping.

No.

We have enough oil to maintain the status quo usage for another 30+ years. Tesla motors though makes it clear that gas guzzling cars will be replaced by electrics in less than 30 years. Not for the sake of renewable energy or environmental conscience, but because they are cheaper, faster and all around superior. More over, I firmly believe that the next 30 years will see the advancement of some form of fusion power. Lockheed Martin has even been willing to claim, publicly, that it will have a fusion reactor ready for market in 10.

But Fusion isn't even necessary to maintain our current post-industrial path forwards. Sufficient advances in batteries and existing fission power suffice. Domestic shipping on highways by electric trucks or trains using batteries charged from fission power plants. Ocean transport either in short ranges with batteries, but more likely even larger transports powered by military style on board fission reactors actually able to REDUCE cost and increase speed of international transport of goods.

All the doomsday gloomy predictions of a future that will falter because we can't possibly solve problem X tend to fail.

Violence against one another is about the only threat to our future, we have technology of such a state that we are otherwise pretty well situated for centuries of continued growth.

Oh no, glyphosates(round-up) and some GMO crops in some study show a possible statistical correlation with negative health factors! We should quickly abandon all of modern agriculture to make sure we don't destroy the health of western civilization! Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

GMO foods are have been ubiquitous in the western diet for multiple generations already. How to health factors and benchmarks for those generations compare to the ones prior to them? They are radically better. GMO fruits and vegetables that have longer shelf lives alone have vastly improved the health of people across the region. That longer shelf life doesn't just mean a corporate mega supermarket chain can buy more yachts because they reduced losses to waste and increased sales. Those increased sales also mean that lowered prices and greater geographic availability of fresh fruit and vegetables improved the diets of consumers. Even as a kid in central Canada fresh fruits and berries were very limited, but today it's taken as a matter of course you can go out and buy fresh anything in the dead of winter if you're willing to brave the 10foot snow banks between you and the store.

Sorry, all the fears and studies about potential small scale impacts of GMO crops is dwarfed by the current good of the dietary improvements that GMO has brought.

I'm amazed how much objection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public. It smacks of a fear factor that exists in any new science where people don't fully understand it and there for reject it. What most people don't know, and probably should is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption is genetically modified food. There are no wild seedless watermelon. There are no wild cows. There are no long stem roses in the wild. List all the fruits and vegetables and ask yourself is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it's not as large, it's not as sweet, it's not as juicy, it has way more seeds in it. We have systematically genetically modified all the meats and all the foods we eat since we cultivated them. It's called artificial selection. Now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden you wanna complain? You like red delicious apples? We manufactured those, it's a genetic modification. The silkworm as we cultivate it has no wild counterpart because it would die in the wild. So no silk even anymore. We are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs, and I don't have a problem with that because we've been doing it for tens of thousands of years. So chill out,

Oh, before I offend you too much, that wasn't my own statement, but Neil deGrasse Tyson. A fairly widely well thought of spokesman for science within the scientific community.

I'm amazed how much objection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public. It smacks of a fear factor that exists in any new science where people don't fully understand it and there for reject it. What most people don't know, and probably should is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption is genetically modified food. There are no wild seedless watermelon. There are no wild cows. There are no long stem roses in the wild. List all the fruits and vegetables and ask yourself is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it's not as large, it's not as sweet, it's not as juicy, it has way more seeds in it. We have systematically genetically modified all the meats and all the foods we eat since we cultivated them. It's called artificial selection. Now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden you wanna complain? You like red delicious apples? We manufactured those, it's a genetic modification. The silkworm as we cultivate it has no wild counterpart because it would die in the wild. So no silk even anymore. We are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs, and I don't have a problem with that because we've been doing it for tens of thousands of years. So chill out,

Oh, before I offend you too much, that wasn't my own statement, but Neil deGrasse Tyson. A fairly widely well thought of spokesman for science within the scientific community.

That's some mighty narrow vision. Women's rights were marginally better under Saddam than the rest of the middle east... Saddam also committed two genocides against his own people with estimates of 2-300 thousand killed in each of them. He also initiated the Iran-Iraq war which killed over a million and extensively used chemical weapons in it, as well as in his genocide of the Kurds.

So, aside from the concentration camps, collective punishment, genocides and love for chemical weapons, Saddam was also a liberator of women...

Correction, it wasn't found because the program was destroyed during and after the first gulf war and by a unilateral bombing run from Israel earlier.

But that presumes the burden of proof was on Bush. Saddam was proven to have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in the first gulf war. One of the most important conditions for allowing Saddam to remain in power and for the end of first gulf war short of his removal was the admittance and allowing of international inspectors to verify the termination of those programs. More than a decade later Saddam was still blocking inspectors. The fact was inspections had failed to confirm Saddam's compliance with ending his WMD programs. So much so that many of the inspectors, Like Scott Ritter objected to the war on the grounds that chemical weapons would be likely be deployed against allied forces. That of course didn't stop Ritter from being a cheer leader in chorus afterwards pointing out the failure to find WMDs...

I can't but shake my head at all the environmentally concerned people opposing fracking. More specifically, the ones vehemently insisting we be more considerate of the living conditions we are creating for people down the road. It strikes me as a very bad form of tunnel vision.

Fracking the oil from the American midwest makes America energy independent. Let me repeat that another way. Fracking the midwest oil means America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil.

IMHO, that ends the discussion and debate. I'm not dismissing concerns over how 'dirty' recovery of midwest oil is, I'm just of the opinion that the alternative Middle Eastern oil is even dirtier on account of all the blood spilled over it.

You assume that ISIL is a rational entity that doesn't believe that Allah would protect them and grant them victory in their jihad... Religious fanatics are exactly the crowd that would try and pull something like that off, because they either do not care if they would be exterminated as a result, or because their irrational beliefs honestly believe they will be protected from or win some manner of armageddon war. In fact, Armageddon is exactly the goal of all manner of religious fanatics. It's the very reason their extermination and marginalization is important to those of us who prefer life to death.

I'd like the alarmists to step first and admit their error. If you look at the First Assessment Report from the IPCC in the early 90's their projections grossly overestimated temperature and sea level rise over the ~25 years through to today. Far from any admission of overstating the danger, here are guys like you doubling down on how foolish everyone else will look in another 30 years. I don't need to guess if you'll finally shut up then, the experiment was run already and the answer is nope.

Fact: Things are getting warmer.
Fact: CO2 emissions contribute to warming.
Fact: Humans are emitting CO2.
Uncertain: What degree of impact will those human CO2 emissions have on global temperatures over the next 30 or 100 years.

Don't go advocating catastrophic changes when not all the facts for that particular position are settled, you look foolish.