Exactly..... Funny thing is, they think the opinion of the few is more valuable then the evidence of the many.
Unlike your opinions, these events have evidence. No, I don’t trust that you have exposed yourself to the evidence.
Of course I have. It says the planet is warming. The response to the evidence is all political. Therein is my opinion that differs from yours.
Ha ha This is where the right either doesn’t know or pretends they don’t . Do you you know what slope represents on a graph of data ? No, it doesn’t say it’s just warming, it says it’s warming at a faster rate then anytime in the history of our species here on earth. That’s not politics. It’s math. It’s a simple observation that’s apparent.
One of the things they always assume is that old records are inaccurate in their favour. When its much more likely to be the opposite. Historical wind speed records for instance are more likely to be exaggerated that underestimated, "Wow that was a storm and a half". Which would mean todays accurate records make the situation even worse.
I'm wondering how the people of 5000 years ago filled out the data points on the graph. I would guess that the global temperature data for the past 100 years is probably meaningful. And it is a speck in time. Beyond that brings skepticism on my part. I can tell you this. If you want me to agree that something is a crisis, trying to raise money for government only increases my skepticism. I'm pretty sure you can't change the climate with money. Sorry I'm not on board with what I view as hysteria on the part of people with a financial agenda. The whole thing looks corrupt.
Well, gosh, when you craft a graph as dishonest as all that, well now... I suppose you can tell the difference in 1C, huh...... Sometimes folks like you need to be reminded about the significance of what you've hyperventilated about. Show where in said graph that anyone has demonstrated that this rise wasn't supposed to happen.
Easily. First answer this one question. Do you in general know what slope indicates on any graph of data ? Simple question.
They also don’t get, that older recording of any data is subject to the technology they had at the time. We know what that was and we can easily figure the data margin of error.
I do know what slope represents. Do you understand what significance is? As noted, when you're crying over tenths of a degree, you're slope indicator means virtually nothing. Simple answer.
I assume you are unaware of ice cores, and sediment layers. Well luckily the people of 5,000 years ago kindly put Co2 and pollen into ice cores for us, then buried them in ice fields. Then they took microscopic creatures from the oceans and laid them in layers according to the weather that year. Very forward thinking of them.
Wrong. The greater the length of time the data is accumulated the more accurate the rate of change. It’s funny. In the charts the deniers used to refute AGW, they all reinforced it. The rate of change, ( slope) is greater in from the beginning of the industrial revolution on, then at any period on earth. But warming trend rates as measured are just one way. The movements of species, the droughts and the difference or variations in extremes have all been greater then ANY TIME before.
Exactly. Early measures were not necessarily inaccurate, but more limited technology restricted verification.
That’s silly. This is the other argument deniers have. When the extremes are greater, the average can rise just a little, but the results can be catastrophic. Case in point, just a minimal degree rise around the caps but a much greater extreme during the warmer months can result in huge ice shelf lost regardless of how cold it is in winter. Its about rate of change...when a doctor checks an Afib patient or they wear a monitor. It’s about rate of change when tracking infections. It’s about rate of change when the computer on your car initiates the abs system for traction control. Gradual difference in wheel spin, nothing but greater, it starts application.Science has been usin* “ calculus” invented in the 1600s, for decades. To say it’s not reliable for smaller values is BS.
We can assume deniers aren’t aware of anything that hasn’t passed the muster of 3 time college drop out Hannity.
Which is simply an assumption on your part. How is it that you can so blindly not understand what propensity is? That a thing has happened is no indication that it will continue to do so. And how can you claim credible authority without understanding this? Another cool thing about pejorative folks like you is this insistence that we all latch onto your fantasy. The real world doesn't actually function this way. And for the time frames that we're discussing and the amplitudes that are being described, there really isn't any indication that what is happening isn't supposed to be happening, nor that it will continue to happen in the manner that you fear that it will.
Ok. so, total number of naturally occurring disasters is vastly lower today than ever, in every measurable category of calamitous event of weather. So by your own standard, things are better.
