Is it? Probably, but after all the shenanigans with the climate data ten years ago at East Anglia, it's difficult to be sure. Climate scientists aren't transparent with their data and methods.
There is more confidence in the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide because measuring the levels in ice core samples should be more precise. How much of that carbon dioxide is a result of civilization isn't often discussed.
You and I aren't climate scientists, and if we were, we'd have a financial interest in keeping global warming as a hot topic. We are left to infer from what they tell us.
First, they conflate terms. Nobody doubts that the climate changes. My area used to be under a thousand feet of ice. (If flat earthers exist, then there may be a few people who believe in a static climate) Not saying "man-made climate change" looks intentional and shady.
Second, why is a warmer climate bad? It might be bad, but it will surely be good for some locations. They lump too much into the bad. If a 1 degree increase in the average night-time low temperature is going to kill off all the snail darters, well then maybe the snail darters aren't really trying.
Third, let's build a bunch of nuclear power plants. Make electricity cheap and abundant, then electric cars and induction stoves are attractive. Instead, in my area, it was just announced that electricity rates are rising 25% and in California, they seem to keep turning it off every summer.
When every solution they propose points us toward a more centralized system with everyone less prosperous, it's easy to doubt their integrity.
So we're not worried about the running, centered 13-month average shows a steady increase?
Honestly, I am not sure what the red line is showing. Talk about cherry-picking, he takes 1998 which is obviously an outlier month/year and compares to present. If we picked 2000 or 2008 the red line would be much different.
This chart neither supports nor denies your comment in my opinion.
3 comments:
Warming is happening.
Is it? Probably, but after all the shenanigans with the climate data ten years ago at East Anglia, it's difficult to be sure. Climate scientists aren't transparent with their data and methods.
There is more confidence in the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide because measuring the levels in ice core samples should be more precise. How much of that carbon dioxide is a result of civilization isn't often discussed.
You and I aren't climate scientists, and if we were, we'd have a financial interest in keeping global warming as a hot topic. We are left to infer from what they tell us.
First, they conflate terms. Nobody doubts that the climate changes. My area used to be under a thousand feet of ice. (If flat earthers exist, then there may be a few people who believe in a static climate) Not saying "man-made climate change" looks intentional and shady.
Second, why is a warmer climate bad? It might be bad, but it will surely be good for some locations. They lump too much into the bad. If a 1 degree increase in the average night-time low temperature is going to kill off all the snail darters, well then maybe the snail darters aren't really trying.
Third, let's build a bunch of nuclear power plants. Make electricity cheap and abundant, then electric cars and induction stoves are attractive. Instead, in my area, it was just announced that electricity rates are rising 25% and in California, they seem to keep turning it off every summer.
When every solution they propose points us toward a more centralized system with everyone less prosperous, it's easy to doubt their integrity.
So we're not worried about the running, centered 13-month average shows a steady increase?
Honestly, I am not sure what the red line is showing. Talk about cherry-picking, he takes 1998 which is obviously an outlier month/year and compares to present. If we picked 2000 or 2008 the red line would be much different.
This chart neither supports nor denies your comment in my opinion.
Emissions-driven warming is not proven.
Post a Comment