Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
Oil companies and politicians would never have a profit motive.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
More like the acceptance of reality
Not the genesis of the movement whatsoever. If thats what people are telling themselves, then they are naively serving someone else's agenda.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
More like the acceptance of reality
Not the genesis of the movement whatsoever. If thats what people are telling themselves, then they are naively serving someone else's agenda.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
More like the acceptance of reality
Not the genesis of the movement whatsoever. If thats what people are telling themselves, then they are naively serving someone else's agenda.
So give up oil
Or keep looking for conspiracy theories
There are multiple agendas
The oil industry being opposed to data linking global warming to fossil fuels isn't exactly a conspiracy theory. And yeah, there is a lot of money out there for renewable energy even while it matures to mass viability. Its no secret why Musk is playing nice.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
Why does you chart stop in 1960? You see, your chart illustrates exactly what my gif is getting at.
BTW, the dust bowl is weather, not climate. The plains of the United States is not indicative of the world.
WTF are you talking about? The chart doesn't stop at 1960...it stops in the late 1970s. God you are a moron.
And even if you accept your chart...all it says is that we are almost back up to the temps of the 30s. Well, until you change the historical data...
I'm the moron. But you throw out a chart ignoring the last 40 years. Also like 4 posts ago you said recorded history was only "like 30 or 40 years".
Not to mention that global warming is being linked to CO2 emissions. What do you think happened the last 40 years globally with CO2 emissions?
Thank you for not getting the point...big surprise. You can't say CO2 causes global warming and have the temps in the 30s the same as the temps today, so you have to "adjust" the historical temps down as they have. And you can't have a pause in global warming over the last 19 years or so when the CO2 levels have gone up as much or more than the previous years when temps did rise, so you have to find ways to adjust the data to force the temps to rise as they apparently did.
How are temps now the same as in the 30s?
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Math is hard for folks with speed limit IQs...God you are slow.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
The denial movement is not a movement for truth. It's a movement to preserve the market share of oil and gas, hth.
More like the acceptance of reality
Not the genesis of the movement whatsoever. If thats what people are telling themselves, then they are naively serving someone else's agenda.
So give up oil
Or keep looking for conspiracy theories
There are multiple agendas
The oil industry being opposed to data linking global warming to fossil fuels isn't exactly a conspiracy theory. And yeah, there is a lot of money out there for renewable energy even while it matures to mass viability. Its no secret why Musk is playing nice.
The left being opposed to capitalism is no theory either
When renewable energy is viable we will all know it
Energy with 10000000000x more start up costs and works about 30% as efficient as fossil fuels sounds great!
We should be doing everything we can to make that tech a viable replacement as quickly as we can, regardless of global warming stance. Renewable and clean is always a better alternative. There is nothing stopping big energy from investing heavily in that R&D and leading that market eventually.
People need to get behind nuclear power and quit being pussies. They can be built to be safe and relatively inexpensive, and deliver power on demand. We have a replacement for lots of coal and oil. Now.
Axe Bill Gates.
He won't call you a pussy if you're scared of nuclear power.
Energy with 10000000000x more start up costs and works about 30% as efficient as fossil fuels sounds great!
We should be doing everything we can to make that tech a viable replacement as quickly as we can, regardless of global warming stance. Renewable and clean is always a better alternative. There is nothing stopping big energy from investing heavily in that R&D and leading that market eventually.
It's kinda like when the railroads didn't want to invest in cars. Oil companies are primed to own the market.
That being said, like anything tech, costs go down and technology gets better over time.
Thanks for illustrating my point...these folks put out charts that look official but the data behind them is crap and has been "adjusted" numerous times to fit the narrative they want. The US data is sparce, and global data is pretty much nonexistent going back in history.
As an example, somehow the historical data changed significantly from the 80s to today. Here was the official North American historical chart from the late 70s/early 80s...which included the global heat waves of the 1930s that everyone knows about (dust bowl/etc).
The only way that chart changes that much to the current one is through data "adjustments"...and it's amazing how the adjustments magically fit the narrative they want...
As yes.. the 1940's blip. The standard argument of the rabble. Race wins again tho as usual. No more graphs. I was going to post one that illustrates the past 400,000 years based on the good works of a generation of climate and earth scientists from the NCAR and others...really interesting shit....but then I realized that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Comments
If you looked at the years around 1998, that'll answer your question. Use your brain.
Before temperature history magically changed, the average NA temperature around 1980 was ~0.6 C less than the peak in the late 1930s (hence the Time covers of Global Cooling, etc). Which doesn't fit the CO2 driving global warming theory. And if you believe the chart you showed on temps rising, temps have gone up about 0.6 C since 1980, which would have put them about the same average temperature as the 1930s.
But you can't have that and say Global Warming is directly correlated to CO2 levels since the CO2 levels are much higher now than in 1930. And since people don't want to change the CO2 theory, the historical "data" had to change via "adjustments" to fit the theory.
It's the same reason it's so important for these "scientists" to find ways to eliminate the pause in "Global Warming"...because the pause has happened it contradicts the correlation they want to have between CO2 levels and Global Temps. They don't want to question the correlation to CO2 they believe, so they question and manipulate the data over and over to force it to the answer they want.
I.e...really shitty science. And the sad part about it is that in some cases the raw data itself has been overwritten, which makes it worthless for any and all studies going forward.
LOTS of green in green
Or keep looking for conspiracy theories
There are multiple agendas
When renewable energy is viable we will all know it
It isn't yet
Axe Bill Gates.
He won't call you a pussy if you're scared of nuclear power.
You are though.
That being said, like anything tech, costs go down and technology gets better over time.
We had our chance. Burn Baby Burn.