4 ms·

Well, first there are the adjustments to make the warming trend look bigger. Second, the theory that the warming trend is due solely or mainly to manmade CO2 e

by sverige 10y ago

Well, first there are the adjustments to make the warming trend look bigger. Second, the theory that the warming trend is due solely or mainly to manmade CO2 emissions has not been proven. The sunspot theory is viable as well. The nice part of this is we're approaching a solar minimum in the next ten years, so if that camp is right, we should be able to measure considerable cooling. If cooling occurs rather than the predicted warming, will that be enough to satisfy scientists? Or will we face new theories based on manmade climate change that explain it away?

xenadu02 10y ago
This is pure climate-change denialism. The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear. You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.
- cool_look 10y ago
  oh come on. tell me how many samples of a multi century phenomenon like the arctic ice do we have ?? less than 40 samples ( years ) i have read all the literature and it is not convincing. we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually. but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements. ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Ice is melting that has been around for millions of years. What other data do we need? We only have one planet; all data collection can be labeled "cherry picking". That just isn't a productive line of reasoning.
Daishiman 10y ago
Which adjustments? If you want to trot that line out you should show where they are, why they matter, and how they are even relevant given the absolute, monstrous, and profound piles of evidence all over the world that the warming trend is massive all by itself without anyone needing to do any adjustments.

by sverige 10y ago

xenadu02 10y ago

This is pure climate-change denialism. The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear. You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.

cool_look 10y ago
oh come on. tell me how many samples of a multi century phenomenon like the arctic ice do we have ?? less than 40 samples ( years ) i have read all the literature and it is not convincing. we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually. but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements. ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Ice is melting that has been around for millions of years. What other data do we need? We only have one planet; all data collection can be labeled "cherry picking". That just isn't a productive line of reasoning.

Daishiman 10y ago

Which adjustments? If you want to trot that line out you should show where they are, why they matter, and how they are even relevant given the absolute, monstrous, and profound piles of evidence all over the world that the warming trend is massive all by itself without anyone needing to do any adjustments.