3 ms·
uhm... you mean you are asking for this plot I found with a minute of googling (reputable sources referenced): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_rece
by krastanov 7y ago
uhm... you mean you are asking for this plot I found with a minute of googling (reputable sources referenced): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#/media/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_...
Edit: here is a pretty cool interactive version of the plot https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
Edit 2: To the dead comment below, this is the whole point of "sources", something that actually refers to measurements/models/peer review, which all are fallible on their own, but together are fault-tolerant. Unlike the (rather small) petition you refer to that makes claim without any supporting data.
- showdeadplease 7y ago83 Italian scientists recently signed a letter to their government saying that the AGW hypothesis is unproven and largely false. But you won't see that on Wikipedia or Bloomberg, just pretty pictures with "reputable" sources. Of course, science is all about consensus, right? That's what John Cook says, anyway, and he's so "skeptical."