3 ms·

Take a look at this graph, I think it sums up your argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=4

• rimantas 14y ago
  Why not this one: http://xkcd.com/605/ http://xkcd.com/605/
  • jbooth 14y ago
    Because we're dealing with more than a single datapoint. And nobody's predicting that the earth will get hotter than the sun. Christ. If the subject was anything but global warming, reasonably-minded people would all come to approximately the same conclusion from the data we have. But no, tribal politics.
• kbutler 14y ago
  I'm more impressed by graphs like this: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134849d3d3f970c-pi http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134849d... Climate changes naturally a whole lot more than we are comfortable with.
  • lobster_johnson 14y ago
    The difference is that we generally know the reasons behind earlier climate changes. The medieval warming period, for example, was due to increased solar radiation [1]. It's not that there have not been lots of major climate change before; it's that this time it's caused by humans. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm