4 ms·
Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to s
by pistle 12y ago
Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to see here. I can't live long enough to prove a trend, therefore nobody can with their climate science based on 100's of measurement backed up way more history baked into the geology, etc. To argue the science, at this point, questions the arguers understanding of the process of science or the grasp of the quality of the science at hand.
Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie."
What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?
- InclinedPlane 12y agoClimate models are complex. The data needed to validate them is also enormous and difficult to get right. Validating a climate model is an enormously challenging prospect, and represents far more work than simply saying "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot." As for the rest, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that isn't present in anything I wrote.
- splawn 12y agoI didn't realize that the current overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming is based on "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot.". If thats not the case, does that count as a strawman in something you wrote?