I'm the guy who tells skeptics twice a day, "It's the RATE of change that is the argument!" Richard Lindzen says the rate of increase in warming was as steep in 1919-1940 as today while CO2 was far lower then. Still waiting for the counter to that.
-
-
There needs to be a public debate about this issue and the causes of climate change in general, but when one side claims the science is settled, or 97% of climate scientists agree humans are causing most of the warming (and therefore we're correct), it's kind of hard to do that.
-
If it were 51% on the side of AGW I would go with the AGW program. The future is newer, clean energy anyways, regardless of how sensitive the Earth actually ends up to be. Just to be safe. We may need fossil fuels in the future, why use it up?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You can download both the data and the source code (GitHub) from this world interactive site put together by Zeke Hausfather and others. This is where I am going to start and then later look at Heller's program and data. The site has good documentation: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The US temperature data is being altered with almost perfect correlation to the increase in CO2. It is difficult to imagine how confirmation bias can get any worse than that. https://realclimatescience.com/2018/07/noaa-us-data-tampering-update-2/ …pic.twitter.com/dIOMwTwJ4h
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
-
This is one chart that really won me over. Honest adjustments would tend to be mixed, some plus, some minus, maybe slightly one way or another over time. But not this diabolical.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.