Doesn't mean they are wrong this time, but context is always important.https://twitter.com/cnsnews/status/1174329298074898434 …
-
-
That is largely false. "Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies." And GHCN-daily data is quite good in some countries based on the documentation I have seen. You can see real trends.
-
And in some cases, the models pointed out errors in the satellite data. There have been problems with satellite data in the past. Best video on how well predictions have been made in the past glossed over by critics:https://youtu.be/RICBu_P8JWI?t=348 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's still mostly nonsense.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not to go meta, but in the 80s and 90s, when sceptics were saying they'd heard all this before, the "environmentalists" responded with "That was all before we had SCIENTIFIC ways of making predictions. This ain't no Malthus, this is from the science that put the man on the moon."
-
Exactly, you beat me to it. Every generation believes their's is the end all in technology, science, and medicine.
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.