Starts in 1880. Fails for context.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @ClimateOfGavin
If you look at just last 50 years of data from NASA GISS-E2: 81% pure human influence, 3.8% pure nature, 1/2
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
0% shared human+nature influence, the rest unexplained. This is simple math.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EJSbrocco @ClimateOfGavin
I don't know what point you are addressing.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @ClimateOfGavin
You asked what percentage of climate change was due to human factors. It's 81% over the last 50 yrs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EJSbrocco @ClimateOfGavin
Why does Gavin the expert say 100%? See the credibility issue?
3 replies 4 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @ClimateOfGavin
They are using different models that are spun up at different grid cell sizes for different amounts of time.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You expect there to be some differences. All these different research groups are testing the system --
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Asking how sensitive the models are to different decisions that have to be made in the model...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But they've ALL found that HUMANS are overwhelmingly the reason climate is warming. It is painfully obvious.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
The "skeptics" deny. They fail to explain the totality of observed changes at all. Cherry pick.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.