Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
You argued temperature data vociferously. What's the point of arguing bristlecone pine data if you have already conceded the earth is warming? Why argue against temperature data for a year? Or are you just pulling a semantikes here?
One of the key arguments from alarmists is that the warming is "unprecedented," which is to say that it is so bad that the Earth hasn't encountered it in X number of years. It is certainly true that it could be unprecedented in the past 1000-2000 years, but this conclusion is based on spurious reconstructions and statistical tricks from a small cadre of scientists and an even smaller sample of data. It counteracts anthropological evidence relating to human migration (including the Vikings going to Greenland).
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Your position is pretty simple - make a lot of noise, throw out a bunch of blog science you obviously barely understand - move on to the next talking point when one tires out. [
You've been consistently wrong since you got into this thread and the other one, and completely put in your place by 13ball and others who actually understand the science. You have no interest in any kind of genuine scientific debate.
I've been reading about climate and discussing climate for about 10 years now, and the crux of my argument has thus far been true: the alarmists have significantly exaggerated the problem. They have oversold the risk, and undersold the margin of error. Whether you look at climate models (temperature is trending below them), sea level rise (0 acceleration), ice caps (Antarctica believed to be gaining ice, no ice-free summer in sight for the North pole), natural disasters (no trends in any of them), there is no big topic on which alarmists have been correct.
13ball parrots and copy/pastes, and it is kinda obvious that he is doing it. When you go below the surface, he doesn't know much. You don't even have surface knowledge to understand my posts at all, so it is probably hard for you to tell.