LogFAQs > #882260207

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Climate Change Deniers confused now that facts show a 140% increase in change
TreGooda 07/03/17 12:55:41 PM #25:	Doctor Foxx posted... TreGooda posted... deoxxys posted... ^what the hell does this mean?? No warming in 2 decades. They extrapolated data from incorrect models created in 2000. That's not it at all. Interpretation of data was incorrect for a period of time. Those that had been interpreting the data were using it to support an agenda that dismisses anthropogenic climate change. Using 1998 as the starting date, (an unusually hot year due to El Nino) the difference in the last 20 years can seem small. When you look further back and do not use the outlier 1998 as a baseline the changes are much more apparent. Re interpretation of the data from scientists that understand climate science shows the increase in temperature is much greater than previous reports. As more data for 2014 - present day becomes interpreted and included in the reports the changes will be more apparent and drastic. 1998 doesn't even touch the last several years of global temperatures. Read the paper. According to the science your religion is falling apart. I really don't have a dog in this fight but read some of these end of the world predictions that have failed to come true. Climate change is more politics than science. Keep eating it up if you want but if you're actually interested you could actually read the peer reviewed research, look at the data and the models. There's not a whole lot going on. --- "Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives." <cite>TreGooda posted [p:882260207] in Climate Ch... [t:75525897]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TreGooda posted...</cite> <quote><cite>deoxxys posted...</cite> <quote>^what the hell does this mean??</quote> No warming in 2 decades. They extrapolated data from incorrect models created in 2000.</quote> That's not it at all. Interpretation of data was incorrect for a period of time. Those that had been interpreting the data were using it to support an agenda that dismisses anthropogenic climate change. Using 1998 as the starting date, (an unusually hot year due to El Nino) the difference in the last 20 years can seem small. When you look further back and do not use the outlier 1998 as a baseline the changes are much more apparent. Re interpretation of the data from scientists that understand climate science shows the increase in temperature is much greater than previous reports. As more data for 2014 - present day becomes interpreted and included in the reports the changes will be more apparent and drastic. 1998 doesn't even touch the last several years of global temperatures.</quote> Read the paper. According to the science your religion is falling apart. I really don't have a dog in this fight but read some of these end of the world predictions that have failed to come true. Climate change is more politics than science. Keep eating it up if you want but if you're actually interested you could actually read the peer reviewed research, look at the data and the models. There's not a whole lot going on. --- "Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1