> We should never doubt climate change as is presented to us,
Oh god, you're one of them, aren't you?
It's not like there's literally decades of evidence showing climate change to be objective truth...
Sigh.
Great job.
Oh god, you're one of them, aren't you?
It's not like there's literally decades of evidence showing climate change to be objective truth...
Sigh.
Great job.
I'm not denying climate change as a whole or in absolute, I just want to point out that there's enough evidence to think that the world as we know it won't actually end in 2012 as some studies indicate.
What you probably mean is how humans influence this cycle; whether accelerating or delaying it, in effect disrupting it. For that, there's no evidence; however, there are many politician lobbyists (and yes, also scientists taking advantage of juicy grants to deliver what was ordered) going to capitalize on the fear that it might be.
Le sigh.
Do you get it?
To be less punchy: Most of the data on the graph is on a scale of 500 years and the data is filled in with dashed lines. Starting the late 1800's we suddenly have real data(what is the update frequency?, how does that compare to previous data?)
Here is the note on the graphic: "Limits of this data: Short warming or cooling spikes may be 'smoothed out' by these reconstructions but only if they are small enough or brief enough"
What is small enough? What is brief enough?