Is this the average way self proclaimed skeptics think?
self proclaimed skeptic posted answer stating planet in long term cooling trend. claiming planet not warming cooling. laid out failed predictions of past , then, that, claims global warming 'hysteria' based off of ideological interests. news article linked daily mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
can see definite cooling trend in graph. article itself, states following: "in general scientists found slow cooling of 0.6c on 2,000 years, attributed changes in earth’s orbit took further away sun."
here link actual full paper article based on. http://www.geo.uni-mainz.de/dateien/espe...
note image in news article similar image in figure 2 in published journal real measurements taken out. topic discussed during climategate 1.0 when "mike's nature trick hide decline" ignorantly brought up. dealt 'divergence problem'. , nonsense has been dealt many times before still being brought , self proclaimed skeptics continue ignore real science , promote falsehoods. average way skeptics think? going correct user in falsehoods or going continue allowing him think does?
has been established cooling trend due milankovitch forcing has existed 6000 years prior industrial revolution. how know milankovitch cycles not cause of warming. after posted, however, user went on state many planets in solar system warming , claimed due variations in solar output. complete face in same post. how skeptics present arguments? on same page correct user?
recently self proclaimed skeptic posted answer stating planet in long term cooling trend. claiming planet not warming cooling. laid out failed predictions of past , then, that, claims global warming 'hysteria' based off of ideological...
Environment Global Warming Next
Comments
Post a Comment