The IPCC is wrong. Their underlying baseline assumptions are wrong. The number of hot days have lessened not increased. The environment has hot noticeably changed in 50 years.
The IPCC is wrong. Their underlying baseline assumptions are wrong. The number of hot days have lessened not increased. The environment has hot noticeably changed in 50 years.
By how quickly you responded, I assume you did not spend much time perusing it. The main point of the section I linked is that temperatures in the USA from 1918 to 1965 were higher than they are now.
In fact, the IPCC and NASA graphs consistently start in the 1970s in order to make it appear that temperatures are up. In fact, if you start the graphics sooner, you can see that they are not.
You are quite insane. Too stupid to live, but you will whine with the worst of them when the shit is hitting the fan. You know, like towns burning to the ground, storms, floods.
Sorry to have offended you. I don't agree that NO SCIENCE is settled. But I do agree that Climate Science is very complex in will likely always be a work in progress.
95% of media pundits agree that 95% of scientists agree that Climate Change is going to be reversible for the next 30 years and then not reversible, because everyone knows that temperature can be lowered across the planet now, but not then.
The IPCC is wrong. Their underlying baseline assumptions are wrong. The number of hot days have lessened not increased. The environment has hot noticeably changed in 50 years.
https://realclimatescience.com/are-government-temperature-graphs-credible/
That site is anything BUT "real climate science". That site is purified essence of horseshit.
By how quickly you responded, I assume you did not spend much time perusing it. The main point of the section I linked is that temperatures in the USA from 1918 to 1965 were higher than they are now.
In fact, the IPCC and NASA graphs consistently start in the 1970s in order to make it appear that temperatures are up. In fact, if you start the graphics sooner, you can see that they are not.
Clearly you're not a farmer.
Clearly you have nothing to add to the discussion.
Yet another conversation here that would be better served by subtraction, not addition.
Yet another conversation here that eos be served by you having an argument or any kind of salient point to make.
"...has "hot" noticeably changed in 50 years." Is that your subconscious asserting itself?
In that it HAS NOT.
You are quite insane. Too stupid to live, but you will whine with the worst of them when the shit is hitting the fan. You know, like towns burning to the ground, storms, floods.
Hey, four out of five dentists once recommended Crest toothpaste as well... so fuck your argument.
Again, I have no interest and discussing anything with a vulgar person.
Ha, not discussing anything with you. Just commenting.
If you think for a second that any kind of science is or could ever be "settled", you don't science.
You religion.
Sorry to have offended you. I don't agree that NO SCIENCE is settled. But I do agree that Climate Science is very complex in will likely always be a work in progress.
Regarding science being settled, IтАЩm 95% convinced that claim is correct.
95% of media pundits agree that 95% of scientists agree that Climate Change is going to be reversible for the next 30 years and then not reversible, because everyone knows that temperature can be lowered across the planet now, but not then.
So you believe that towns will burn because of rising temperatures? That's interesting. What towns do you believe will burn?
I don't bother responding to rude people. You are just demonstrating your lack of education and lack of an argument.
Glad to hear it. Now STFU.
I would say that you are NOT a rude and moronic person. I would say that, but I can't.
Hahaha