The 10 most critical problems in the world, according to millennials

Tommy Monk wrote:

The 10000 year temp graph is compiled from the scientific investigation and study of ice core data, using a well known and well established technique that is highly regarded as being extremely accurate!!!


While the climate change lot have been caught out lying and falsifying data on numerous occasions on what they have tried telling us about the temps of the last few decades...!


I know who I would rather trust...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The graph correlates with other warm and cooler periods that we already know existed elsewhere in the world too!!!


You cannot seriously be trying to claim that the overall trends shown, were not present in the rest of the world!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You two idiots obviously don't understand what I mean by 'overall trends', and you both obviously don't understand the 10000 year graph I posted, as you seem to think that it is just a weather forecast/record for only one place in the world... and you think it bares no significance related to the wider global trend of temperatures...


Maybe you should try looking at it harder and try harder in understanding what is shown...!


And while you're at it... maybe you could tell us what evidence you have for any global temperatures over the past 2000, 5000 or 10000 years...???

Tommy Monk wrote:Skepticalscience.com is not an independent source didge...


So it shows how stupid you are...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
Yeah...?


Well... the first lie by skepticalscience here, is their claim that the ice core data graph doesn't show anything from 1855 to present date...


If you look at the graph I posted... it says the data shows up to 1950...!

The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

Thor wrote:From one of the links of skeptical science, where we have 5 scientists help explain Tommy's errors

Here for everyone else

Have a good evening everyone

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

While I was looking up my latest links for my earlier posts, I came across two sources of that anti-science/anti-climate propaganda so beloved by Tommy...

One key source for pushing that distorted and misrepresented Greenland graph that Tommy loves so much is a "born again"/evangelical/creationist sect in the USA --  where their historical timeline only starts around 2050 BC  !   That's around 2,400 years later than most other fundi' Creationist groups;  never mind the true geological age of this planet..

The second major denialist group was 3 economics lecturers from Stanford University (yep, that well known centre for science and climate studies --  not !)  --  where their agenda is clearly to promote global warming as being "beneficial" to the US economy, and especially agriculture (!),  while providing more shonky ammo' for the Trump administration to fight their opponents with.

Don Easterbrook is a geology professor at Western Washington University who has been making predictions of imminent global cooling for the best part of two decades.

Easterbrook, a regular at climate science denial meetings run by the Heartland Institute, rejects the role of increasing CO2 and thinks that all you need for predicting future climates is to look at natural cycles of the past.

So in 2001 Easterbrook thought: “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.”

So it was any minute now for cooling. In 2006 Easterbrook said: “The current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool.”

In 2008 he wrote that his “predicted cooling seems to have already begun”.

That year he also wrote: “In a nutshell, in 2001 I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus three to five years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data ... If the present cooling trend continues, the [United Nations climate change] reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.”

So, what happened?

According to NOAA, the following year, 2009, was the fifth warmest year on record, 2010 tied for the warmest, then 2011 and 2012 were relatively cool at the 11th and 10th warmest years. When the data was in for 2013, it was the fourth warmest year. The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all progressively ranked warmest on record.

That global cooling is just round the corner though. Any minute now.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up