|
On November 22 2009 13:08 spets1 wrote:
fact 1: temeprature has not been rising sice 1998
fact 2: co2 levels have been rising
conclusion : the conclusion of global warming due to rising level of co2 is wrong.
if it was 1 or 2 years, but this has been over a decade...
what more proof do you need?????
I didn't really want to enter this debate, but theres a graph of the average temperature of the earth over the past x amount of years.
this isn't the up to date, but its like this:
note the nature of this curve. The one that covers a greater timespan has a similar shape
more co2 graphs:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.pdf
With all this above to reference, a couple things that I feel I should point out:
-Using the reason temperature hasn't been rising since 1998 as evidence against man-caused global warming is..I tried thinking of a nicer way to say this but its completely ridiculous. The average temperature fluctuates naturally, so taking around a decades worth of data (which is a part of one of these spikes) just isn't something you can use as a reason. It's like saying that raising minimum wage is good for people because that means they'll get paid more money. There is much more context and ramifications you must consider before you can even come to a conclusion. What you want to reference is the general trend of these little spikes, not an individual one
-Carbon levels are at the part when naturally they should be really high. The problem is, with humans, we've set the earth on a course where the ppm won't naturally drop, instead theres enough pouring into the atmosphere and we will continue to go to higher ppm than we've been at in any point in natural history. That is the real problem
-There is a delayed reaction not visible in the graphs. The earth is a massive system with a lot of water. Naturally, the sunlight being trapped by carbon will take some years to really affect temperature. I want to drill this in, so imagine a large, heavy train. It's really hard to get it started, but once its going it will be just as hard if not harder to stop. This is not a commentary on TL's intelligence, I really want to emphasize this: Train = earth, forward motion = mean rising avg temperature, and measurement of ppm = precursor of train's forward motion.
At the rate we're going and the lack of change we (as a species) are showing, we will eventually change the atmosphere with our carbon output. This won't be the end of the world. This is the part that, from my research, scientists agree with. The real questions are how much is our world going to change and what kind of world we'll be left with. It's these two questions they can't agree on
i think in metaphors so if they don't make sense or aren't accurate, just entertain them. my real message doesn't lie in them, its just for the alternative view of the thought
|
kind of edit but kind of further note: I don't have a personal stance on this issue. I will take whatever side I need to further discussion
[edit
Just another random but further thought: Our founding fathers designed the constitution with the assumption that if two equal and opposite sides spar on something that the sparks created from the friction of the clash are the true and balanced resolve that comes out. keep that in mind with any argument, such as this one. take both sides extreme claims with a grain of salt
|
fact 1: temeprature has not been rising sice 1998
fact 2: co2 levels have been rising
conclusion : the conclusion of global warming due to rising level of co2 is wrong.
You do not understand the difference between "anecdote" and "data".
1998 is what is known in statistics as an "outlier". It was a very, very hot year. The hottest on record to date. It fell well outside of the general curve of increasing temperatures for the last 3+ decades. This means that, relative to 1998, the later years will seem cooler.
One outlier data point is meaningless in statistics. What matters is the overall trend. And that trend, even in this century, is towards warming.
So, it could be that while the temperature is going up, it would be going up just as much if humans weren't burning fossil fuels. It could also be that the temperature is going down, but it would be much lower except for man-made global warming. In this case, to draw conclusions solely from the experimental group with no control group to compare to seems absurd.
I hate this argument. This basically assumes that climate scientists are rock stupid and have no idea how climate works at all. And therefore, they would have no way of knowing what would be happening to the climate if we were not adding lots and lots of previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.
Fortunately, this is not the case. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it is a verifiable fact that CO2 strongly absorbs light in the infrared. We know that adding large quantities of it into the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures, as a consequence of the first fact. Therefore, the only question (to the lay person, as the actual climate scientists know this already) is how much it takes before substantial warming becomes inevitable.
Our founding fathers designed the constitution with the assumption that if two equal and opposite sides spar on something that the sparks created from the friction of the clash are the true and balanced resolve that comes out. keep that in mind with any argument, such as this one. take both sides extreme claims with a grain of salt
I'm sorry, but this is bull. It's even a logical fallacy: the belief that, if two people are arguing opposing positions, the correct answer must be in the middle.
If side A has empirical data, measured and tested over decades, and side B has nothing but conjecture, speculation, and arguments ad hominem, the correct answer isn't in the middle.
If this is truly what the "our founding fathers" had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, then they were deeply and incredibly stupid. The middle is not always the best place. Sometimes, one side of an argument is made by ignorant people trying to protect their pocketbooks, rather than by people putting up an intellectually honest defense of their position backed by actual facts. And you shouldn't cede ground to these intellectually dishonest and/or ignorant people just to satisfy a logical fallacy.
The correct answer is to study the evidence on both sides dispassionately. If you're really interested in coming to an informed conclusion, you have to put some effort into going to primary sources on this stuff.
|
I don't really care whether global warming is true or false. It helps As long as everyday people will pay more attention to be economical, consume less, recycle and think green. In my country nobody really cared if a river has dead fish because of an industry dumping waste in the water. After the global warming fiasco this became main news.
|
there is just as much evidence the climat change is just from natural causes. like the 20 k cycle of the earth pivoting. And the earth has been in way more drastic states in it present and the biosphere has been able to addapt quite wel.
|
It's quite obscene this debate about is it more important to keep making a fucktone of money or is it more important not to screw the biosphere.
I don't think it's a scientifical debate: it's a compltely political one. There is a reason why Bush administration was against any ecological restriction. The question is: is there anything more important than making money.
We talk about global warming, but forest are being destroyed, we are in the biggest species disparition since millions of years, etc etc etc...
We have a couple of scientist who claim that everything is fine and we should carry on the same way in France. They are all lobby-related, and generally right wingers.
|
Germany8679 Posts
Who cares if some data was changed to strengthen the global warming thesis? We all know that there are plenty of organizations that work towards the opposite direction.
The climate will change anyways, the only things that are uncertain are when and how fast. It wouldn't hurt to be prepared a bit earlier than necessary.
|
earth is old.....
and were aware of temperature, go people!
|
On November 22 2009 23:15 spinesheath wrote:
Who cares if some data was changed to strengthen the global warming thesis? We all know that there are plenty of organizations that work towards the opposite direction.
The climate will change anyways, the only things that are uncertain are when and how fast. It wouldn't hurt to be prepared a bit earlier than necessary.
We are also uncertain that change is necessarily bad.
|
On November 22 2009 19:20 KurtistheTurtle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 13:08 spets1 wrote:
fact 1: temeprature has not been rising sice 1998
fact 2: co2 levels have been rising
conclusion : the conclusion of global warming due to rising level of co2 is wrong.
if it was 1 or 2 years, but this has been over a decade...
what more proof do you need????? I didn't really want to enter this debate, but theres a graph of the average temperature of the earth over the past x amount of years. this isn't the up to date, but its like this: note the nature of this curve. The one that covers a greater timespan has a similar shape more co2 graphs: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.pdfWith all this above to reference, a couple things that I feel I should point out: -Using the reason temperature hasn't been rising since 1998 as evidence against man-caused global warming is..I tried thinking of a nicer way to say this but its completely ridiculous. The average temperature fluctuates naturally, so taking around a decades worth of data (which is a part of one of these spikes) just isn't something you can use as a reason. It's like saying that raising minimum wage is good for people because that means they'll get paid more money. There is much more context and ramifications you must consider before you can even come to a conclusion. What you want to reference is the general trend of these little spikes, not an individual one -Carbon levels are at the part when naturally they should be really high. The problem is, with humans, we've set the earth on a course where the ppm won't naturally drop, instead theres enough pouring into the atmosphere and we will continue to go to higher ppm than we've been at in any point in natural history. That is the real problem -There is a delayed reaction not visible in the graphs. The earth is a massive system with a lot of water. Naturally, the sunlight being trapped by carbon will take some years to really affect temperature. I want to drill this in, so imagine a large, heavy train. It's really hard to get it started, but once its going it will be just as hard if not harder to stop. This is not a commentary on TL's intelligence, I really want to emphasize this: Train = earth, forward motion = mean rising avg temperature, and measurement of ppm = precursor of train's forward motion. At the rate we're going and the lack of change we (as a species) are showing, we will eventually change the atmosphere with our carbon output. This won't be the end of the world. This is the part that, from my research, scientists agree with. The real questions are how much is our world going to change and what kind of world we'll be left with. It's these two questions they can't agree on i think in metaphors so if they don't make sense or aren't accurate, just entertain them. my real message doesn't lie in them, its just for the alternative view of the thought
fact 3 : co2 trend follows the temperature trend, lagging it by few years.
conclusion that co2 causes warming of the planet is totally ridiculous and flipped on its head.
It is the other way around, rise of temperature causes rise of CO2 not other way around..
Also from that graph if co2 was really affecting the temperature, then the feedback would be positive and that graph would look more exponential, but its not.
explanation: CO2 lags the temperature rise on graph. Lets assume co2 causes temperature to rise. Then once temperature rises and then co2 rises, those two working together would cause the temperature to rise even quicker. But this did not happen!!!
So learn how to read graphs instead of presenting them and repeating what you saw on inconvenient truth.
Its not wonder Al Gore declined to have any debates about it with real scientists. He has millions of dollars invested into this. He does not want to be ripped apart.
fact 4 : Sun is the biggest contributor to temperature change
I dont know why the hell the Sun is not being discussed at all in these debates. Any change in its radiation will cause big changes of climate on earth.
fact 5 : Scientists that worked for IPCC, were paid to study global warming and its causes, found plenty of evidence that global warming is not man made, they were fired
sounds like good old witch burning back in the days.
PS as i said im all up for cleaner energy sources but political manipulation of the public through media is ridiculous. And is going very wrong way. We the people should not be manipulated so easily. Global warming is being used to tax people, turn it into a profitable situation.
|
as long as we keep doing everything for the dumb population we keep on degenerating. I'm a software developer and I always get to hear "develop for the dumbest guy using the application" exactly this way of development made me functionality that was plain wrong for an intelligent person making good thoughts, but because the intelligent person can adapt better to the dumb fuck, I gotta do it for the dumbs anyway.
it's only dumb ppl questioning the glasshouse effect CO2 is causing because they dont understand what is really questionable, but they keep spreading their shit thoughts anyway because someone simplified it down for them so they can understand.
this simplifiying for dumb so they can understand is used often in an educational context (like school) because its often easier to understand something if you let out important stuff. politicians and especially companylobyists use exactly this simplification to manipulate ppl because they know the ppl are to stupid to understand the real deal anyway.
in italy the romans killed the forest because they abused it to make convinient goods such as ships, "horse cars", houses, they didnt think about planting new trees and got fucked by that. but dumb ppl dont like to learn from history, dumb ppl genrally dont like history "im living in the present fuck history".
dumb ppl also dont get that we are currently running on ressources that will be gone in a few decades (10 to 50 years) and this is only the electronic part. this is real as the companys have to pay attention to it not because of ecological issues but because if there are no ressources there wont be any money anymore. im reading a lot of electronical magazines targeting engineeris and business man and what I can read there is sooo much different from the main media. it so funny to see how dumb ppl fall for the tricks the inteligent persons using on them. you can see this on a dayly basis in a supermarket near you. the supermarket is trying to trick you with big pakets but little content, you dont see shit like this at all if you are buying a microcontroller (small processer) because the microcontroller vendor knows that you aint stupid if you buy one and wont ever buy anything from you anymore.
with "dumb ppl" I dont want to discredit anyone, as we are all dumb on some areas. I'd never educate my brother about plants or animals in general as he is bio student, because im dumb in that area compared to him. he knows how to use a computer and can do a lot of stuff with it, but he is fucking dumb compared to me because I studied that shit.
Our founding fathers designed the constitution with the assumption that if two equal and opposite sides spar on something that the sparks created from the friction of the clash are the true and balanced resolve that comes out. keep that in mind with any argument, such as this one. take both sides extreme claims with a grain of salt
a wonderful example of a dumb ppl brain pattern. if you think like this you are abused a lot because you are sooo easy to manipulate. if something is bothering me I go veeery extreme on the otherside and have already halfed your initial correct opinion. so the more extreme i go the more i convince you on my side, can you see how dumb that brainpattern is?
On November 22 2009 23:28 spets1 wrote:
PS as i said im all up for cleaner energy sources but political manipulation of the public through media is ridiculous. And is going very wrong way. We the people should not be manipulated so easily. Global warming is being used to tax people, turn it into a profitable situation.
yes, thats exactly why I massivly dislike the idea of CO2 compensation. thats exactly why i hate "green liberal" partys. they always lock economy with ecology and that sucks. you shouldnt throw litter out of your window because you maybe have to pay 100$ then, but because it doesnt fucking belong there.
|
|
|
On November 22 2009 23:28 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 19:20 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On November 22 2009 13:08 spets1 wrote:
fact 1: temeprature has not been rising sice 1998
fact 2: co2 levels have been rising
conclusion : the conclusion of global warming due to rising level of co2 is wrong.
if it was 1 or 2 years, but this has been over a decade...
what more proof do you need????? I didn't really want to enter this debate, but theres a graph of the average temperature of the earth over the past x amount of years. this isn't the up to date, but its like this: note the nature of this curve. The one that covers a greater timespan has a similar shape more co2 graphs: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.pdfWith all this above to reference, a couple things that I feel I should point out: -Using the reason temperature hasn't been rising since 1998 as evidence against man-caused global warming is..I tried thinking of a nicer way to say this but its completely ridiculous. The average temperature fluctuates naturally, so taking around a decades worth of data (which is a part of one of these spikes) just isn't something you can use as a reason. It's like saying that raising minimum wage is good for people because that means they'll get paid more money. There is much more context and ramifications you must consider before you can even come to a conclusion. What you want to reference is the general trend of these little spikes, not an individual one -Carbon levels are at the part when naturally they should be really high. The problem is, with humans, we've set the earth on a course where the ppm won't naturally drop, instead theres enough pouring into the atmosphere and we will continue to go to higher ppm than we've been at in any point in natural history. That is the real problem -There is a delayed reaction not visible in the graphs. The earth is a massive system with a lot of water. Naturally, the sunlight being trapped by carbon will take some years to really affect temperature. I want to drill this in, so imagine a large, heavy train. It's really hard to get it started, but once its going it will be just as hard if not harder to stop. This is not a commentary on TL's intelligence, I really want to emphasize this: Train = earth, forward motion = mean rising avg temperature, and measurement of ppm = precursor of train's forward motion. At the rate we're going and the lack of change we (as a species) are showing, we will eventually change the atmosphere with our carbon output. This won't be the end of the world. This is the part that, from my research, scientists agree with. The real questions are how much is our world going to change and what kind of world we'll be left with. It's these two questions they can't agree on i think in metaphors so if they don't make sense or aren't accurate, just entertain them. my real message doesn't lie in them, its just for the alternative view of the thought fact 3 : co2 trend follows the temperature trend, lagging it by few years.conclusion that co2 causes warming of the planet is totally ridiculous and flipped on its head. It is the other way around, rise of temperature causes rise of CO2 not other way around.. Also from that graph if co2 was really affecting the temperature, then the feedback would be positive and that graph would look more exponential, but its not. explanation: CO2 lags the temperature rise on graph. Lets assume co2 causes temperature to rise. Then once temperature rises and then co2 rises, those two working together would cause the temperature to rise even quicker. But this did not happen!!! So learn how to read graphs instead of presenting them and repeating what you saw on inconvenient truth. Its not wonder Al Gore declined to have any debates about it with real scientists. He has millions of dollars invested into this. He does not want to be ripped apart. fact 4 : Sun is the biggest contributor to temperature changeI dont know why the hell the Sun is not being discussed at all in these debates. Any change in its radiation will cause big changes of climate on earth. fact 5 : Scientists that worked for IPCC, were paid to study global warming and its causes, found plenty of evidence that global warming is not man made, they were fired sounds like good old witch burning back in the days. PS as i said im all up for cleaner energy sources but political manipulation of the public through media is ridiculous. And is going very wrong way. We the people should not be manipulated so easily. Global warming is being used to tax people, turn it into a profitable situation.
Holy shit... scrubs these days =,=
@fact3: GUESS WHAT: the Milankovitch cycle and greenhouse effect ARE working together in a vicious cycle of CO2 and temperature rise. I don't know what you mean by "But this did not happen!" because it is happening right now. Also, Al Gore declined to have any debates about global warming because he is merely a political figure who supports fighting global warming, rather than a climatologist.
@fact4: The sun is not being discussed in these debates because it's assumed. Any minor changes in the radiation given off will be nearly unnoticeable due to the earth's magnetic field deflection.
@fact5: Prove it? What evidence did they have? Merely stating that there exists such evidence is not evidence in itself.
|
fact 3 : co2 trend follows the temperature trend, lagging it by few years.
conclusion that co2 causes warming of the planet is totally ridiculous and flipped on its head.
It is the other way around, rise of temperature causes rise of CO2 not other way around..
Also from that graph if co2 was really affecting the temperature, then the feedback would be positive and that graph would look more exponential, but its not.
explanation: CO2 lags the temperature rise on graph. Lets assume co2 causes temperature to rise. Then once temperature rises and then co2 rises, those two working together would cause the temperature to rise even quicker. But this did not happen!!!
So learn how to read graphs instead of presenting them and repeating what you saw on inconvenient truth.
Its not wonder Al Gore declined to have any debates about it with real scientists. He has millions of dollars invested into this. He does not want to be ripped apart.
Read this
Then read this
fact 4 : Sun is the biggest contributor to temperature change
I dont know why the hell the Sun is not being discussed at all in these debates. Any change in its radiation will cause big changes of climate on earth.
According to the PMOD at the World Radiation center, the suns irradiance hasn't increased since 1978 Link
fact 5 : Scientists that worked for IPCC, were paid to study global warming and its causes, found plenty of evidence that global warming is not man made, they were fired
sounds like good old witch burning back in the days.
No idea about this one, as I don't really care anyway. Such sensationalist stuff is hard to believe, it all sounds to come from some Hollywood movie.
|
the government wants to distract you with these dumb issues in which we have little control over to keep their generation's income, instead of actually making the changes the newer, willing generation wants
|
On November 22 2009 19:20 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
These graphs are from the government.. If they will cherrypick data from other sets, it is likely they did it to this one, as it is for the public to see.
|
It's amazing how you guys see the "governement" as the ultimate evil, are so obsessed by the State taking control when basically all your economy, all your medias, all your cultural life is controlled by big companies which structurally don't obey any other law than making as much money as quickly as possible for their shareholders, which represents the 1% richest part of your population.
When you knnow the incredible amount of lobbying that theses companies are doing, chose who you should fear the most: your governement or your capitalist amoral system.
Global warming doesn't benefit anybdoy. Not doing anything and denying it benefits all major companies.
I'm sorry, but American's view on politic is so naive.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Off topic post for Phrujbaz.
+ Show Spoiler +On November 22 2009 18:53 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:38 TanGeng wrote:
Really? what about the comedy of errors in the financial markets? How do all financial institutions in the world make the same stupid mistake at the same exact time? Haven't read the rest of the thread. You ask a very interesting question. There is one explanation commonly accepted. The people controlling the financial institutions were acting in their own self interest, and not in the interest of the firm they were controlling.I personally do not find this to be a particularly satisfactory explanation for such a massive failure on such a massive scale. It's been pretty common talk in society lately, that CEOs get excessive salaries and that they don't act in their firm's interest. This is not limited to the financial sector. Perhaps some CEOs can get away with making decisions bad for the company and good for themselves, but not even close to "many" and absolutely not all. What is different here to make the systems that have been in place to check up on CEOs so suddenly fail, not in a number of isolated cases, but so massively? I'd be much more interested in an explanation that can explain the global failure in terms of the prisoner dilemma. In case you don't know what that is, I'll explain it here briefly. A murder has been committed by two people. The police is pretty sure who the murderers are, but doesn't have enough evidence to jail them. Fortunately, the two commit a minor crime allowing the police to arrest them. The police offers the prisoners the following deal: we know you committed that murder. We just don't have enough evidence to convict you. If you confess and your accomplice doesn't, you will go free as crown witness and we will jail him for ten years. If you don't confess and your accomplice does, we will jail you for ten years and he will go free as crown witness. If you both confess, I don't need a crown witness, and you'll both go to jail for eight years. Finally, if neither of you confess, then we can only jail you for at most two years for the minor crime we convicted you on. If both prisoners act in their own interest, they will both confess, giving a total jail time of 16 years, the worst possible "group" result! However, each of their individual results is better than if they didn't confess. The primary error of banks was lending too much money out. Maybe if every competitor is lending out too much and too easily, then you have two choices: lend out unsafely as well or lose a lot of money because of a disadvantaged market position. If nothing happens, then you are better off than before because you lent out unsafely - you were able to keep you market position. If something happens, it will happen to all the other banks too, so you are still able to keep your relative market position. If that's how it works, then banks that follow the aggressive lending strategy are more likely to get a dominant market position than banks that follow a less aggressive lending strategy, just because of the way our banking system is set up. And that, in turn, makes it inevitable that the banking system is going to fail, the worst possible group result. I doubt this analysis is correct. The analogy to the prisoner's dilemma is problematic because there is no blind one-off all-or-nothing decision to be made on a market-wide level. Financial institutions can control the amount of risk exposure they are exposed to a very fine grain and they develop a track record with their competitors. Developing a nasty reputation among competitors would be damaging in the long run. The possibility being posed is better described as a price war between oligopolies. Even then oligopolies usually price signal each other as to avoid triggering price war. Think of what might happen when a series of 50 prisoner's dilemmas are posed to the same two people. They can signal each other through their decisions. Yet the players in the primary and secondary financial industry can't fall into the category of oligopolies. There are too many individual firms for oligopolies to price signal to each other. They get undercut by the other competitors in the market. The only oligopolies in the financial markets are the central banks and they're not making decisions in the primary and secondary markets. (well they weren't before - that might have changed.) The situation also runs counter to the experiences of the 19th century where Citigroup was known as one of the most conservative players in the banking industry and in the long run was wildly successful. Some of the other banks varied their risks bit by bit but all the big players JP Morgan et al were on the conservative side of risk taking. Perhaps the 19th century is a different environment but there doesn't seem to be any innate systemic flaws with the banking industry - and this was in a more deregulated environment.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 23 2009 00:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's amazing how you guys see the "governement" as the ultimate evil, are so obsessed by the State taking control when basically all your economy, all your medias, all your cultural life is controlled by big companies which structurally don't obey any other law than making as much money as quickly as possible for their shareholders, which represents the 1% richest part of your population.
When you knnow the incredible amount of lobbying that theses companies are doing, chose who you should fear the most: your governement or your capitalist amoral system.
Global warming doesn't benefit anybdoy. Not doing anything and denying it benefits all major companies.
I'm sorry, but American's view on politic is so naive.
In the US big government is better connected with big business than with the people. There is reason to be afraid of big government because it is the corporate state.
As far as I know GE is the primary backer of global warming theory in the US. They have made a lot of investments into green technologies and stands to gain more from acceptance of Global Warming than its refutation. Likewise the financial industries would love to create a new market for their services in cap and trade indulgences.
|
On November 22 2009 11:38 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:36 WhiteNights wrote:
Every field has bad apples, but an entire field of bad apples is unheard of. Really? what about the comedy of errors in the financial markets? How do all financial institutions in the world make the same stupid mistake at the same exact time?
The trouble and difficulty with economics is that economics is not a science. It would make a lot more sense for a field that is overrun with fundamentally unpredictable phenomena to meet with an overarching lapse in judgment.
However, in a scientific field, it is pretty much impossible for everyone to agree on something that is just plain wrong. They often agree on things that are incomplete (e.g. Newton's laws vs. relativity, quantum mechanics vs. classical mechanics), but not fundamentally wrong. I can pretty much guarantee that if there was any real debate among scientists in a particular field (e.g. climate and atmospheric sciences), then the journals would consist of roughly half the scientists studying "what if x is a problem?" and the other half "what if x wasn't a problem?" and each would treat their paper as a proposition. At the end they would draw observable conclusions, and at some point down the line one set of conclusions would prove more accurate than the other, and the debate would be over.
Basically, what I'm saying is: it isn't proper to compare misunderstanding in a fundamentally misunderstood field with misunderstanding in a fundamentally understood field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.cythor.org/worldfuture/images/worldtemp.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://www.cresis.ku.edu/education/DataPortal/CO2/CO2graph.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/global_hoax_300.jpg/&w=180&h=150&zc=C&q=100)
