Who Is Qualified To Be A Climate Spokesperson?

Again for the terminally stupid, the author is a real climate scientist unlike charlatans like John Cook, of Skeptical Science infamy, who came up with the bogus 97% survey that alarmists love to quote endlessly.
 
This is from the About Us section of the Real Climatologists website.

We are the most qualified real climatologists to ever come out as global warming skeptics (including even more than Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Judith Curry, although we acknowledge their revolutionary courage). Unlike most scientists counted in the scientific consensus on global warming we are real climate scientists. Our graduate careers included numerous courses in climate and we have done extensive research in climate, including climate modeling and climate proxies (past climates). Doing both is unusual. Not only have we actually used and run climate models but we have actually programmed them and so fully understand their (huge) weaknesses. Unlike many we don't just ignorantly use the climate proxy data produced by others but we have taken courses and done research on climate proxies and so fully understand their (huge) weaknesses.

For those, mostly non-scientists, who are foolish enough to believe (and espouse) that peer review means that what is written is true, every word one of us writes is actually read by the other before publication. Scientists today often don't have time to even scan the current literature, never mind carefully read papers for peer review. Often a peer reviewer simply looks at the reputations of, or if he is friends with, the paper's authors to decide on whether the paper should be published. This is especially true for scientists who are non-native English speakers since English is the language of science and reading English carefully is a tedious task.

We don't get paid by the oil companies or anyone else to question global warming. We just think climate science is one of the most fascinating sciences there is and to turn it into a lie for career advancement and political purposes is unconscionable.

Dr. Duane Thresher

"Dr. Thresher, You have one advantage over me. You are a climate expert and I am not." -- Genius and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson.

Researcher, tree ring climate proxy modeling, University of Alaska (ARSC and SNRAS).
Guest Scientist, ocean climate proxy modeling, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.
PhD, Earth & Environmental Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Columbia University and NASA GISS (working for Dr. James Hansen, the father of global warming, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt).
NSF research cruise, RV Nathaniel B. Palmer in Mertz Glacier region of Antarctica; CTD operator, MOCNESS.
MS, Atmospheric Science (climate modeling/tree rings/chaos), University of Arizona and NCAR.
BS, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT and NASA.

Selected Publications:

[Note below: Hansen is Dr. James Hansen, the former head of NASA GISS and the*father of global warming. Schmidt is Dr. Gavin Schmidt, the current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and the leading climate change warrior/spokesperson (a*founder of RealClimate).]

Thresher, D., 2010: "Report: International Winter School on Wood Anatomy of Tree Rings 2010", Dendrochronologia, 28, 259–260.*http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/gaertner/WoodanatomyCourse/Report_2010.pdf

Thresher, D., 2007c: "Improving Alkenone Temperature Paleoclimate Reconstruction, with Example from the Last Glacial Maximum Tropics", Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Questions the validity of the established method for sea surface temperature reconstruction. Rejected after standard sloppy peer review: I requested three specific less-biased reviewers, got three very-biased reviewers instead (careers dependent on established method), only two responded, one against, one neutral, and the editor cast the deciding vote against, not even being qualified to review the paper.*Available here.

Hansen, J., ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2007b: "Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE", Climate Dynamics, 29, 661–696.*https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha09210n.html

Hansen, J., ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2007a: "Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study", Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7, 2287–2312.*https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00210r.html

Schmidt, G. A., ..., J. E. Hansen, ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2006: "Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE: Comparison to In Situ, Satellite, and Reanalysis Data", Journal of Climate, 19, 153–192.*https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc05200y.html

Hansen, J., ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2005: "Efficacy of climate forcings", Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1–45.*https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01110v.html

Thresher, D. E., 2004: "Multi-Century Simulations of LGM and Present Day Climate Using an Accelerated Coupled GCM Carrying Water Isotope Tracers, With Comparisons to Ocean Sediment/Ice Cores and Observations", PhD thesis, Columbia University.*https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/th08000d.html

Thresher, D., G. Schmidt, D. Rind, and G. Hoffmann, 2004: "Multi-Century Simulations of LGM and Present Day Climate Using a Coupled GCM Carrying Water Isotope Tracers, With Comparisons to Ocean Sediment/Ice Cores and Observations", EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AGU, 85(17), Joint Assembly Supplement, Abstract A52B–05 (American Geophysical Union, May, Montreal).

NRC, 2002: "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises" Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Participant in National Research Council’s Abrupt Climate Change Workshop, October 2000, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, which contributed to this book.*https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/13#215*and search for "Thresher".

Thresher, D. and NCAR, 1997: shr_orb_decl and shr_orb_params, GCM source code (Fortran 90) subroutines for calculation of earth’s era-appropriate orbital parameters (i.e., Milankovitch parameterization). Part of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s GCMs from CCM3 to the current CCSM. I added this insolation code after I found a related major bug in CCM2, which called into question the many scientific results from using CCM2 but was never widely publicized.*http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/atm...wser/html_code/share/shr_orb_mod.F90.html*and search for "Thresher".

Media Coverage:

Climate Change Skeptics Welcome Open Debate Under Trump Presidency

Climate Alarmists Warn Fewer Picnic-Perfect Days Thanks to 'Global Warming'

Whistle-Blower: 'Global Warming' Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference

Scientists Warn of Climate Apocalypse: CO2 Emissions Will Send Earth Back to 'Triassic Period'

Climate Scientists Spread Panic: 'Ten Years' to Save the Earth

Al Gore-Backed Group Demands Countries Kick In $15 Trillion to Fight Global Warming

Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions Are 'Mathematically Impossible'

Climate Alarmism: Global Warming to Slash Corn, Wheat, Rice Production 'by 23 Percent'

Contact:

Dr.Duane.Thresher@RealClimatologists.org

Our articles can be irregularly timed. If you want to be notified when they come out please email us your email address.

For those who want to use this email address to threaten us, I can and will track any threatening emails back to their senders. Sending a threatening email is a federal crime:*US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 41, Section 875(c).

If you think neo-Nazis are bad, try being a global warming skeptic in the Bay Area of California, where we had to move from for our own safety.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Certificate, pollen climate proxy analysis, Georg August University Goettingen, Germany.
Scientist, climate modeling/proxies, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.
Scientist, climate modeling/proxies, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany.
Doctorate, Natural Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Free University of Berlin and PIK, Germany.
Diplom, Meteorology (climate modeling/proxies), University of Hamburg and Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany.

Selected Publications:

[Note below: Rahmstorf is Stefan Rahmstorf, a leading climate change warrior/spokesperson in Germany (another*founder of RealClimate).]

Herzschuh, U., H. Birks, L. Xingqi, C. Kubatzki, G. Lohmann, 2010: "Retraction: What caused the mid-Holocene forest decline on the eastern Tibet-Qinghai Plateau?", Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20(2), 366. After at least 4 rejections and deciding the paper had no scientific value worth publishing, and quitting working for Gerrit Lohmann at the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) due to his abusive behavior, I was horrified to discover 3 years after I quit climate science that the paper had been published with my name on it. As determined by the publisher lawyer, during a standard sloppy peer review Lohmann fabricated my required submission signature, the required revisions on my part of the paper (of which he had no expertise, making the paper scientifically invalid), and my responses to the peer reviewers. After harassment by Lohmann, aided by the journal (particularly chief editor David Currie of the University of Ottowa), of me, my husband, my current and former bosses, and my husband's current boss, I was finally able to get the paper retracted. Fraudulently, Lohmann and John Birks (University of Bergen) continued to list this paper in their publications without the required "Retraction" in the title. See*http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00648.x/full. For the full story see*Corrupt German Climate Science.

Braun, H., ..., S. Rahmstorf, ..., C. Kubatzki, ..., 2005: "Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model", Nature, 438, 208-211.*http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html

Kubatzki C., ..., S. Rahmstorf, ..., M. Claussen, 2000: "Comparison of the last interglacial climate simulated by a coupled global model of intermediate complexity and an AOGCM", Climate Dynamics, 16, 799-814.*http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/kubatzki00.pdf

Ganopolski, A., C. Kubatzki, M. Claussen, ..., 1998: "The influence of vegetation-atmosphere-ocean interaction on climate during the mid-Holocene", Science, 280, 1916-1919.*http://science.sciencemag.org/content/280/5371/1916
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
evince said:
says an internets racist fuck who lies non stop
Click to expand...

Here is another real climate scientist Judith Curry talking about that charlatan John Cook.

By the way even if I were racist, which I am emphatically not, how does that affect science? Are you saying that racists cannot become scientists, only PC lunatics like you. Let's be honest here, you have absolutely no grasp of science or scientific principles. Do you really think that climate science gives a shit about political correctness, consensus or politics?

Making (non)sense of climate denial

by Judith Curry

See update

I’m wondering how we can inoculate ourselves and broader public from the latest nonsense from John Cook: an online MOOC Making Sense of Climate Denial.

The online course Making Sense of Climate Denial is offered through the University of Queensland (Australia), you can enroll for free [here]. John Cook has a 2 minute youtube advert [link].

BadAstronomer has signed up for the course, given an overview of the course in this post Making sense of nonsense: a MOOC about climate change denial, BadAstronomer is very excited about guest lecturers Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, and Naomi Oreskes.

The ‘philosophy’ behind the course is described by John Cook in an article in the Conversation, entitled: Inoculating against science denial. Excerpts:

How then should scientists respond to science denial? The answer lies in a branch of psychology dating back to the 1960s known as “inoculation theory”. Inoculation is an idea that changed history: stop a virus from spreading by exposing people to a weak form of the virus. This simple concept has saved millions of lives.

In the psychological domain, inoculation theory applies the concept of inoculation to knowledge. When we teach science, we typically restrict ourselves to just explaining the science. This is like giving people vitamins. We’re providing the information required for a healthier understanding. But vitamins don’t necessarily grant immunity against a virus.

There is a similar dynamic with misinformation. You might have a healthy understanding of the science. But if you encounter a myth that distorts the science, you’re confronted with a conflict between the science and the myth. If you don’t understand the technique used to distort the science, you have no way to resolve that conflict.

Half a century of research into inoculation theory has found that the way to neutralise misinformation is to expose people to a weak form of the misinformation. The way to achieve this is to explain the fallacy employed by the myth. Once people understand the techniques used to distort the science, they can reconcile the myth with the fact.

The response to science denial is not just more science. We stop science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial. We need to inoculate minds against misinformation.

The practical application of inoculation theory is already happening in classrooms, with educators adopting the teaching approach of misconception-based learning (also known as agnotology-based learning or refutational teaching).

This involves teaching science by debunking misconceptions about the science. This approach results in significantly higher learning gains than customary lectures that simply teach the science.

At the University of Queensland, we’re launching a MOOC that makes sense of climate science denial.

Our approach draws upon inoculation theory, educational research into misconception-based learning and the cognitive psychology of debunking. We explain the psychological research into why and how people deny climate science.

Having laid the framework, we examine the fallacies behind the most common climate myths. Our goal is for students to learn how to identify the techniques used to distort climate science and feel confident responding to misinformation.

No, I have not signed up for the course. However, I did receive a lengthy email from someone who did sign up for the course, who emailed me transcripts of everything provided during week 1 of the course. Here is the course overview:

Denial101x includes 6 weeks of lectures. The first week looks at the psychology of denial – what drives people to reject a scientific consensus? Understanding the psychology is crucial because we lay out a framework for science denial that will be used throughout the rest of the course. From weeks 2 to 5, we debunk myths about climate science – Some of them may be very familiar to you and some might be brand new.

Week 2 looks at myths that cast doubt on the reality of global warming. Week 3 looks at myths related to what’s causing global warming. We’ll look at the many human fingerprints being observed through our climate that not only confirm our role in recent global warming but also rule out other possible causes. Week 4 looks at the past and the future – paleoclimate research into the Earth’s past and climate model projections into the future. Week 5 looks at climate impacts, specifically we look at myths that try to play down the impacts of climate change.

Finally, in week 6, we answer the question – how do we respond to climate science denial? We look at psychological research into how to respond to
denial and give practical advice on debunking misinformation. Throughout this course, we’ll include interviews with some of the world’s leading climate
scientists.

.
The guest lecturer for Week 1 is . . . . Stephan Lewandowsky. I looked through the entire transcript, usual nutty stuff. A few excerpts:

Well, I think the most important thing, to my mind, is the scientists, climate scientists, to realize that the public sphere is awash with agents who are not acting in good faith, who are not interested in dialogue, who are pursuing their own interests whatever they may be and for whatever reason, and who will not respond to communication in the same way that you and I would engage in a dialogue.

JC comment: Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Now what’s happened is that on the blogs, the University of Western Australia is being maligned and smeared and is now pulled into this bigger conspiracy.

Some of the characteristics of conspiratorial thinking or conspiratorial discourse are well understood, and there is a number of them. I think the most important one, the most powerful one, is an overriding sense of suspicion, something that goes beyond skepticism that goes into suspicion and can be—can approach paranoia even, and that is that nothing will be accepted at face value if it comes from somebody who’s presumed to be involved in this conspiracy. It doesn’t matter what you say, if you’re the target of a conspiracy theory, because whatever you say will be taken with the greatest suspicion and it will not be seen in the light in which it is intended. That, I think, to my mind, is the most important one.

JC comment: can you guys please look in the mirror?

If the public knows that the scientists have formed a consensus on climate change, then that allows them to rely on that trust that they have in scientists anyway and to accept the fact that, yes, we have a problem and we should do something about that. It turns out that there is a number of studies that have looked at this, and in pretty much all cases that I know of, over and over again, if you tell people that there is a scientific consensus on climate change, then that is affecting their acceptance of the science. We know that people’s perception of the consensus is related to their policy preferences. The more people think there is a strong consensus among scientists, the more likely they are to support mitigation measures.

JC comment: Sounds like ‘motivated reasoning’ for writing a bogus paper on 97% consensus.

JC reflections

Well, I’m not even sure where to start with this one.

Going through all this did make me realize something: Cook, Lewandowsky, Mann, Oreskes et al. are conspiracy theorists – they see a fossil fuel funded, conservative conspiracy of ‘climate denial,’ the so-called merchants of doubt meme.

The facts of the matter are this (from my recent Congressional testimony):

Scientists agree that surface temperatures have increased since 1880, humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues:

Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
Whether warming is ‘dangerous’

If Cook et al. think that there is a 97% consensus on the the three bulleted points, well then they are the true ‘climate science deniers.’

It is clear from all this that Cook et al. are UNFCCC/IPCC ideologues. There is nothing wrong per se with ideology; it is the ideologues that are the problem – absence of doubt, intolerance of debate, appeal to authority, desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”, and a willingness to punish those that don’t concur. They need to look in the mirror and understand their own motivated reasoning.

And finally, a word about agnotology. Cook cites a paper on agnotology-based learning, which is rather painful. I suggest reading my previous post Agnotology, agnoiology, and cognitronics , and specifically Michael Smithson’s post Agnotology, Uncertainty, and Ignorance.

Well, it will be sort of interesting to see how Cook’s latest attempt at ‘consensus’ enforcement plays out.

Update: I thought it would be fun to make some suggestions for John Cook’s final exam, to see if the students REALLY are inoculated against climate denial. Here are my suggestions for a reading list (accessible to nontechnical students), I look forward to your suggestions:

Curry’s recent Congressional testimony
Steve Koonin’s WSJ op-ed
Hockey Stick Illusion
Reiner Grundman’s review of Merchants of Doubt
Joe Duarte’s takedowns of Cook and Lewandowski
Click to expand...


https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/28/making-nonsense-of-climate-denial/
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
Again for the terminally stupid, the author is a real climate scientist unlike charlatans like John Cook, of Skeptical Science infamy, who came up with the bogus 97% survey that alarmists love to quote endlessly.
Click to expand...

Oh, so I guess that NASA, Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the eighteen recognized Science Organizations noted in the following article are also "terminally stupid?"

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

What you are doing is copying and pasting some obscure individual off of a Flat Earther site who has cherrypicked some segmant of a study in an attempt to discredit the entire study

For example, in the article you quoted the guy opens up claiming the the Cook review is erroneous because he didn't review all studies, really, 11,000+ isn't a representative sample? Especially cause the guy offers no idea of how many studies were avaliable, how does one arrive at an acceptable number? Obvious you don't understand what a academic "review of literature" entails
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Who was then responsible for the warming of the planet approximately 20,000 years ago, when the last ice age was ending??
Click to expand...

It is just like the ACA, conservatives really don't understand that which they are quick to critize

The planet has warmed and cooled repeatedly over time, no one is denying it, however, what is different now is the rate of severity and acceleration, especially since the turn of the 20th Century. In other words, man has been a contributing factor to the heat/cool cycles
 
archives said:
It is just like the ACA, conservatives really don't understand that which they are quick to critize

The planet has warmed and cooled repeatedly over time, no one is denying it, however, what is different now is the rate of severity and acceleration, especially since the turn of the 20th Century. In other words, man has been a contributing factor to the heat/cool cycles
Click to expand...

Please show me the data showing the rate is worse now, then it has been over the life of the earth.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850.[7][8][9] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions.

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population.
 
archives said:
Oh, so I guess that NASA, Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the eighteen recognized Science Organizations noted in the following article are also "terminally stupid?"

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

What you are doing is copying and pasting some obscure individual off of a Flat Earther site who has cherrypicked some segmant of a study in an attempt to discredit the entire study

For example, in the article you quoted the guy opens up claiming the the Cook review is erroneous because he didn't review all studies, really, 11,000+ isn't a representative sample? Especially cause the guy offers no idea of how many studies were avaliable, how does one arrive at an acceptable number? Obvious you don't understand what a academic "review of literature" entails
Click to expand...
Shut up, you're an idiot Legion. That John Cook study has been debunked many times. Also Duane Thresher has worked for GISS with both James Hansen and his protege Gavin Schmidt.

http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/AboutUs/index.html
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Please show me the data showing the rate is worse now, then it has been over the life of the earth.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850.[7][8][9] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions.

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population.
Click to expand...

"Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases"

"What has scientists concerned now is that over the past 250 years, humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate, mostly by burning fossil fuels, but also from cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. Since the Industrial Revolution began in about 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent."

"The atmosphere today contains more greenhouse gas molecules, so more of the infrared energy emitted by the surface ends up being absorbed by the atmosphere. Since some of the extra energy from a warmer atmosphere radiates back down to the surface, Earth’s surface temperature rises. By increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, we are making Earth’s atmosphere a more efficient greenhouse."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
 
archives said:
"Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases"

"What has scientists concerned now is that over the past 250 years, humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate, mostly by burning fossil fuels, but also from cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. Since the Industrial Revolution began in about 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent."

"The atmosphere today contains more greenhouse gas molecules, so more of the infrared energy emitted by the surface ends up being absorbed by the atmosphere. Since some of the extra energy from a warmer atmosphere radiates back down to the surface, Earth’s surface temperature rises. By increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, we are making Earth’s atmosphere a more efficient greenhouse."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Click to expand...

Since I requested information regarding over the life of the earth and you only provided a report covering 250 years, are you saying the earth is only 250 years old??

Maybe you can explain the severe changes that occurred, many times and over eons, in the past.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since I requested information regarding over the life of the earth and you only provided a report covering 250 years, are you saying the earth is only 250 years old??

Maybe you can explain the severe changes that occurred, many times and over eons, in the past.
Click to expand...

You wanted documentation that the heating has accelerated in recent time, I gave it to you, even used the same source you cited

Already said the heat/cold cycle has happened, but this time the heating has been increased at a far faster rate, it is accelerating with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and has shown no signs of slowing down on its own
 
archives said:
You wanted documentation that the heating has accelerated in recent time, I gave it to you, even used the same source you cited

Already said the heat/cold cycle has happened, but this time the heating has been increased at a far faster rate, it is accelerating with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and has shown no signs of slowing down on its own
Click to expand...

Since it's apparent that you have selective reading, it looks like you missed the following:

Please show me the data showing the rate is worse now, then it has been over the life of the earth.

Seeing as how it was the first sentence in my post, you probably just missed it. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top