37 degrees Celsius in Europe

Yes, but scientists don't really refer to yours as a proof. Makes me think there is a reason. Maybe it is that they have to consider the worst case scenario, because the consequences of ignoring it could be too severe.

But i can't say more than that because really like everyone else i'm just going off on what someone else said and didn't do any of the studies myself.

It just seems the the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of saying current global warming is primarily caused by human activity.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Not sure whether the graph you posted on this one is more accurate since.. well i didn't make either, but i am going to pretend mine is more accurate.

Yours is 45 million years, mine is 600 million. Huge difference. To do 600 million they most likely took mean or median temps over bigger periods of time, otherwise it would be a nightmare to determine values on such a large scale.

It is actually 450,000 years ago. Homo sapiens appear around 200,000 years ago. 600 millions years ago is like before the land of the Dinosaurs. Before they go extinct. Just saying...

"

deathflower wrote:

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Not sure whether the graph you posted on this one is more accurate since.. well i didn't make either, but i am going to pretend mine is more accurate.

Yours is 45 million years, mine is 600 million. Huge difference. To do 600 million they most likely took mean or median temps over bigger periods of time, otherwise it would be a nightmare to determine values on such a large scale.

It is actually 450,000 years ago. Homo sapiens appear around 200,000 years ago. 600 millions years ago is like before the land of the Dinosaurs. Before they go extinct. Just saying...

There is no way to predict stuff that goes back that far.

"

ImmaPokemon wrote:

There is no way to predict stuff that goes back that far.

The 600 million years chart is interesting in a different way.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2017-07-07/phoenix-hits-117-degrees-friday-breaks-record-set-in-1905

"

PHOENIX (AP) — Phoenix has broken a 112-year-old record for heat.

National Weather Service meteorologists say the Arizona city had a high of 118 degrees on Friday.

That broke the previous mark of 115 degrees dating back to 1905.

Guys.

Global warming happened once in 1905. And then stopped for over 110 years. And now it is back.

"

ImmaPokemon wrote:

There is no way to predict stuff that goes back that far.

/facepalm

1.) It's not "predict" if it's in the past.

2.) https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Yes, but scientists don't really refer to yours as a proof.

Correct, at least for climate scientists who perpetrate the "climate change" agenda. Why reference data that makes your data look insignificant? If we took a chart over the last 100 years for temperatures, people would easily think the Earth would melt by 2030.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

ImmaPokemon wrote:

There is no way to predict stuff that goes back that far.

/facepalm

1.) It's not "predict" if it's in the past.

2.) https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Yes, but scientists don't really refer to yours as a proof.

Correct, at least for climate scientists who perpetrate the "climate change" agenda. Why reference data that makes your data look insignificant? If we took a chart over the last 100 years for temperatures, people would easily think the Earth would melt by 2030.

Do you know that it's exactly because politicians care a lot more about what wins votes, and what wins votes is what matters right now, that it has taken so long for the world to react to global warming? That it is many years ago that it was first brought up and predicted, and they couldn't get anyone to take it seriously because there wasn't votes in it. The scientific world had to the fight the long hard fight of ignorance vs science to get politicians to care because they didn't for the longest until the consequences started becoming apparent.

What i am saying is, that this "political agenda" thing is nonsense, it's actually the opposite they are fighting against the political agendas and thinking of the future ahead of whan the hardest consequences arrive.

There isn't money in it, it's a good way to "waste" a lot of money, which is why someone like trump is dangerous because he doesn't give a shit and will gladly sacrifice the long run for some short term results to big up himself.

It is like the epitome of ignorance when people say arguing for global warming is done for political agendas. Same reason someone like Al Gore isn't gaining enough popularity by arguing for it - it's a concern of wisdom of the future it's not to win votes. The votes lie in dealing with the big problems that are current.

people skew results so they companies/orgs/governments that hire them get the results they want and keep the cash flowing

politicians on the left and right say exactly what they think they need to say to get the most votes they know their target audience and what will be popular with them

Al Gore isn't gaining popularity because he goes to the extreme, is an alarmist, makes false predictions based on results he cherry picks and isn't at all qualified to talk about the climate

"

Crackmonster wrote:

What i am saying is, that this "political agenda" thing is nonsense, it's actually the opposite they are fighting against the political agendas and thinking of the future ahead of whan the hardest consequences arrive.

There isn't money in it, it's a good way to "waste" a lot of money, which is why someone like trump is dangerous because he doesn't give a shit and will gladly sacrifice the long run for some short term results to big up himself.

It is like the epitome of ignorance when people say arguing for global warming is done for political agendas. Same reason someone like Al Gore isn't gaining enough popularity by arguing for it - it's a concern of wisdom of the future it's not to win votes. The votes lie in dealing with the big problems that are current.

Completely wrong. It's the "epitome of ignorance" to think green energy isn't a huge market.

Remember Solyndra? $80 billion dollar political mess.

And hundreds of other examples of big political bucks for green energy. In fact, plenty of money invested in green energy, as well as people making a profit from it. You don't need to look far to see that.

"

Manocean wrote:

politicians on the left and right say exactly what they think they need to say to get the most votes they know their target audience and what will be popular with them

Al Gore isn't gaining popularity because he goes to the extreme, is an alarmist, makes false predictions based on results he cherry picks and isn't at all qualified to talk about the climate

QFT. The truth is somewhere in-between obviously. Politics has a huge investment in green energy, big oil, and more on both sides.

Oh, look what we have here. Most climate fearmongering is fabricated, which is the finding of this June 2017 research report:

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

"

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.