|
a third of a degree Celsius different in 1492, 3 centuries years before Celsius developed that scale, 2 centuries before "a temperature reading device" was even plausible. ~70 years ago, schoolchildren were chastised for commenting that the continents looked like they ought fit together. These children are the ones you're trying to convince, after changing your collective minds at least twice, that there is climate change. Shortly after they were vindicated about the patterns in coastlines they observed, "science" said there was a risk from global cooling. Spock even did an hour long TV show about global cooling and the risks (70s.) Then in the 90s, global warming was heating up, we're all going to die! Now it's neither cooling nor warming (right?), it's just "climate change" and no matter what, we can say "climate change did that". Crazy storms - climate change. Droughts - climate change. Hot summer - climate change. below average winter - climate change. Now you got "solar eclipse - climate change"; "earthquake in NY - climate change". These are the people you need to convince. I don't see the point in arguing. My power is hydroelectric, i don't buy disposable stuff if i can avoid it. I have no control over the petrochemical industry - not in the US, not in China. What i do see the point in is calling out silliness like "0.3C in 14XX" and the lies by omission of things like storms that are affected by the el nino/la nina ocean patterns, as well as certain dust events. I used to link some articles published by NASA/NOAA when these sort of discussions would appear in my peer group. People would refute by linking other NASA/NOAA articles. None of them saw my point, which i think is funny. By the way, you can do the same thing with pubmed articles, if you're ever feeling frisky. |