Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
But this presents as if the scientists made a declaration and then sat back for years until they're forced to admit they were wrong.
In reality they had a current working model, continued to look into it, and now are changing that model. This model wasn't changed by humanities graduates writing scolding opinion pieces but by further work by climate scientists. Itself that should be a rebuke to those who think it's some sort of conspiracy.
|
If you read my whole post, I was agreeing that people needed to re-evaluate when presented with updated evidence - indeed, the standard cry of "u-turn" every time a politician re-evaluates a situation in the light of argument really infuriates me.
---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
We have readings from satellites available showing temperature changes consisting with increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
We also have data for historical temperatures going back hundreds of millions of years.
There appears to be tons of evidence. I would assume those with the PhD's, etc, in climate science would be using appropriate measurements.
Predictions, obviously are a somewhat different matter, but empirical measurements are there by the bucket load.
It's far from uncommon for predictions and measurements to be refined. Indeed it's the point. I would have been far more perturbed if the paper hadn't been released, or science as a whole rebuffed it, rather than reviewing it and modifying models accordingly.
|
Have you seen the unmanipulated satellite readings, then?
It seems that the only time this damning climate change evidence gets presented, it is on the basis of manipulated data.
I'd really like to know what the unfiddled data shows!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-surface-data/