GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: . . . a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading.Indeed. As, for instance, when one looks at only 150 years of data when a large 1600-year cycle is in progress. I have already explained this to you many times. And, after all, it is YOUR logic and YOUR complaint -- but only when it applies to others. You are being dishonest, after being informed of you error. This is made worse by the fact that you castigate anyone who disagrees with you if they do the same thing -- like you are doing here.[i46.tinypic.com image 850x584]If one follows the curve, one sees that the temperatures should be rising at about the rate they HAVE been, over the term of fifty to a hundred years. When the full context, rather than a short segment of a cycle, is viewed, it is clear that exactly the warming we are seeing is what is expected from past cycles.
Quantum Apostrophe: SevenizGud: 1951 to 1980? Yup, I'm convinced.
Can't get enough Fark in your life? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 24 2018 09:34:20
Runtime: 0.242 sec (241 ms)