Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
You shouldn't question a huge religious belief Grapesoda. Like many religions, it has a large infrastructure built around it, that depends on unquestioning faith and will brook no argument. Besides, you aren't going to convince believers, you will simply hurt their feelings, offend and anger them. Just leave it alone and in a hundred years or so, (with the accelerated culture changes of modern society), it will gradually move back into it's place as a private belief and stop trying to control everything.
.
|
All IPCC climate models incorporate theory which predicts that “anthropogenic” (human-caused) global warming will be evident in an “amplification” of a surface warming trend that is revealed as an atmospheric “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. Instead, both satellite data and independent balloon data show a near-zero trend from 1979 to 1997, followed by a well-known 1998 temp “spike” which is universally attributed to a Super-El- Niņo. This absence of an observed hot spot suggests that the land-surface temperature warming trend (1979-1997) is greatly overestimated, and should be close to zero in the Tropics.
So where does the evidence needed to support the IPCC’s 95 percent certainty claim come from? The true answer is that there simply isn’t any. None at all. There never was…only totally unproven theoretical climate models.
btw maybe it's time to stop 'retweeting' and calling that thoughts? you know? seriously this is stuff I've known for 20+ years, yet the common narrative created by groups and people seeking GOVERNMENT FUNDING constantly deny this research ...