Greta Thunberg

[purplenose]

It was a real thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis, mate.

It still is when it comes to any major conflict involving the super powers. They know that such a conflict is unwinnable and the leaders of those countries are having much to much of a good time to risk destroying the world in a nuclear war.

I do share your concern and fear that wars will come however, but ones more localised and triggered by religion and racial issues with a good dose of poverty to light the flames. This is where I fear the EU is heading and its inevitable collapse will see Balkan style conflicts in Western Europe and quite probably in the UK. Give it 20 years.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Why does all your data (which I’ve not actually checked for accuracy yet but will when I’m bored at work tomorrow) stop in 2010?

Why haven’t you posted more recent ones that show continued warming?

They come from articles discussing the possible slow down that was observed at the beginning of this decade and discussed in detail using those charts. The top link has an EDIT from 2018 at the top which confirms that the global temp is increasing back at the rate being discussed at the end of last century so the idea that the slowdown would become a reverse is debunked. The danger of stats and charts, I guess. I don't know if NASA use different values but I think the charts look similar. Some of the articles mention re-calibration of data so could have moved some of the historical values.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Why does all your data (which I’ve not actually checked for accuracy yet but will when I’m bored at work tomorrow) stop in 2010?

Do you not believe warning continue past 2000?

These were all taken from around then I think. I didn't check, just did a 2 minute Google.

Since then, warming resumed again, but back around 2010 everyone was realising it had stopped, or at least very much slowed and it was all causing a bit of embarrassment. There's been all sorts of explanations since, but I hadn't seen NASA's graph before, which looks very much to me like they've adjusted the data (as they have done in the past) to make it fit the models better.

 

[SWP's back]

Since then, warming resumed again, but back around 2010 everyone was realising it had stopped, or at least very much slowed and it was all causing a bit of embarrassment.

Not my remembering bud, if memory serves me, ideas were postulated that melting freshwater from the ice caps were moving ocean sea currents and destabilising the Earths climate with unknowable effects.

 

[SWP's back]

There's been all sorts of explanations since, but I hadn't seen NASA's graph before, which looks very much to me like they've adjusted the data (as they have done in the past) to make it fit the models better.

And don’t get me started on the moon landing hoax, the cûnts.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Not my remembering bud, if memory serves me, ideas were postulated that melting freshwater from the ice caps were moving ocean sea currents and destabilising the Earths climate with unknowable effects.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10195498/Global-warming-on-pause-but-set-to-resume.html

 

[Chippy_boy]

And don’t get me started on the moon landing hoax, the cûnts.

I've not read all of this and who knows if the conclusions are correct, but look at the graph.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

(a) is from NASA in 1999, the other version from NASA in 2012. This is supposed to be *data* not projections or calculations:

 

[SWP's back]

I've not read all of this and who knows if the conclusions are correct, but look at the graph.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

(a) is from NASA in 1999, the other version from NASA in 2012. This is supposed to be *data* not projections or calculations:

I’d read your snopes link if I were you.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I’d read your snopes link if I were you.

I know the article sought to justify it. I read that much. What I was not sure of having not read the whole thing, was whether the article was bollocks. The graph is interesting though and is factual. The justification for the change in the data may or may not be.

 

[SWP's back]

I know the article sought to justify it. I read that much. What I was not sure of having not read the whole thing, was whether the article was bollocks. The graph is interesting though and is factual. The justification for the change in the data may or may not be.

Snopes is a fact checker, so unlikely. I usually use it to shoot down anti-vax/pro organic/pro trump bullshit that I see posted on Facebook.