Global Warming : Feature Articles
So the earth warming 20 times faster is by accident?
It's not. But you'll never believe anything that doesn't fit with your theory.
Two problems.....
The proxy based reconstruction, was based on an entirely different method of determining temperature.
That method, could be used in present day. But it's not.
So you are comparing two different sources of information. And needlessly.
Point A: I submit that the reason they specifically choose to use different data sets, is because if they had used the same method throughout, there would not have been a massive jump at the end.
Point B: Additionally, the instrumental data, is from data gathering cites. Some cites are out in the middle of nowhere, and others are in places that have been developed. Temperature data in areas developed, show higher temperatures, that are not indicative of a global warming.
Point C: The reconstruction of historical temperatures is extremely imprecise. Data used to make these reconstructions, has a wide variation, which is shown in the "uncertainty" grey zones. The variation is almost one full degree Celsius.
This variation, at some points in the graph, indicate a full two degree shift in global temperatures, in under 5 years. Now of course they place the line.... in the middle. They average out the variations, and place the line in the middle... making it look like a slow change. But that's an assumption. There is no other way to look at the given data, but that it is an ASSumption, that the temperate must have been in the middle of the wide variation.
Why? Because it could not have possibly changed that much. It's only changed that much in.... recent years. So therefore it could not have changed that much in the past, because that would destroy our myth that man-made CO2 is going to doom the entire planet.
Thankfully we don't have to fool all the worlds scientists, only gullible ignorant public voters, and nimrods on internet forums.
But like I said before, you'll never believe anything that doesn't fit with your theory. So go on and explain how ALL the "real" scientists believe it, and since an opinion poll is a substitute for truth, I, and those who read the science journals like me, are all wrong.
