Here’s another one–a coincidence.
Gee. like maybe?
I am willing to posit a coincidence, if they are willing to accept their predictions are nonsense.
And their models are a joke.
Here’s another one–a coincidence.
Gee. like maybe?
I am willing to posit a coincidence, if they are willing to accept their predictions are nonsense.
And their models are a joke.
Now if we could only get them to admit that the entire made-made global warming theory was based on coincidence (or at least consider it). For thirty years, from approximately 1970 to 2000, atmospheric CO2 concentrations went up as did the average global temperature. This is the entire basis of AGW theory. All the temperature record tweaking has been to force outlier data to fit the artificial curve.
In the 130 years or so of systematic temperature recording, this positive-positive relationship has been exhibited about half of the time. For the other half, global temperatures have remained constant or fallen, while manmade contributions to CO2 concentrations have continually risen during that time.
Going back a couple of millenium, there is no relationship between manmade CO2 and temperature because manmade CO2 was a trivial part of atmospheric CO2 prior to the mid-1800s. Yet global temperatures appear to have risen and fallen in their own manner, totally independent of man.
Now that the coindence seems to no longer be in play, the warmists refuse to even consider what scientists are supposed to be diligent about addressing. causation vs. coincidence.
Hey, Doc! I consider this progress at least the MSM is starting to admit there really IS a pause. A couple of months ago you would find no such admission. At some point, all of the “explanations” , like the models, will fail as well. I am afraid though that when that happens, AGW/climate change will quietly be erased from history kind of like global cooling of the 70’s.