On 15/01/2020 00:52, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 09:48:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:

I doubt Greta Thunberg could offer any scientific-based comment or
insight more significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the
data or analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my
comment that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.
Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face.

Good luck pushing your case.

Name me a time in human history that was better than the present

The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those times
atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops, etc, would be
poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how far south
from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would have to travel to
experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate - I'm guessing somewhere
as far as Salisbury or Chichester.


--
Spike