re: #925 mt3_1234

how far back do you want him to go before you are convinced?

Convinced? Beh. Using 20yr data sets exist for only one purpose. It’s snap shotting, and it’s meant for two things. Make you think not logically, and refuse to question the subject matter at hand(HOLY SHIT WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE). See when you start going back further you start getting into other areas, geology, paleontology, geodesy, mineralogy, volcanology, and all this other fun stuff. This really goes beyond the scope of just climatology. 250k-1.9m yrs should be fine. Of course you’ll start bumping into the obvious stuff like 6-25x higher O2/SO2/CO2 levels recorded. Then you’re jumping into paleoclimatology, and yeah. Now we’re starting to get some where.

All that fear for ‘inland seas’ fear. Ah yes, we must panic, as we know. Warmer temperatures sure didn’t increase vegetation and precep in the now existent deserts. Much better to look look at the short term picture. Because we all know. That in the span of 20 years, in the length of the earth with an estimated age of 6.2billion years, that really means a lot.

What am I saying? 20 years? If we’re looking at 20 years to compose a picture you might as well throw the creationist argument in and say the earth is 6000 years old for shits and giggles.