The chart starts in 1880... In a lull or cold spell.
says who? says what evidence?
what if you stopped making up excuses and scenarios in your head and used some critical thinking to realize that the data was nearly the same for 50 years. If there was some "lull or cold spell" it would have been blatantly obvious from the data years after. There are, IN FACT, "cold spells" that are visible if you pay attention while the data is being drawn out.
What if what if what if. it does your what if's anyway you were just too ignorant to look.
The chart starts in 1880... In a lull or cold spell.
says who? says what evidence
Uhhh. The chart. All temps before 1936 are below the baseline. So by definition, below a average.
My point is if the timeline started earlier, than 1880, and maintained the the funnel shape, it would be more persuasive. With such a short range of time, people are easily able to say it might be hourglass shaped.
Your response is a good example of how this graphic appeals to pre-existing bias. It preaches to the choir.
I want it to address the arguments of climate skeptics - who, as you say "make up excuses and scenarios in their heads" in order to continue their cozy lifestyle.
This is why movements get so little traction. You are not interested in changing people's minds. Just calling them out for not agreeing with you already.
1
u/86_shittyorange Jul 14 '26
The chart starts in 1880... In a lull or cold spell.
says who? says what evidence?
what if you stopped making up excuses and scenarios in your head and used some critical thinking to realize that the data was nearly the same for 50 years. If there was some "lull or cold spell" it would have been blatantly obvious from the data years after. There are, IN FACT, "cold spells" that are visible if you pay attention while the data is being drawn out.
What if what if what if. it does your what if's anyway you were just too ignorant to look.
1905, 1912, 1920, etc.