So which is it? Are we coming out of an ice age and that's why its getting hotter or is not getting hotter and the measurements are wrong due to heat islands?
I'm not sure why you mention carbon dating in this context, but it's only really useful up to around 50,000 years due to the half life of the isotope (around 5,000 years) and it stops in 1945 due to nuclear testing.
Why do you feel it has to be either/or? It's the timescales that give the bigger picture. If you look at more recent data from say the last ten years, the warming stalled, and in places went backwards. It's not an error, it's just an example that it's not a linear process, and looking at short timescales misses much of the context, and therefore how to tackle the issues.
Why do you say that? IF the data presented is anywhere near accurate then it's quite illuminating. My view continues to be that the bigger issue is not climate change (which is largely out of our control, as supported by this data) but the way that we are abusing our one and only planet and also our non-human co-inhabitants (pollution, over use of finite resources, deforestation, extinction of species, unsustainable population explosion, etc).
I think it's very likely man is having an impact on the rate that the planet is changing, although the extent of that relative to nature is debatable, but claiming that man can use technology to avoid that is along the lines of King Canute. It needs a transformation in how we interact with the natural environment, and how we build in resilience for the future, as the changes are coming, the only debate is when. The fear mongering to push for expensive measures that will damage the quality of life of many people and other lifeforms on this planet is not helpful, especially as it pushes discussion to the wrong focus in my opinion.
If this was the funniest joke at the Edinburgh Fringe I'd hate to see the least funny. Masai Graham was voted the winner with his gag: "I tried to steal spaghetti from the shop, but the female guard saw me and I couldn't get pasta." I'm sure it was funnier heard live...
Why would you get your information on the climate from a historian/journalist on Youtube? If you have blood in your **** do you consult the postman? If this is how you have chosen to do your research, you have chosen poorly.
i'll take information on all topics from a variety of sources. i don't want to be stuck in an echo chamber only taking data from one source. the recent pandemic demonstrates blatantly that some sources can't be trusted and i'd rather at least listen to dissenters or to people whose opinions are not the same as mine because some of them may well know more than i do and have valid points to make. like the two sources i cited. lots of people take information from ill-informed journalists on a daily basis. if someone says "this is what current organisation says the data from 1933 was, and i've checked a 1933 source, and the data was different in the 1933 source and here is a copy of the 1933 source", i want to know why. in the 1970s we were told an ice age was imminent. that didn't happen. twenty years ago we were told sea levels would put low lying cities under water within a decade. all of these predictions from trustworthy source have been wrong. last autumn the experts said there would be no sea ice in the arctic during the winter and shipping would be able to freelt to cross those seas. what happened? they got stuck in sea ice. the climate debate is riddled with opinions from scientists saying whatever their source of funding wants them to say. perhaps you still believe that smoking is good for you? perhaps you automatically trust experts. good luck with that. recent experience shows experts know sweet fa, or someone is telling them to lie. they said people who'd been jabbed couldn't get c19 but they did. they said keeping six feet away from people would stop you getting c19 but it didn't. they said masks would protect us but they didn't. so pardon me for having doubts about the experts.
Eggs Are Among the Most Nutritious Foods on the Planet https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-are-eggs-good-for-you#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4 The fat and cholesterol found in eggs can harm heart health and lead to diabetes, as well as prostate and colorectal cancers. https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition...987WGImAq35dSd-Y52coKdc-5fokgWrsaAkPfEALw_wcB
attacking someone's qualifications rather than what they say is one from the list of logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
