On 31/07/2019 19:45, JGD wrote:
On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and
more likely significantly less than that.

Estimated by who, and nho paid them to estimate?

(Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about
GLOBAL cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

As usual fdudeg te data to preserve the narrative


So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.


How about the fact that its stopped warmning almost completely since
1997, when urabanization around the weather stations was completed, but
CO2 has kept on increassing




--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman