Greenpace attacks consoles!

[Sqrl]

Lafiel said:
@ sqrl )

your temperature graph is flawed to the point of being useless ...

there is no y-axis marking and each step has 2000 years, so it's logical to think that the curve is an average of several years, instead of being one years data (it would fluctuate much more if it wasn't an average), so the last points on that curve could easily be an average of 50 to 100 years (it doesn't tell us, which is another point why the graph is useless), but global warming hasn't really set in until the 1970's to 1980's due to global dimming

so we can assume, that we can't see anything about the actual situation in that graph and can't use actual data to see where it is in that graph, because the y-axis doesn't have data .. highly doubious

btw - the comentation in the graph is highly flawed aswell, because glacial periods always followed a warm peak in the interglacial and never after a downslope in temperatures of the interglacial

I actually called its validity into questione earlier myself, but when you consider the level of the debate at that point in the thread it wasn't much of a problem. Despite its problems it still served its purpose quite well, which was to show that an uptrend in the last 100 years is hardly worth getting bent out of shape over.

edit: it was mostly grabbing something on the fly while the thread was moving...but that was my fault for not having a good example on hand. I'll need to beef up my image bookmarks a bit =)

edit2: Do you know of any graphs that would fit the bill?