• KickMe@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    This timeline starts at about the coldest point in the last 66 million years. Definitely not biased.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point of the graph isn’t to show the warming amount its to show how much faster the rate of warming is now compared to previous warming events.

    • Denvil@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see how this is biased. Showing that the Earth did warm up over time before major human climate change started would be, very weakly, supporting that climate change isn’t real. If they wanted to be biased they would start at a warm point, and when the Earth is cooling down they’d be like “see! Earth cools naturally, so it must get warm because of climate change!”

      To make my stance crystal clear, I believe in and am deeply concerned by climate change

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You explained how YOU think it’s biased, and you’re still wrong. We should be scared shirtless about climate change right now. Instead, you’re pointing out incorrectly how this is biased.

          • KickMe@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is objectively biased for the reason stated. Being intentionally dense about that fact to push a certain narrative is not a good look.

            • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Except it isn’t biased. It showed how warming slowly happened over a roughly 20,000 year period. Someone even gave you an example of something that would be biased and misleading and you just said no.

                • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Always appreciate being personally insulted. Notice, I never called you a moron, or stupid, or anything remotely close. The fact that you resorted to calling me names says more about you than it does me.

                  • KickMe@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    11
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You know what, you’re right. My bad.

                    Now, go tell the same thing to everyone else insulting me in this thread who aren’t even trying to provide a counterpoint.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      What conclusion would change if the graph started at an earlier, warmer period?

      As far as I know, three crucial things would still hold true:

      • Earth has not been as warm as today since humans existed, in the past 200’000 years. We don’t know if we can thrive in these conditions. Chances are, we can’t. We’re optimized for another climate. We have no precedent wether future Earth is habitable for us.
      • Earth has never warmed this rapidly, never. Speed matters a lot, as lack of time makes the difference between adaption and extinction.
      • Whatever the cause, and however normal it may be, the current development, and rate thereof, causes substantial issues on many fronts.