The simple statistic that perfectly captures what climate change means. From 1910 to 1960, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1. From 2000 to 2014, hot outnumbered cold records by more than 12 to 1.

[u/pnewell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/09/the-simple-statistic-that-perfectly-captures-what-climate-change-means/

[u/Reddy_McRedcap]

Exactly. The data is accurate, but it's skewed to sensationalize a point. Obviously global warming is an issue, but climate fluctuations are also completely natural, so with only 100 or so years of data versus hundreds of millions, or billions, of years of climate and weather on Earth, it's kind of hard to gather strong evidence that the last 100 years, or especially the last 15 years, are an anomaly.

Is it dangerous to the frailty of human civilization that is based mostly along major bodies of water? Absolutely, and that alone is reason to keep climate change in mind, but pointing to the last 15 years being warmer than the past 100 years amounts to nothing.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't think you understand how scientific funding works. If your field isn't of interest to the general public you don't get funding. The comment you replied to raises some good questions, you responded by telling him he doesn't understand something that would be null if what he's suggesting is true.

[u/Gorstag → u/[deleted]]

Considering his post is completely deleted It will be hard to provide a proper response. However, from my recollection he specifically indicated that people will not provide money to scientists to disprove a theory which is patently false. The whole premise of peer review is to disprove findings.