Setting a "baseline" doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as a suitably long set of data are displayed to show the cycles. There is nothing that is "normal" in weather or climate.
Setting a "baseline" doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as a suitably long set of data are displayed to show the cycles. There is nothing that is "normal" in weather or climate.
Exactly. To focus on the base line is an obfuscation. It is trivial compared to the climate cycles. That's why AGW parasites and their dupes don't even bother to trivialize the temperature and CO2 cycle over long time periods. Instead, they turn a blind eye and attempt to raise what is trivial to be most important.
It's like when a republican staff member found a memo on the republican/democrat shared house computer system. The memo was circulated among some democrats planning to manipulate the selection of judges to the court. The main stream media trivialized the contents of the memo and instead made, how the memo was obtained, the most important aspect of the story. The problem is, the memo was on a computer system shared by both sides of the aisle -- legal and trivial. Using deception to stack the court is important news information.