Don’t think I need to summarize this one. This is bad news for everyone.
I think …
That’s the problem. Thinking without actual evidence to back it up = your opinion. Having an opinion is fine. But in a discussion such as this you need to come into it with factual data.
It’s the equivalent of showing up to a gun fight with a knife, believing you have a chance of winning.
Ok since you have a problem with the phrase “I think” then I’ll add a source.
Here they say that Carbon-14 is commonly used for carbon dating but it’s reliable for organic matter up to 60,000 years since it’s half-life is 5,700 years. The rest of my post is questioning how accurate our knowledge is for older dates. Millions or tens of millions of years ago. How do we know the rate of weather change from millions of years ago just from fossils? I assume that the further back we go in time the more inaccurate we are on how the climate change and we can only know about the general climate from the plants and animals we find.
Also why didn’t you question OP’s source of data? They also made similar claims about what we know about what we know about climate change but no one questions their sources.
How do we know the rate of weather change from millions of years ago just from fossils?
Info doesn’t just come from fossils. Geology is used as well, ie; differing layers of sediment, rock, even layers of fossilized burned vegetation, flooding or lava flows form a basis to be able to judge earth’s history.
I assume that the further back we go in time the more inaccurate we are on how the climate change and we can only know about the general climate from the plants and animals we find.
That is why the older something is, the wider the scientific dating can be, ie: managed agriculture methods began around 12,000 yrs ago vs horses developed 45 to 55 million years ago.
Also why didn’t you question OP’s source of data?
Because the info OP gave is accepted science and can readily be found everywhere.
