AGW failed again

[TNHarley]

Tree rings tell tale of drought in Mongolia over the last 2,000 years
A new analysis is shedding light on drought in Mongolia, both past and future.

By studying the rings of semifossilized trees, researchers constructed a climate history for the semiarid Asian nation spanning the last 2,060 years — going 1,000 years further back than previous studies.

It was suspected that a harsh drought from about 2000 to 2010 that killed tens of thousands of livestock was unprecedented in the region’s history and primarily the result of human-caused climate change. But the tree ring data show that the dry spell, while rare in its severity, was not outside the realm of natural climate variability, researchers report online March 14 in Science Advances.

The recent dry spell was the severest in recorded history. But the rings showed that an even more severe drought took place around the year 800, long before anthropogenic climate change began.

We STILL have to fill in the unknown with SOMETHING. We just cant accept we cant know everything.
When will we grow up?

 

[TNHarley]

Although the tree rings kicked al gore in the nuts, bought and paid for scientists persist that AGW is older than previously thought.

 

[Confounding]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

 

[TNHarley]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

 

[Confounding]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

 

[TNHarley]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

 

[BluesLegend]

bought and paid for scientists

You realize you're referring to almost all scientists, right? Incredibly few actual scientists don't agree with AGW. They're all bought and paid for? How is a conspiracy that big even contained? Do scientists by and large have no intellectual integrity?

Delete all the so called scientists who are not on the government grant dole then get back to us.

 

[Confounding]

These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

So you think what they're filling those holes with is basically horseshit? I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but I need to understand how it is that such a giant majority of scientists would all be saying/suggesting the same thing if it's complete nonsense. It seems ludicrous to me to suggest that they're all bought and paid for and are willingly pushing false information. What seems far more likely to me is that the small handful of experts that dispute AGW and do studies funded by people that have a vested interest in the public not believing it are the ones that are actually bullshitting us.

 

[The Original Tree]

Remember all of Those Nazi Scientists who spoke with a Unified Voice about Aryan Superiority as "Settled Science"?
When you allow politics to infect The Scientific Community, The Scientific Community become politicized, and Science takes a back seat to Politics.

 

[del]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

 

[TNHarley]

These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

So you think what they're filling those holes with is basically horseshit? I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but I need to understand how it is that such a giant majority of scientists would all be saying/suggesting the same thing if it's complete nonsense. It seems ludicrous to me to suggest that they're all bought and paid for and are willingly pushing false information. What seems far more likely to me is that the small handful of experts that dispute AGW and do studies funded by people that have a vested interest in the public not believing it are the ones that are actually bullshitting us.

All the scientists thousands of years ago thought a god caused lightning.
This OP is a very good example of my point.

 

[TNHarley]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

Yea, i am sure other people besides AGW cultists thought it was AGW too.

 

[del]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

Yea, i am sure other people besides AGW cultists thought it was AGW too.

stupid people discount possibilities they don't agree with

that's why they're stupid

 

[TNHarley]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

Yea, i am sure other people besides AGW cultists thought it was AGW too.

stupid people discount possibilities they don't agree with

that's why they're stupid

Oh, its only a possibility now?
I thought it was "settled science"
See, if it was broadcasted as a possibility, i probably wouldnt immediately discount the holes in the theory.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Tree rings tell tale of drought in Mongolia over the last 2,000 years
A new analysis is shedding light on drought in Mongolia, both past and future.

By studying the rings of semifossilized trees, researchers constructed a climate history for the semiarid Asian nation spanning the last 2,060 years — going 1,000 years further back than previous studies.

It was suspected that a harsh drought from about 2000 to 2010 that killed tens of thousands of livestock was unprecedented in the region’s history and primarily the result of human-caused climate change. But the tree ring data show that the dry spell, while rare in its severity, was not outside the realm of natural climate variability, researchers report online March 14 in Science Advances.

The recent dry spell was the severest in recorded history. But the rings showed that an even more severe drought took place around the year 800, long before anthropogenic climate change began.

We STILL have to fill in the unknown with SOMETHING. We just cant accept we cant know everything.
When will we grow up?

It is an interesting paper, but Tree Rings as a single point data proxy has never been credible due to numerous CONFOUNDING factors.

By the way shouldn't this thread be in the Environment forum?

 

[TNHarley]

Tree rings tell tale of drought in Mongolia over the last 2,000 years
A new analysis is shedding light on drought in Mongolia, both past and future.

By studying the rings of semifossilized trees, researchers constructed a climate history for the semiarid Asian nation spanning the last 2,060 years — going 1,000 years further back than previous studies.

It was suspected that a harsh drought from about 2000 to 2010 that killed tens of thousands of livestock was unprecedented in the region’s history and primarily the result of human-caused climate change. But the tree ring data show that the dry spell, while rare in its severity, was not outside the realm of natural climate variability, researchers report online March 14 in Science Advances.

The recent dry spell was the severest in recorded history. But the rings showed that an even more severe drought took place around the year 800, long before anthropogenic climate change began.

We STILL have to fill in the unknown with SOMETHING. We just cant accept we cant know everything.
When will we grow up?

It is an interesting paper, but Tree Rings as a single point data proxy has never been credible due to numerous CONFOUNDING factors.

By the way shouldn't this thread be in the Environment forum?

I will agree with that!
Must be habit lol thanks!
WillHaftawaite

 

[Auld Phart]

Tree rings tell tale of drought in Mongolia over the last 2,000 years
A new analysis is shedding light on drought in Mongolia, both past and future.

By studying the rings of semifossilized trees, researchers constructed a climate history for the semiarid Asian nation spanning the last 2,060 years — going 1,000 years further back than previous studies.

It was suspected that a harsh drought from about 2000 to 2010 that killed tens of thousands of livestock was unprecedented in the region’s history and primarily the result of human-caused climate change. But the tree ring data show that the dry spell, while rare in its severity, was not outside the realm of natural climate variability, researchers report online March 14 in Science Advances.

The recent dry spell was the severest in recorded history. But the rings showed that an even more severe drought took place around the year 800, long before anthropogenic climate change began.

We STILL have to fill in the unknown with SOMETHING. We just cant accept we cant know everything.
When will we grow up?

It is an interesting paper, but Tree Rings as a single point data proxy has never been credible due to numerous CONFOUNDING factors.

By the way shouldn't this thread be in the Environment forum?

I will agree with that!
Must be habit lol thanks!
WillHaftawaite

u rang?

 

[TNHarley]

Tree rings tell tale of drought in Mongolia over the last 2,000 years
A new analysis is shedding light on drought in Mongolia, both past and future.

By studying the rings of semifossilized trees, researchers constructed a climate history for the semiarid Asian nation spanning the last 2,060 years — going 1,000 years further back than previous studies.

It was suspected that a harsh drought from about 2000 to 2010 that killed tens of thousands of livestock was unprecedented in the region’s history and primarily the result of human-caused climate change. But the tree ring data show that the dry spell, while rare in its severity, was not outside the realm of natural climate variability, researchers report online March 14 in Science Advances.

The recent dry spell was the severest in recorded history. But the rings showed that an even more severe drought took place around the year 800, long before anthropogenic climate change began.

We STILL have to fill in the unknown with SOMETHING. We just cant accept we cant know everything.
When will we grow up?

It is an interesting paper, but Tree Rings as a single point data proxy has never been credible due to numerous CONFOUNDING factors.

By the way shouldn't this thread be in the Environment forum?

I will agree with that!
Must be habit lol thanks!
WillHaftawaite

u rang?

You did it. Thanks!

 

[BlindBoo]

Damn those scientist and their discoveries.

In reality they are just odds makers.

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

But failed AGW. Not really.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Damn those scientist and their discoveries.

In reality they are just odds makers.

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

But failed AGW. Not really.

Yes it has already failed the few predictions/projections published by the IPCC