AGW failed again

[Confounding]

The basic question, as I see it, is a matter of degree. It is common sense to accept that 6.5 billion humans attempting to live on this planet are having some degree of impact on global climate change. The main disagreement is whether that degree of impact is negligible, moderate, or severe. I doubt that you could get more than a handful of climate scientists to agree on what the level of impact may be.

You could get a large majority of them to agree that it's moderately to extremely severe. That's exactly what the study demonstrated.

 

[TNHarley]

The basic question, as I see it, is a matter of degree. It is common sense to accept that 6.5 billion humans attempting to live on this planet are having some degree of impact on global climate change. The main disagreement is whether that degree of impact is negligible, moderate, or severe. I doubt that you could get more than a handful of climate scientists to agree on what the level of impact may be.

You could get a large majority of them to agree that it's moderately to extremely severe. That's exactly what the study demonstrated.

The study was debunked! Holy shit
But go ahead and pick and choose what parts you want to believe. I expect nothing else. Just like the religious

 

[Confounding]

The study was debunked! Holy shit

No it wasn't, and I explained why earlier. If you read what the author explained it's simply untrue to say that 97% believe humans are 50-100% responsible. 97% still believe that humans are impacting the environment, and a majority still believe the impact is moderate to severe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Money talks.

Scientists the world over are not involved in a giant AGW conspiracy. To suggest that the vast majority of climate scientists all over the world lack integrity to the point that they'd all lie to the public and manipulate information is actually insane. You are so desperate to not be wrong that you'll come to any conclusion you have to to keep your head in the sand.

Scientists the world over are not involved in a giant AGW conspiracy.

Of course not.
How much government grant money goes to scientists who say we aren't doomed if use oil and coal?
How much to scientists who say we are doomed?

To suggest that the vast majority of climate scientists all over the world lack integrity

I would never suggest such a thing.
I'm sure they have excellent, non-corrupt reasons for altering historical data.

Speaking of ridiculous conspiracies...

But hey, whatever; I was never going to change your mind anyway. Enjoy your stay in crazy land.

Speaking of ridiculous conspiracies...

Government grants are a conspiracy?

Enjoy your stay in crazy land.

Stop emitting CO2, planet killer!!

 

[Confounding]

Government grants are a conspiracy?

Suggesting that climate scientists all over the world are lying about the data is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You have to be pretty desperate to believe that.

Stop emitting CO2, planet killer!!

Hilarious.



Anyway, to the OP, are you going to dispute my interpretation of what the author in the article you posted said about the study you believe was debunked?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government grants are a conspiracy?

Suggesting that the vast majority of climate scientists are lying about the data is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You have to be pretty desperate to believe that.

Stop emitting CO2, planet killer!!

Hilarious.

Anyway, to the OP, are you going to dispute my interpretation of what the author in the article you posted said about the study you believe was debunked?

Suggesting that the vast majority of climate scientists are lying about the data is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

You never answered my question about who gets grants.

Anyway, to the OP, are you going to dispute my interpretation of what the author in the article you posted said

What article did I post?

 

[Confounding]

You never answered my question about who gets grants.

Experts that disagree with global warming can get plenty of funding from oil companies and others with a vested interest in convincing the public that it's not real. Either way it's still a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The scientists are not lying about the data or what it suggests.

What article did I post?

Please try to pay attention. Maybe if you read what I said 15-20 more times you'll figure it out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never answered my question about who gets grants.

Experts that disagree with global warming can get plenty of funding from oil companies and others with a vested interest in convincing the public that it's not real. Either way it's still a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The scientists are not lying about the data or what it suggests.

What article did I post?

Please try to pay attention. Maybe if you read what I said 15-20 more times you'll figure it out.

dispute my interpretation of what the author in the article you posted said

DERP!

 

[Confounding]

to the OP

DERP!

Indeed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never answered my question about who gets grants.

Experts that disagree with global warming can get plenty of funding from oil companies and others with a vested interest in convincing the public that it's not real. Either way it's still a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The scientists are not lying about the data or what it suggests.

What article did I post?

Please try to pay attention. Maybe if you read what I said 15-20 more times you'll figure it out.

The scientists are not lying about the data or what it suggests.

Exactly!
"Mike Nature Trick", "Hiding the Decline", stopping skeptics from publishing not to mention altering data collected decades ago.......all actions of people with the science on their side.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

to the OP

DERP!

Indeed.

I didn't post the OP, I didn't post an article.

Try again?

 

[Confounding]

I didn't post the OP, I didn't post an article.

No shit. I really try hard not to insult the intelligence of people that use this forum, but you're making it pretty difficult right now.

 

[skookerasbil]

That agw has failed is not even in question.... in fact after 20 years they haven't moved the ball a single yard in terms of changing anything with energy policy = epic fAil. Let's face it... they still haven't made their case. How much climate legislation have we seen in the last 20 years? Almost zero....so.....whos not winning?

 

[skookerasbil]

Still have to make your case s0ns

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't post the OP, I didn't post an article.

No shit. I really try hard not to insult the intelligence of people that use this forum, but you're making it pretty difficult right now.

Anyway, to the OP, are you going to dispute my interpretation of what the author in the article you posted said about the study you believe was debunked?

Were you lying, or just stupid, when you claimed I posted an article?

 

[Confounding]

Were you lying, or just stupid, when you claimed I posted an article?

Do I really have to spell this out for you? When I said "Anyway, to the OP" it was to indicate that I was from then on addressing the OP and not you. I'm sorry this is so very confusing to you, but I didn't claim you posted an article. That part was not meant for you, and I think it's pretty obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Were you lying, or just stupid, when you claimed I posted an article?

Do I really have to spell this out for you? When I said "Anyway, to the OP" it was to indicate that I was from then on addressing the OP and not you. I'm sorry this is so very confusing to you, but I didn't claim you posted an article. That part was not meant for you, and I think it's pretty obvious.

but I didn't claim you posted an article.

in the article you posted

AGW failed again

You said, "in the article you posted", in a response to me.

Were you lying or just stupid in that reply to me?

 

[Confounding]

Were you lying, or just stupid, when you claimed I posted an article?

Do I really have to spell this out for you? When I said "Anyway, to the OP" it was to indicate that I was from then on addressing the OP and not you. I'm sorry this is so very confusing to you, but I didn't claim you posted an article. That part was not meant for you, and I think it's pretty obvious.

but I didn't claim you posted an article.

in the article you posted

AGW failed again

You said, "in the article you posted", in a response to me.

Were you lying or just stupid in that reply to me?

Your lack of reading comprehension probably has something to do with your stance on this issue.

These are the kinds of people that oppose the science behind AGW. People so inept at processing information that they get confused and combative over very simple ideas and concepts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Were you lying, or just stupid, when you claimed I posted an article?

Do I really have to spell this out for you? When I said "Anyway, to the OP" it was to indicate that I was from then on addressing the OP and not you. I'm sorry this is so very confusing to you, but I didn't claim you posted an article. That part was not meant for you, and I think it's pretty obvious.

but I didn't claim you posted an article.

in the article you posted

AGW failed again

You said, "in the article you posted", in a response to me.

Were you lying or just stupid in that reply to me?

Your lack of reading comprehension probably has something to do with your stance on this issue.

These are the kinds of people that oppose the science behind AGW. People so inept at processing information that they get confused and combative over very simple ideas and concepts.

I know, reading exactly what you wrote, crazy!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

What a stupid thread. Svientists guessed it was anomalous, because thatvwas the most educated guess. So, they investigated further, and proved themselves wrong. Not one scientist EVER insisted, with 100% certainty, this guess you mock.

This story is evidence of the beauty and value of scinece, yet you shit all over it to appeal to morons who don't understand any of it. Good for you .