The Hunger Stones
- Thread starter thedigger
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Maybe a sign of cyclical weather patterns that have plagued the earth for 1000s of years or is it global warming?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 7,955
- Reaction score
- 16,057
Ahhh at last some real time evidence of historical weather 
ower: and they'll be back under water soon. Might take 10 years or a century or more and then another century later they'll be exposed again either way it's not global warming, global warming is the politically correct way of discussing future tax revenue imo.
ower: and they'll be back under water soon. Might take 10 years or a century or more and then another century later they'll be exposed again either way it's not global warming, global warming is the politically correct way of discussing future tax revenue imo.
RM Outback said:Ahhh at last some real time evidence of historical weather
:Y: X 2
erfect: :100: x lots of numbersMatt80
Matthew
Yep agreed :Y:
One of the weirdes, stupidest and most annoying bits of 'evidence' that later became the basis for so many other papers and presented everywhere was that stupid hockey stick graph. The fact it doesn't show well documented cooling and warming periods that occurred over the last thousand years and that when it swapped from tree ring data to met data the world was still unusually cool due to recent major volcanic eruptions(so of course it became warmer) it should automatically have come under more scrutiny. But then add to that the fact they at first refused to release the data they received from the met Office because they didn't have the rights to share it(it was all legally public data) and then after the met said they had no issues with it they said they had lost the data(from the most important paper they ever wrote) it really should have been scrutinized far more from other scientists. But no, it was simply taken at face value, with no proper peer review. It honestly bugs me that it's called climate science given they seem about as accurate as doctors were a few hundred years ago. Sure they get some stuff right, but if you were in any well established scientific feild and your models kept failing they they would say your wrong, but in climate science they just say the data must be wrong or try to come up with excuses while still claiming the world is coming to and end(all through history there is always one reason or another the world is about to end).
Sorry about my little rant :lol:
One of the weirdes, stupidest and most annoying bits of 'evidence' that later became the basis for so many other papers and presented everywhere was that stupid hockey stick graph. The fact it doesn't show well documented cooling and warming periods that occurred over the last thousand years and that when it swapped from tree ring data to met data the world was still unusually cool due to recent major volcanic eruptions(so of course it became warmer) it should automatically have come under more scrutiny. But then add to that the fact they at first refused to release the data they received from the met Office because they didn't have the rights to share it(it was all legally public data) and then after the met said they had no issues with it they said they had lost the data(from the most important paper they ever wrote) it really should have been scrutinized far more from other scientists. But no, it was simply taken at face value, with no proper peer review. It honestly bugs me that it's called climate science given they seem about as accurate as doctors were a few hundred years ago. Sure they get some stuff right, but if you were in any well established scientific feild and your models kept failing they they would say your wrong, but in climate science they just say the data must be wrong or try to come up with excuses while still claiming the world is coming to and end(all through history there is always one reason or another the world is about to end).
Sorry about my little rant :lol:
Similar threads
