So you suggest that if any science is incomplete that it should be locked away and abandoned just because anything else would be a giant farce because we don't know 100% about a thing?
and if a person did not know how many bones were in their body would mean that they might not know that they have a skeleton?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're melting, we're melting
We're melting, we're meltingFollow
#254REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 06 2007 at 11:19 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm supposed to be /shocked a bunch of you are rate down snatches? Another brilliant parody I made, was if I ran the business model of Alla I would've instituted click charges for you to give more meaning to your pu$$y effertz. Of course that's the best you ever had to say or ever will say Git. Do you want mommy to warm up your rate down button for you first? Cause you're a big boy who can't just press the button, but has to post that he's pressing the button. Whoopee. [:roll eyes:]
Kelvy, quit parroting the liberal science agenda. Monx's expertise on climatology should be taken on pure faith, just because he says so. Providing a link would only mean bowing down to rational discourse, and let's face it, he's stronger than that.
Good times.
Good times.
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
So you suggest that if any science is incomplete that it should be locked away and abandoned just because anything else would be a giant farce because we don't know 100% about a thing?
and if a person did not know how many bones were in their body would mean that they might not know that they have a skeleton?
and if a person did not know how many bones were in their body would mean that they might not know that they have a skeleton?
MetalJeff wrote:
Interesting Reading
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#258REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 06 2007 at 11:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Watch your manners now Miss Flea. Unless you've come up with the missing link ...
MonxDoT wrote:
The Glorious GitSlayer wrote:
Nah, post all you want now, at least you aren't spamming anymore. Besides I need more of your posts to rate down. Have that fallin' feelin'? Thats you takin' the express elevator to sub-default you cracked in the head cracka.
I'm supposed to be /shocked a bunch of you are rate down snatches? Another brilliant parody I made, was if I ran the business model of Alla I would've instituted click charges for you to give more meaning to your pu$$y effertz. Of course that's the best you ever had to say or ever will say Git. Do you want mommy to warm up your rate down button for you first? Cause you're a big boy who can't just press the button, but has to post that he's pressing the button. Whoopee. [:roll eyes:]
Aaaah, Did I hurt your feewings with the "mommy needs to tie your shoes" crack in the other thread?
MetalJeff wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml
Interesting Reading
Interesting Reading
Particularly since the first scientist quoted works for a power plant development company. No conflict of interest there.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#261REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 06 2007 at 11:26 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You think I remember that was you? The only thing I remember about you was you crying about me getting 10k in six months.
MonxDoT wrote:
Watch your manners now Miss Flea. Unless you've come up with the
MetalJeff wrote:
Oh behalf of Mox:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
I believe that article was the point he was (rightly)trying to make.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
I believe that article was the point he was (rightly)trying to make.
#266REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 06 2007 at 11:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That you think you need a cite to understand the Sun delivers more warming energy to the Earth than humans says it all, Miss Atomic Moran. Are you going to now go plough a field of corn? Oh that's right, you're going to institute socialism to get Mr. Kyoto to furnish slaves to plough your fields for you. How's that police State registration for theftaxation scheme going? It goes so well with your phony crying over Patriot Act checking of library records.
MetalJeff wrote:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
I believe that article was the point he was (rightly)trying to make.
I believe that article was the point he was (rightly)trying to make.
For a more recent answer, we have the just published article "Solar activity during the last 1000yr inferred from radionuclide records" published in the Jan 2007 issue of the journal Quaternary Science Reviews. Which states:
Quote:
In general, the 10Be and 14C records exhibit good agreement that allows us to obtain reliable estimates of past solar magnetic modulation of the radionuclide production rates. Differences between 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland indicate that climatic changes have influenced the deposition of 10Be during some periods of the last 1000yr. The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000yr.
Coupled with the temperature charts of the past 1000 years, it would indicate that solar acticity is not significantly responsible for the changes. Backing up this theory is "Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun?" published in August 2006 journal, Earth & Planetary Science Letters.
Quote:
Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming — remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect.
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 12:26pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
MonkSnot wrote:
That you think you need a cite to understand the Sun delivers more warming energy to the Earth than humans says it all, Miss Atomic Moran.
Well, you don't understand it yourself; or - and here's a shocker - you're unable to enunciate it clearly.
The point of the article is not that the sun delivers more warming energy to the earth than humans, but that it delivers more warming energy to the earth than it used to do, as part of a cycle.
No one has ever argued, to the best of my knowledge, that humans cause more global warming than the sun does. The fact that you keep saying that only serves to sink your own credibility, if it's even possible to sink it any lower.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's all irrelevant. Of course the fUcking Sun causes global warming. The question is how the Earth recieves the energy from the Sun and how it processes it.
What a waste of time.
What a waste of time.
MetalJeff wrote:
How can scientists so drastically change their view over a mere 2 years?
Your article wrote:
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
Edit: Aside from David Bellamy who doesn't seem exceptionally qualified to make a scientific call on it.
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 12:33pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
MetalJeff wrote:
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
It's all irrelevant. Of course the fUcking Sun causes global warming. The question is how the Earth recieves the energy from the Sun and how it processes it.
What a waste of time.
What a waste of time.
A better quote to show ignorance there isn't (jewish accent required)!
explain yourself.
or are you just working your way down the list of posters in this thread to see who you can get a rise out of?
Quote:
This is pretty much what I've been saying in the first place.
If you have actual criticisms about actual studies instead of broad generalizations such as "How about volcanoes, huh? I bet they never think about volcanoes", I'd be interested in hearing them. But if we're expected to start from a position that no one is including factors such as solar radiation, volcanic activity, Medieval Warming Periods, et al into their research, I'm afraid the onus is on you to provide some concrete evidence of that.
Edited, Feb 6th 2007 12:23pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#276REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 06 2007 at 12:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uhh no, that such a basic fact was dodged, shows massive discredibility. That article wasn't even part of my previous points, except that it further shows key variables have been ommitted by arrogant politicized bureacratic scientists.
Recent Visitors: 295
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (295)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're melting, we're melting
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC