#141
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 10:37:37 PM UTC, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". One hardly needs a reference for a statement that globally a cold spell is more likely than a warm one. That much is common core historical and scientific knowledge: warm spells are the exception, cold spells the norm, and longer too. Well, I suppose it is historical knowledge to all except the obsessed global warmies, who should really be collectively treated as a minority religious group, more interested in "proving" their faith than in scientific facts. Andre Jute There is more science in Scientology than in Global Warming |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 2:37:37 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". Since these are published research papers and there are many of them can you explain why you cannot find them and must have your hand held? You might like to inform me what you know of solar maximums and minimums to suggest you might be able to tell what is "correct" with them. Quite frankly I read a whole lot of published scientific papers and the latest generation seems not to be even worth bothering to read unless the author is over 40 years old. There is something seriously incorrect with the millennial generation who make totally false assumptions and expect everyone else to believe them or else. This isn't Facebook and we don't have to worry about you "unfriending" us. Most of us here couldn't care less what you think or do not. It is a discussion site and if you don't have anything to say you're of no use here. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:14:17 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 10:37:37 PM UTC, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". One hardly needs a reference for a statement that globally a cold spell is more likely than a warm one. Lol, so none of your statement is correct. There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum. That much is common core historical and scientific knowledge: warm spells are the exception, cold spells the norm, and longer too. Again, rubbish you can not back up. Warm/cold are just relative terms. Andre Jute There is more science in Scientology than in Global Warming lol, I saw the movie. i bet you've got the footwear to match. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:31:46 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 2:37:37 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". Since these are published research papers and there are many of them can you explain why you cannot find them and must have your hand held? Translated; you can not point to any of them because they don't say what you want them to say. You might like to inform me what you know of solar maximums and minimums to suggest you might be able to tell what is "correct" with them. You're making the claim. Should be easy to backup as, but me thinks you don't have a chance as the direct records only go back a few decades and you'll have to rely on an interpretation from the dodgy brother. Quite frankly I read a whole lot of published scientific papers and the latest generation seems not to be even worth bothering to read unless the author is over 40 years old. Sounds like "waah waah, why does science have to change?" Didn't you get the meo that science is an field of evolving knowledge. FWIW, those scientist over forty years old are the ones responsible for what you are complaining about. Who trained "the millennial generation" of scientist. they don't appeared to have done a good job of your science education. Here is a couple of "scientific reports/articles" that might help unravelling your misunderstanding and remind you that science isn't cut and shunt. Basic and older; https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming- is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans/ Modern 7 involved; expains AJ's fake clams; http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus...-170327-press- release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx There is something seriously incorrect with the millennial generation who make totally false assumptions and expect everyone else to believe them or else. This isn't Facebook and we don't have to worry about you "unfriending" us. Most of us here couldn't care less what you think or do not. It is a discussion site and if you don't have anything to say you're of no use here. Lol, throwing in the towel already. Perhaps your problem is your readings are just another "discussion" site within the bubble of like minded aged baby boomers. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 4:11:24 AM UTC, news18 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:14:17 -0800, Andre Jute wrote: On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 10:37:37 PM UTC, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". One hardly needs a reference for a statement that globally a cold spell is more likely than a warm one. Lol, so none of your statement is correct. There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum. That much is common core historical and scientific knowledge: warm spells are the exception, cold spells the norm, and longer too. Again, rubbish you can not back up. Warm/cold are just relative terms. Andre Jute There is more science in Scientology than in Global Warming lol, I saw the movie. i bet you've got the footwear to match. Are you drunk or are you merely incapable of writing a meaningful English sentence? For instance, what does "There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum," mean? And in this, "Warm/cold are just relative terms," you appear to claim that Global Warming is irrelevant because it is "just a relative term". Is that what you intended to say? If English isn't your first language, as it isn't for me by half a dozen or so, write to us in your mother tongue and I will translate; perhaps then you can make sense. Andre Jute Polyglot |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:11:00 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 4:11:24 AM UTC, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:14:17 -0800, Andre Jute wrote: On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 10:37:37 PM UTC, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". One hardly needs a reference for a statement that globally a cold spell is more likely than a warm one. Lol, so none of your statement is correct. There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum. That much is common core historical and scientific knowledge: warm spells are the exception, cold spells the norm, and longer too. Again, rubbish you can not back up. Warm/cold are just relative terms. Andre Jute There is more science in Scientology than in Global Warming lol, I saw the movie. i bet you've got the footwear to match. Are you drunk or are you merely incapable of writing a meaningful English sentence? For instance, what does "There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum," mean? Exactly what it says. You conjecture is unsupported and false. Hint, the next solar minimum is 2019/2020 or didn't you know that. And in this, "Warm/cold are just relative terms," you appear to claim that Global Warming is irrelevant because it is "just a relative term". Is that what you intended to say? You conflate cheese and chalk. On one hand your spruking dire temperature warnings and attempt to co-joint that to global energy. If English isn't your first language, as it isn't for me by half a dozen or so, write to us in your mother tongue and I will translate; perhaps then you can make sense. That explains your inability to comprehend. Andre Jute Polyglot So you can read a few foreign menus heh!. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:02:27 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:11:00 -0800, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 4:11:24 AM UTC, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:14:17 -0800, Andre Jute wrote: On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 10:37:37 PM UTC, news18 wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:18:10 -0800, sltom992 wrote: While NASA management have been publishing that absolutely false data about rising temperatures other departments of NASA and NOAA have been investigating the Russian science and after three hard years of study have decided that the Russian paper is correct. Do you have a reference for that? It will be interesting to see what part is "correct". One hardly needs a reference for a statement that globally a cold spell is more likely than a warm one. Lol, so none of your statement is correct. There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum. That much is common core historical and scientific knowledge: warm spells are the exception, cold spells the norm, and longer too. Again, rubbish you can not back up. Warm/cold are just relative terms. Andre Jute There is more science in Scientology than in Global Warming lol, I saw the movie. i bet you've got the footwear to match. Are you drunk or are you merely incapable of writing a meaningful English sentence? For instance, what does "There is no more likely ice age that the last solar cycle minimum," mean? Exactly what it says. You conjecture is unsupported and false. Hint, the next solar minimum is 2019/2020 or didn't you know that. And in this, "Warm/cold are just relative terms," you appear to claim that Global Warming is irrelevant because it is "just a relative term". Is that what you intended to say? You conflate cheese and chalk. On one hand your spruking dire temperature warnings and attempt to co-joint that to global energy. If English isn't your first language, as it isn't for me by half a dozen or so, write to us in your mother tongue and I will translate; perhaps then you can make sense. That explains your inability to comprehend. Andre Jute Polyglot So you can read a few foreign menus heh!. A "solar minimum" is nothing more than the 11 year cycle of solar activity. It doesn't demonstrate anything as caused the Maunder Minimum nor the Dalton Minimum. What would cause you to think that until very recently they had any idea of what was causing major solar activity? |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:00:05 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:02:27 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote: Exactly what it says. You conjecture is unsupported and false. Hint, the next solar minimum is 2019/2020 or didn't you know that. And in this, "Warm/cold are just relative terms," you appear to claim that Global Warming is irrelevant because it is "just a relative term". Is that what you intended to say? You conflate cheese and chalk. On one hand your spruking dire temperature warnings and attempt to co-joint that to global energy. If English isn't your first language, as it isn't for me by half a dozen or so, write to us in your mother tongue and I will translate; perhaps then you can make sense. That explains your inability to comprehend. Andre Jute Polyglot So you can read a few foreign menus heh!. A "solar minimum" is nothing more than the 11 year cycle of solar activity. It doesn't demonstrate anything as caused the Maunder Minimum nor the Dalton Minimum. What would cause you to think that until very recently they had any idea of what was causing major solar activity? Who are you talking to? As I've posted previously, I know all this and you might want to read the URL i posted before to the Swiss solar paper. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reprised: Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by97% of scientists? | [email protected] | Techniques | 7 | December 1st 16 08:26 PM |
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 3 | November 28th 15 03:54 AM |
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 7 | November 23rd 15 04:27 AM |
Altoona case settled I guess | GoneBeforeMyTime | Racing | 2 | July 24th 10 08:08 PM |
I've settled on a chain lube | landotter | Techniques | 9 | May 25th 10 11:10 AM |