A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Settled Science?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old November 18th 18, 11:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 01:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 01:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 04:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Settled Science?

On 11/18/2018 7:31 PM, 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?

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.


Again, you're wasting your time here, Tom. You complain about perceived
errors on rec.bicycles.tech with - what? - 50 readers? Meanwhile the
rest of the world is daily producing more and more of the false evidence
you decry.

Again, they're disseminating false photos of dozens and dozens of
glaciers all around the world, showing modern glaciers far smaller than
the past. They even planted that stone-age guy under a glacier in the
Alps to "prove" that the glacier had melted! They've messed with the
historic data on hard frosts, apparently going back and altering English
farmers' planting diaries from hundreds of years ago. They've apparently
bribed shipping companies to make pretend plans for shipping stuff
across the arctic, something that couldn't be done without a lot of that
ice melting. They've screwed with sea level data in London, Venice etc.
making it seem like the water level is higher and floods are much more
common.

I could go on, but you get my drift. This conspiracy is HUGE! Scientists
all around the world are obviously in on it! They're probably being paid
off with our Social Security funds.

You've got to stop wasting your time here. You've got to get into NASA
and NOAA and even The Weather Channel and force them to see the light!
And don't stop there - this stuff is going on with government agencies
and scientists all around the world!

If you don't save us, nobody will.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #145  
Old November 19th 18, 05:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 07:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 09:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 12:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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  
Old November 19th 18, 06:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default 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  
Old November 20th 18, 02:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.