#151
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 5:41:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
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. You are saying that you want to check someone's facts but you don't know how to find papers that are posted all over the Internet. That says very little about your qualifications to blow your own nose let alone check papers of someone else. |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 8:07:02 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 5:41:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote: 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. You are saying that you want to check someone's facts but you don't know how to find papers that are posted all over the Internet. That says very little about your qualifications to blow your own nose let alone check papers of someone else. Perhaps I should add that I am very disturbed at the extremely low quality of most of the papers submitted by what passes for Post-Grads these days. They are full of assumptions with no evidence and opinion rather than fact. While the best are still the best, the lower grade papers should not even be published. Are good papers so difficult to find that they are willing to publish trash to fill the space? |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:07:00 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
You are saying that you want to check someone's facts but you don't know how to find papers that are posted all over the Internet. That says very little about your qualifications to blow your own nose let alone check papers of someone else. You made it, you support it. You're the one who hasn't provided any papers to support your theory despite you claiming to have a lifetime in science. Ducking and diving tom, hea hea. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:11:33 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
Perhaps I should add that I am very disturbed at the extremely low quality of most of the papers submitted by what passes for Post-Grads these days. They are full of assumptions with no evidence and opinion rather than fact. While the best are still the best, the lower grade papers should not even be published. Are good papers so difficult to find that they are willing to publish trash to fill the space? What a silly question, of course they are. After yourt lifetime of science you should know that NUMBERS is the most important PKI. |
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 07:26 PM |
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 3 | November 28th 15 02:54 AM |
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 7 | November 23rd 15 03:27 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 |