Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

j-mac said:

Not a fact until you define "a while"

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Do you really need me to link that for you as well? Seriously, have you read any of the science? :lamo

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Quit being a jerk Joe....I have read alot of it, and it would surprise you that I have even read the articles you have posted....But I am asking a serious question here....Where in science is "a while" accepted in composing scientific theory? Is that like "a pinch" or "a dash" in cooking?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

A while is my term.

Click to expand...

But the science isn't something where you say it was hot or cold this year, so it proves X.

Click to expand...

It's studied over time. You'll notice charts don't ever move in a line without dips and spikes.

Click to expand...

And the literature explains this. If you have read, then you would not be asking the question.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Yes, it is....So what do you mean by it?



I understand that, and I don't doubt for a second that climate changes, that we go through Ice ages, as well as warm periods. But, I see nothing to date that disavows me of the clear indicator that this latest round of hysteria over supposed AGW, is in a veiled attempt to create fiat currency, redistribute wealth on a global scale, and is utterly a scam.



Yep, and isn't it amazing how the AGW cult doesn't want to use charts from periods that don't support their quack theory?



All I know, is that your argument has serious problems when even to a blue collar guy like me can see right through the agenda behind the hysteria...

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

J, the only group being selective with the charts is yours. Like most of us, you're a novice. You really can't make an educated decision without actually being educated. You can't read political sites and consider them science. Nor can you pick the one over the many because you want the one to be true.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

I may be a novice, but I know a political agenda when I see one.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

If you did, you would notice the political agenda is on your side.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Oh I do, the agenda over here is to battle the totally unamerican dreams of a cult based on junk science.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Yes, science is un-American. :lamo

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Not at all, that is just more of your dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

No dishonesty. It's what it boils down to. You look at the science and call it junk because you don't want it to be true. You seek anyone to say what you want said, but ignore the overwhelming body of work. You even call it Un-American. Odd as science has no nationality. Honestly, all that you criticize others for best fits on your side of this issue.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Shouldn't real science be skeptical at its foundation? No, it's junk because it is inherently not reproducible unless you are talking about data fed into computers. You know the saying, 'junk in, junk out' applies here the most...And that you categorize the "issue" shows exactly how cultists like yourself have politicized science making it corrupt...Thanks for revealing yourself.......Again.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Science is, and it is always open to new information. But to leap over backwards to accept the minority fringe view and dismiss the overwhelming consensus as junk shows distinct bias.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

So sorry if I am biased against being lied to....:lamo

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

See what I mean. You WANT it to be a lie.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

And I think you are confusing the ability to see the climate change (scientific argument) as distinguished from the political agenda (carbon credits, and fiat currency). You combine the two as if they are not separate but parallel paths.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Im not confusing anything. No where have I mentioned either carbon credits or fiat currency. Neither do scientist. Only you guys and your political agenda. I've only talked about the science. You're fear that if you admitted it was true, and you might have to consider action, leads you to put your fingers in your ears and pretend that it just can't be true.

As for me, I've only addressed the science. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

No, that is only a false narrative cooked up by the cultists to divide, and distract.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

That makes no sense at all. Are you sure you're responding to what I wrote?

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Allow me to put it in terms you can easily understand....Ahem....You're making **** up....

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

A while is my term. But the science isn't something where you say it was hot or cold this year, so it proves X. It's studied over time. You'll notice charts don't ever move in a line without dips and spikes. And the literature explains this. If you have read, then you would not be asking the question.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

J, the only group being selective with the charts is yours. Like most of us, you're a novice. You really can't make an educated decision without actually being educated. You can't read political sites and consider them science. Nor can you pick the one over the many because you want the one to be true.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

No dishonesty. It's what it boils down to. You look at the science and call it junk because you don't want it to be true. You seek anyone to say what you want said, but ignore the overwhelming body of work. You even call it Un-American. Odd as science has no nationality. Honestly, all that you criticize others for best fits on your side of this issue.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

You claim to have read it and yet you NEVER ask questions.

Click to expand...