Originally posted by Metal Brain ..and phil plait is a left winger pushing his puff piece. Try again moron!
I tried your nature link. I saw nothing on it. Probably another site that requires a login that you already did. Don't expect me to jump through needless hoops just to view it......moron!
Did you perhaps look at the authors credentials? Oxford, Cambridge, University of Colorado.
These are not fly by night outfits, but the best of the best. But of course only you and singer are right and the whole world is wrong.
Originally posted by googlefudge No, the Nature article is free to view on the web in it's entirety.
I don't know what web browser you are using, or what plugins you utilise, but it's unlikely
that your setup is more secure than mine and I can read it fine.
I am not logged in to that site, and don't need to be. You don't need any scripts active to be able
to read it. So I don' ...[text shortened]... actually interested can read the actual science and
learn just how wrong and ignorant you are.
Why don't you just copy and paste it here like you do much of the time anyway. Nature is not as great as you think though. It all depends who writes the article. I've seen lots of biased stuff on there too. That is what happens when opinions are formed from political leanings and false consensus claims. Even normally good links have biased junk on them now.
Your unprovoked insults show me how well I'm doing. It is pretty obvious you are frustrated at your failure to make valid points. If you were smart you would just give up. You accept climate models but not solar models. Just accept you can't have it both ways without looking foolish. Reject all of the models. That would be the smart thing to do.
Originally posted by googlefudge I did you cretin.
You are a real piece of work. Your logic is very flawed, especially the electric car BS. Your are unwittingly promoting coal burning. That is how stupid you are.
Originally posted by googlefudge http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming
They base their findings on computer models. So you have one computer model contradicting another computer model. All this does is show computer models cannot be relied on which is what I have been saying all along.
I remember the same thing being said about Toyota's Prius hybrid 16 years ago. In fact, there were Internet forums just like this where reactionary cranks just like you were saying hybrids were a bunch of hippy-dippy horses**t that would never catch on, least of all in the US where the received wisdom had it that we were all destined to be driving gas-guzzling paramilitary road barges until the end of time. Of course, these days you can't swing a used tea bag anywhere without hitting at least five Priuses in the US, and that's not counting all the other hybrid models that have come out in the last decade.
Originally posted by Soothfast I remember the same thing being said about Toyota's Prius hybrid 16 years ago. In fact, there were Internet forums just like this where reactionary cranks just like you were saying hybrids were a bunch of hippy-dippy horses**t that would never catch on, least of all in the US where the received wisdom had it that we were all destined to be driving gas-guz ...[text shortened]... e US, and that's not counting all the other hybrid models that have come out in the last decade.
My brother owns a Prius and recently complained at the high cost of repair parts. He wishes he had never bought it. It makes more sense to just buy a regular car that is very fuel efficient, if you care about money. Hybrids are very over rated.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Global warming alarmists want to believe the climate models can be relied on. Here is another kind of model of solar activity. Can we rely on this model? Why should we believe their prediction?
http://rt.com/news/273169-solar-cycle-ice-age/
It appears I was more right in that other thread by GF than I knew.
That global-warming denier fool Robert Felix has been saying this for the last 16 years now. He also thinks the next "mini ice-age" will be heralded by a pole reversal.
It's people like this who will keep the global-warming issue from receiving funding by those incompetents in Congress until we are finally too far over the edge for any amount of money to save us.
Originally posted by Suzianne It appears I was more right in that other thread by GF than I knew.
That global-warming denier fool Robert Felix has been saying this for the last 16 years now. He also thinks the next "mini ice-age" will be heralded by a pole reversal.
It's people like this who will keep the global-warming issue from receiving funding by those incompetents in Congress until we are finally too far over the edge for any amount of money to save us.
"It's people like this who will keep the global-warming issue from receiving funding by those incompetents in Congress until we are finally too far over the edge for any amount of money to save us."
Congress is not withholding funding. What planet are you on?
Originally posted by Metal Brain My brother owns a Prius and recently complained at the high cost of repair parts. He wishes he had never bought it. It makes more sense to just buy a regular car that is very fuel efficient, if you care about money. Hybrids are very over rated.
A hybrid worked very well for my wife for over 12 years, with no high repair costs whatsoever.
There, my homespun anecdotal argument just canceled out yours.
Originally posted by Soothfast A hybrid worked very well for my wife for over 12 years, with no high repair costs whatsoever.
There, my homespun anecdotal argument just canceled out yours.
She probably does not drive it much. She will find out how much repair costs are in time. I have a brother who owns an auto repair business. He told me the same thing. Your wife is in for an unpleasant surprise.
Originally posted by Metal Brain She probably does not drive it much. She will find out how much repair costs are in time. I have a brother who owns an auto repair business. He told me the same thing. Your wife is in for an unpleasant surprise.
Unfortunately she no longer has the car. Some clown t-boned it and the insurance company deemed it not worth repairing.
Originally posted by Soothfast Unfortunately she no longer has the car. Some clown t-boned it and the insurance company deemed it not worth repairing.
And gave her $300 for her troubles no doubt. True story: A small fire started on my front porch, no huge deal, couldn't get my stupid water hose to work, it was broken. So fire department came out and had a FLIR camera and found embers under the porch, they took a chainsaw and cut out about 1/3 of my porch and put out the embers. Ok, no big deal. Call the insurance company, he comes out, fills out his report. $4500 in damages. Ok, I can deal with that. A few days later, he hands me a check, "Here is your $800." I go, what's with that? You said there was 4500 in damages. Yeah, there was, but the age of your house (100+years old) allows the insurance company to totally screw you over. So I checked into getting insurance that covers old houses, they go sure, we can do that. How much? Only $10,000 a year!
Mini ice age coming?
14 Jul '15 16:39
YouTube
Back to Top