@Metal-Brain saidI believe in math, I also believe you are full of cow poop.
You don't believe in basic math?
You are pathetic!
@Metal-Brain saidYou've proven yourself to be an absolute goober in any science field whatsoever.
@sonhouse
Ice ages happen almost every 100,000 years. I think it will take longer than 10,000 years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm
Barker is an idiot. He cannot even do basic math. He said the last glaciation was around 11,700 years ago. 11,700 + 10,000 = 21,700 and 100,000 - 21,700 = 78,300. Most of the global warming we are ex ...[text shortened]... s no evidence CO2 causes global warming in the atmosphere. Don't count on avoiding the next ice age.
Stop listening to your conspiracy idiot websites and learn some real science.
1 edit
@Arkturos saidYou are not here to teach me anything, much less 'manners and consideration' as if you knew anything about that.
Did your fiddle catch on fire? I'm trying to teach Suzi a lesson in manners and consideration before I completely bleed out.
Leave me alone.
I do not see how I can make myself any clearer.
@sonhouse saidWOW! You must really be desperate to call indisputable basic math a conspiracy theory. Your source is a laugh. They could not even get the math right.
Ok, was just wondering. MH is a piece of work, his favorite site supporting his conspiracy theories, RUMBLE.
I rest my case.
It is obvious why you refused to do the math and show your work. Children in grade school would call you out as an idiot.
@Metal-Brain saidYeah, I am SO worried when YOU diss me. I think I will go into a corner and cry.
WOW! You must really be desperate to call indisputable basic math a conspiracy theory. Your source is a laugh. They could not even get the math right.
It is obvious why you refused to do the math and show your work. Children in grade school would call you out as an idiot.
@Martin saidBecause he is in denial of basic math. Any child from grade school can see that. Why he cannot admit the obvious is beyond me. He didn't write the article. He just didn't scrutinize it as much as he could have before posting it.
Why do half the posts on this site end up being a personal abuse forum?
What a fine example you lot are setting for new members - especially the younger ones.
Ranting and raving is his MO. Especially about Trump. He has a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome. I can only guess he hates being proven wrong about anything. You would have to ask him why he takes minor stuff so personally. All I did was show the math and how it did not add up to 100,000 like it should have. That is all. Hardly deserving of personal attacks, but he is seriously unhinged. Havn't you noticed before?
@Ponderable saidNo, it does not. Barker's paper does not have any faulty math like the link sonhouse posted. In fact, they are very different articles. I have concluded the faulty math was an error by the university that posted it, not Barker.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp3491
This is the original paper. The first figure will clarify a lot of things if you look at it.
It is pretty sick to source an article by Barker and screw up the math to make him appear bad when he probably never had anything to do with it. I have yet to see a Barker article with any flawed math. He didn't write the article in the link sonhouse posted in his OP. It was a university that grossly misrepresented Barker's work with wrong figures.