Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 11/18/2018 at 7:10 PM, merrill said:

Ocasio-Cortez took a more evenhanded approach, encouraging those at the sit-in and calling for “100 percent renewable energy in 10 years” while also refraining from criticizing Pelosi directly. As the demonstrators greeted her with wild applause and cheers, she told them that their protest was “not just about confrontation” but also about “real, meaningful unity.”

“I just want to let you all know how proud I am of each and every single one of you for putting yourselves and your bodies and everything on the line to make sure that we save our planet, our generation and our future,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “It’s so incredibly important.”

Your stupidity will be your undoing in the coming war, Merrill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 4:02 AM, Olivaw said:

Ocasio-Cortex understands that anthropogenic global warming is real. That makes her more qualified to lead than most Republicans in congress. 

 

 

IT has not been proven, source: Me.  I'm an environmental scientist.  You are not.

 

When it is proven, and it may be - make sure you watch this:

 

http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/

 

In the meantime, try to shut the f u c k up.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  The adults are talking now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Crom33 said:

I'm an environmental scientist. 

 

 

No you aren’t. You might have a two year technical college degree but even that much is uncertain. Source: your low quality posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

No you aren’t. You might have a two year technical college degree but even that much is uncertain. Source: your low quality posts. 

I have a master's degree.

 

I know it's hard to understand. You live in a world of darkness and ignorance.  I would suppose.  Ideology is contradictory to science.

 

We all live in the same world, Olivaw.  We all do.

 

My advise would be to watch the results from this probe.  It might be years.  I'll tell you a secret about become a scientist - imagine become a marine.  Only in the mind.  We don't lie.  Not yet - I'm sure there are some, but not many.  We are trained and brutalized to tell the truth.  It's so f u c k i n g hard becoming a scientist. We are mostly PROUD of who we are.  We earned it. 

 

Are you a scientist?  We are BRUTALLY trained to tell the truth.  Otherwise, one of our colleagues might call us out - and that's not good.  Not good for our careers - like a lawyer being disbarred.  Imagine that.

 

Watch the probe, and maybe one day we'll agree on the results:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Crom33 said:

I have a master's degree.

 

 

How often do I need to say this to right wingers on this forum? Don’t tell us how smart you are. Show us. 

 

The Parker Solar Probe will improve our understanding of the sun by probing the outer corona. Please to splain how the existence of the Parker Solar Probe disproves the theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming. Citations and links to peer reviewed scientific papers appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

How often do I need to say this to right wingers on this forum? Don’t tell us how smart you are. Show us. 

We do.  And you put us on ignore because  you can't refute inconvenient facts. 

Like the ones in another current thread about U.S. life expectancy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

How often do I need to say this to right wingers on this forum? Don’t tell us how smart you are. Show us. 

 

The Parker Solar Probe will improve our understanding of the sun by probing the outer corona. Please to splain how the existence of the Parker Solar Probe disproves the theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming. Citations and links to peer reviewed scientific papers appreciated. 

Read this.  Then ask questions.

 

https://www.newsy.com/stories/nasa-s-parker-solar-probe-to-explore-sun-s-corona/

 

https://www.space.com/41457-parker-solar-probe-what-next-sun.html

 

http://kiss.caltech.edu/lectures/2018_Solar_Probe.html

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/12/peer-reviewed_s_4/

 

The rest is classified. 

 

Knowledge is classified, n00b.  You get it at the same rate I do.  You wouldn't understand particle physics anymore than I do - they'll translate the data and hand it down to you.

 

Get used to socialism.  Scientific socialism. Not that you'd know the difference.

 

Now you shut the f u c k up.  You be quiet now.  You live your life and quit raging against a machine you couldn't possibly understand.  You be quiet now.  The adults are speaking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crom33 said:

Read this.  Then ask questions.

 

https://www.newsy.com/stories/nasa-s-parker-solar-probe-to-explore-sun-s-corona/

 

https://www.space.com/41457-parker-solar-probe-what-next-sun.html

 

http://kiss.caltech.edu/lectures/2018_Solar_Probe.html

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/12/peer-reviewed_s_4/

 

The rest is classified. 

 

Knowledge is classified, n00b.  You get it at the same rate I do.  You wouldn't understand particle physics anymore than I do - they'll translate the data and hand it down to you.

 

Get used to socialism.  Scientific socialism. Not that you'd know the difference.

 

Now you shut the f u c k up.  You be quiet now.  You live your life and quit raging against a machine you couldn't possibly understand.  You be quiet now.  The adults are speaking. 

Here - here's something for someone on your level:

 

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/parker-solar-probe-aims-touch-sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crom33 said:

 

Random links to basic information about the Parker Solar Probe and one off-topic link do not a scientific argument make. I shall assume, until proven otherwise, that you lack the capacity to answer my simple question.  You appear to be trying to blow smoke up our arses. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

Random links to basic information about the Parker Solar Probe and one off-topic link do not a scientific argument make. I shall assume, until proven otherwise, that you lack the capacity to answer my simple question.  You appear to be trying to blow smoke up our arses. 

 

 

 

OH MY GOD.

 

Do you want me to give you a full lesson in radiation budgets?  Shall I do that or shall you do it yourself?  Have you not noticed that so-called "scientific" journalists never have science educations and yet seek to "educate" us all on scientific issues?

 

Do you know why?  Because they have no scientific educations and are merely telling you what they are told or, more importantly, what they interpret.  You want to know why you don't know more about this?  Because we have no time.  My time is precious to me, personally, and I stupidly spend it here as a hobby trying to educate you. Not give you a full scientific education.

 

What do you want?  Do you want an education?  A full education in physics, climate science, environmental and ecological science, and topographical heating regions?  WHAT DO YOU WANT?  All the knowledge in the word?  It's here- at your fingertips.  You can get it if you have the strength.  I could teach you, but I'd need to charge you 10,000 a year at least. 

 

You suppose that I should accept a random post from a random person on the internet, and I would not assume that you would accept my word?  I think you should - by instinct.  I would have to write an essay to convince you, and yet you believe uneducated journalists, while we scientists are paid too much, and are often too tired to deal with the likes of you.  I mean no offense, but you are so out of our sphere that you mean nothing.  Do you know that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crom33 said:

 

What do you want?  Do you want an education?  A full education in physics, climate science, environmental and ecological science, and topographical heating regions?  WHAT DO YOU WANT?  All the knowledge in the word?  It's here- at your fingertips.  You can get it if you have the strength.  I could teach you, but I'd need to charge you 10,000 a year at least. 

 

 

Don’t tell us how smart you are, show us. Answer the simple question or STFU.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olivaw said:

 

 

Don’t tell us how smart you are, show us. Answer the simple question or STFU.

 

 

What's your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Crom33 said:

What's your question?

 

20 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

 

Don’t tell us how smart you are, show us. Answer the simple question or STFU.

 

 

Again, I ask - what is your question?  Let me ask the question for you - is climate change anthropogenic?  Is that what you're asking?  I went to the store to obtain supplies and came back to deal with you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2018 at 6:28 PM, PoliticalPopUp said:

alexandria-ocasio-cortez-kavanaugh-prote

Lets look at the people behind here. Every chick there is BF ugly  as hell. Maybe the half face in bubbles on the left might be good for a facial after 10 shots.

 

All these hideous creatures suck the first swinging dick coming their way. Yeeechhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Crom33 said:

What's your question?

 

2 hours ago, Olivaw said:

 

How often do I need to say this to right wingers on this forum? Don’t tell us how smart you are. Show us. 

 

The Parker Solar Probe will improve our understanding of the sun by probing the outer corona. Please to splain how the existence of the Parker Solar Probe disproves the theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming. Citations and links to peer reviewed scientific papers appreciated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

 

 

I worked on a post for 50 minutes and accidentally closed it.  Jesus Christ, man.  Can you not do your own research, or do I have to do some pro-bono work for you?

 

Here's an abbreviation:

 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/parker-solar-probe-completes-first-venus-flyby-nasa/articleshow/66073861.cms

 

https://ep.probeinternational.org/2016/12/22/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared/

 

https://ep.probeinternational.org/2016/04/15/lawrence-solomon-why-it-looks-like-game-over-for-global-warming/

 

http://lifeinism.com/2018/09/17/the-solar-parker-probe-is-ready-to-make-history/

 

https://guidetoastronomy.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/why-is-nasa-sending-a-spacecraft-to-the-sun/

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429094830.htm

 

It's coming together now...right?

 

https://principia-scientific.org/drop-sunspot-activity-warning-global-cooling/

 

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wsolwind.html

 

Look, we're just a tiny dot in the universe - small even in our own solar system, and we are subject to all sorts of "tidal" forces.

 

The Parker Probe will advise if this is man-made or otherwise.  If the probe comes back with data to support your hypothesis, then, good.  It's a hypothesis, by the way, not a theory. 

 

Theory is hard to come by.

 

Understand the journal entry which you folks quote constantly - which the journalists get wrong. 

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

 

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

If you have questions regarding the above abstract - let me know.  I'd be happy to answer the questions.  I had a whole big thing typed out, but couldn't recover my tabbed entry to this post fully.  It's not a Theory - it's a hypothesis, this AGW.  Remember that.  Remember it well.  If we're wrong, and GW is caused by something else, we're in trouble.  That's the real reason Parker is out there.  Well, partly to see if a CME will destroy satellites, but also for this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

 

 

The answer to your question is that the PP will be measuring the protonic contributions to our troposphere in order to more accurately understand radiation budgets. We've never sampled the sun's corona, doncha know?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crom33 said:

I worked on a post for 50 minutes and accidentally closed it.  Jesus Christ, man.  Can you not do your own research, or do I have to do some pro-bono work for you?

 

Here's an abbreviation:

 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/parker-solar-probe-completes-first-venus-flyby-nasa/articleshow/66073861.cms

 

https://ep.probeinternational.org/2016/12/22/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared/

 

https://ep.probeinternational.org/2016/04/15/lawrence-solomon-why-it-looks-like-game-over-for-global-warming/

 

http://lifeinism.com/2018/09/17/the-solar-parker-probe-is-ready-to-make-history/

 

https://guidetoastronomy.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/why-is-nasa-sending-a-spacecraft-to-the-sun/

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429094830.htm

 

It's coming together now...right?

 

https://principia-scientific.org/drop-sunspot-activity-warning-global-cooling/

 

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wsolwind.html

 

Look, we're just a tiny dot in the universe - small even in our own solar system, and we are subject to all sorts of "tidal" forces.

 

The Parker Probe will advise if this is man-made or otherwise.  If the probe comes back with data to support your hypothesis, then, good.  It's a hypothesis, by the way, not a theory. 

 

Theory is hard to come by.

 

Understand the journal entry which you folks quote constantly - which the journalists get wrong. 

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

 

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

If you have questions regarding the above abstract - let me know.  I'd be happy to answer the questions.  I had a whole big thing typed out, but couldn't recover my tabbed entry to this post fully.  It's not a Theory - it's a hypothesis, this AGW.  Remember that.  Remember it well.  If we're wrong, and GW is caused by something else, we're in trouble.  That's the real reason Parker is out there.  Well, partly to see if a CME will destroy satellites, but also for this. 

 

 

 

Lost posts have happened to me too. It sucks. 

 

Energy Probe is a low-rent denier website funded by the oil and gas industry. It is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Please post peer reviewed science. 

 

Principia Scientific is a fringe low-rent website,that accepts donations. Again, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Please,post peer reviewed science. 

 

The Parker Probe links are cute but not particularly relevant. 

 

Are you proposing a sunspot activity hypothesis?  Have you a model and energy budget? I’d be thrilled to hear more.  For the sake of efficiency, don’t dumb it down. I’ll let you know if you lose me. 🙂

 

I’m familiar with Cook 2013, having argued it once or twice or ten thousand times. Do you disagree with the 97% conclusion. (Please, please, oh please tell me you are not going to put the 66.4% in the nay column like many before you have tried). 

 

It’s a theory, not a hypothesis. Don’t make me introduce you to Peter Hadfield and his excellent series of myth debunking videos.

 

If you believe that the theory is wrong or should be demoted, submit your work for peer review. You’d be handsomely rewarded and would become a hero to many conservatives and oil and gas folks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...