More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

And I ask, how does this, one of the longest threads on the entire site, affect you in any way?

In that you only exist here to perpetuate this thread. You have no apparent interest in nor contributions to any other threads on GT40s.com save for this one. While some others also are very active in this thread they also are active on other areas of this site. I do not understand why you chose GT40s.com rather than one of the deniers forums or some other venue to push your agenda. Thread length is in no way indicative of the value or veracity of said thread.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

[QUOTE="Nick Brough, post: 536 I accept not everyone believes in the bible and it is full of contradictions, I see it more as a guide book, after all no way am I going to take any unbelievers to the city walls and stone them to death.

[/QUOTE]

Some evangelicals believe every word of Genesis is true fact. Personally I don't even think Phil Collins is that great a drummer...................

 

[Neil]

 

[Larry L.]

...and yet you keep returning, Neil! ;-)

 

[Neil]

It's like smoking- I'm trying to quit.

 

[Larry L.]

It's like smoking- I'm trying to quit.

Roger that, Sir!!!

I'd like to dump it too...but...

 

[Bob Fechter]

“

The Solar Cycle: Sunspots increase and decrease through an average cycle of 11 years. Dating back to 1749, we have experienced 23 full solar cycles where the number of sunspots have gone from a minimum, to a maximum and back to the next minimum, through approximate 11 year cycles. We are now well into the 24th cycle. This chart from the NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center shows the sunspot number prediction for solar cycle 24. The NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center also shows the monthly averaged sunspot numbers based on the International Sunspot Number of all solar cycles dating back to 1750. (Daily observations of sunspots began in 1749 at the Zurich, Switzerland observatory.)

One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of near zero sunspot activity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So how much does the solar output affect Earth's climate? There is debate within the scientific community how much solar activity can, or does affect Earth's climate. There is research which shows evidence that Earth's climate is sensitive to very weak changes in the Sun's energy output over time frames of 10s and 100s of years. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. The converse is true during minimum sunspot activity. But trying to filter the influence of the Sun's energy output and its effect on our climate with the "noise" created by a complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans can be difficult. For example, there is research which shows that the Maunder Minimum not only occurred during a time with a decided lack of sunspot activity, but also coincided with a multi-decade episode of large volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions are known to hinder incoming solar radiation. Finally, there is also evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its average 23.5 degree tilt on its axis. Indeed Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. But overall when examining Earth on a global scale, and over long periods of time, it is certain that the solar energy output does have an affect on Earth's climate. However there will always be a question to the degree of affect due to terrestrial and oceanic interactions on Earth. “

https://www.weather.gov/fsd/sunspots​

 

[Bob Fechter]

“If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised,”

“On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review,”

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/30/trump-challenge-climate-reports/

 

[Larry L.]

“If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised,”

“On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review,”

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/30/trump-challenge-climate-reports/

Many of us have been saying pretty much the same thing for eons:

...True scientists always w-e-l-c-o-m-e debate on any scientific topic/theory/problem/issue in either support or opposition thereof in order to test the validity of supposedly valid "scientific conclusions" already in the books (so to speak). They don't try to stifle it. They would prefer to be proven wrong if in fact they truly are rather than continue to follow/believe/act upon a false premise...

The MMGW/CC "scientists" have even consistently refused to debate a NON-scientist on the topic: Christopher Monckton.

 

[Ron Scarboro]

I’d check the accuracy of any report from a website founded by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, but that is sort of like testing whether the sun will rise in the East - we all know the answer.

FWIW, Michael Bastasch’s went pretty conservative after being fired from the Charles Koch foundation.

I could take you more seriously Bob if you vetted your sources prior to vomiting them onto this forum. Google is your friend.

 

[Bob Fechter]

I’d check the accuracy of any report from a website founded by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, but that is sort of like testing whether the sun will rise in the East - we all know the answer.

FWIW, Michael Bastasch’s went pretty conservative after being fired from the Charles Koch foundation.

I could take you more seriously Bob if you vetted your sources prior to vomiting them onto this forum. Google is your friend.

How very, very typical of libs to deflect on the subject at hand. Goal post moving is their favorite sport. Oh, and google is no one’s friend. Not even liberals.

 

[Ron Scarboro]

What subject am I deflecting Bob? and be VERY careful of the labels you put on someone, Candidly, you really don’t have any well thought out or consistently expressed opinions on this subject. You just vomit out right wing opinion that is either false or at best heavily biased or irrelevant dribble on the subject (I’m still trying to figure out what post is #2267 about).

I for a fact am not a liberal. I’m a man of very much more than modest means and pretty (probably very) fiscally conservative. On most other matters I’m a centrist. I do think the globe is warming, to suggest otherwise is oblivious to an overwhelming body of facts.

We could have a thoughtful debate as to whether the cause is man made or part of a some oceanic or cyclical cycle (or hell alien influence) and we could debate the effects of such a phenomenon be they positive, neutral or negative.

However, that really isn’t your aim, and nothing in your posts suggest it is within your mental capabilities. Instead, you are the definition of an internet troll and ZERO folks (not even Larry I’ll bet) on this form (an automotive forum btw) really take you seriously.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Gee Ron, I’ve been called most every unpleasant name in the book here. Why, I’ve even had my Wife’s name and my home address posted here by one of your fellow “moderates”. And yet, I’ve never felt so insecure as to feel the need to announce,” I’m a man of very much more than modest means”. How does someone with such thin skin achieve that?

 

[Bob Fechter]

As to your embracing decade on decade of failed ppredictions and altered data to back it up by one “scientists” funded by Globalist interests, let’s jus say that being a “man of very much more than modest means” puts a target squarely on your back to pay for the “clean up”.

 

[Bob Fechter]

As to your embracing decade on decade of failed ppredictions and altered data to back it up by one “scientists” funded by Globalist interests, let’s jus say that being a “man of very much more than modest means” puts a target squarely on your back to pay for the “clean up”.

Should read;
As to your embracing decade on decade of failed predictions and altered data to back it up by “scientists” funded by Globalist interests, let’s jus say that being a “man of very much more than modest means” puts a target squarely on your back to pay for the “clean up”.[/QUOTE]

 

[DJ]

One thing I have learned after 40+ yrs at sea is.When the boat is taking on water ,the first thing to do is turn on the pumps.Then go about damage control..CC is no different. DJ

 

[Bob Fechter]

One thing I have learned after 40+ yrs at sea is.When the boat is taking on water ,the first thing to do is turn on the pumps.Then go about damage control..CC is no different. DJ

And how do you asses "taking on water" in relation to the vastly complex solar system we live in?

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Give it up DJ. Instructing someone to turn on the pumps, who doesn't believe the pumps should be turned on, is fruitless. All this group needs is one crewman out of 10 that doesn't believe the pumps should to be turned on, and this group will follow that one person's argument (belief). This string is at best, a study in frustration, not rationalization.

 

[Ron Scarboro]

Bob,
You asked for a prediction that came true, I gave you an example. You posted no rebuttal.
You question sources like NASA & NOAA and quote the likes of the Daily Caller, SOTT and others.

Drag up information (generally fabricated) from right wing sources with an agenda - CHECK
Random vomit postings on a site that has nothing to do with climate change - CHECK
Label those that call you out on your source data - CHECK
Never actually contributed to or supported the forum - CHECK

Troll - CHECK

 

[Bill Kearley]

LB should have a sore forehead by now. I hope my 40 gets at least 4 miles per gallon.