Why is the climate changing. (Page 327) Sir Loin: "Projecting" is that where a person does something and accuses others of it? In that case yes, Bozo has this forum going round in circles with her accusations Matt. bonzono: Hmm, no, but a typically inept response from you and whatever other deluded and scientifically illiterate moron you have flashing their panties on this page. Just to be clear, tha accusations from me about you are; 1. You provided no defence, data or analysis showing your hypothesis is even remotely defensible. 2. That you frequent anti science, antivaxxer blogs in an attempt to satisfy #1 above 3. That you lie about what scientists do acticlaim 4. That you are unqualified to even begin consistent topic, certain the context of relevant physics 5. That your claims are explicitly rejected by NASA 6. That you implicitly claim you have superior knowledge and grap than the hundres and hundreds of qualified researchers, who, in fact, are vastly more equipped to talk about anoybif this than you are. Not sure which of those you think I'm projecting, since...well, I'm not, but if you're confused, I can simply point you to my blog here where I'm loosely keeping a list, so I can laugh at you. Above all, of course you,,'ve wound down posting here because you simply cannot provude any relevant data or analysis. Your fraudulent is exploded.. again..and again. And again Btw, does it suck to know your mate Tom utterly and explicitly reject your claims about climate change?... Hehe, I'll bet you're STILL too stupid and incompetent to follow a simple link...you're really that hopeless, little loser loin. bonzono: it's now around a year since I'd asked loin to provide any data and analysis which shows his idiot 'hypothesis' (which is explicitly rejected by qualified researchers around the world, most notably NASA) is defensible. to this date, the best loin has done is point to data FROM NASA. and an entirely innapropriate one at that, since the time scale is nowhere near good enough to make the claim he's made. That, and that more recent graphs and data with superior time fidelity also trashcan his idea that global temps follow CO2 - as a general rule, they DO NOT. loin and people like loin set out to trash and slander the work by qualified, competent and good scientists who dedicate their lives to making loin's life better. We dont need to tolerate them, and we don't need to let them get away with it. loin, and people like lion should be exposed for the incompetent, lying idiots they really are, and harassed and abused for the damage they cause. It's funny that loin in particular regards himself as something of a kind of a boltzman - a guy who poposed an idea that was rubbished by the scientific community. of course, loin is nothing like boltzman, boltzman had data, he had a defensible hypothesis, one which stood up to scrutiny. loin of course, has nothing at all to show for his nonsense 'hypothesis', he's just a washed up, worn out old man who tried, and failed to amount to anything, and he's angry that people so easily can show his 'hypothesis' is utterly unsustainable. it's sad, but mostly it's just pathetic and tedious. Sir Loin: I can't help it if you can't keep up Bozo. I can't help you to stop lying either. I've posted sufficient evidence to support my hypothesis. Sorry you can't keep up. Sir Loin: Yup I agree with you troll, the proof is there for everyone to see. Obviously you haven't learned to read yet, May I recommend Porse Inhome for remedial lessons? bonzono: if you're saying the proof is everywhere, why are you struggling to show any at all? you've claimed it's everywhere, you've claimed you've shown it - you can't point to a SINGLE place you've done so. you say scientists agree with you, you can't even show THAT is true. what's wrong with you loin? are you unaware that the basic requirement for any claim is validation? heh - and you pretend to be qualified. Sir Loin: I'm sorry you're unable to read Bozo however that is not my responsibility. The proof for my hypothesis is there if only you could read it. bonzono: you keep saying, but you've never given a single link. funny how that's always the case for conspiracy lunatics. they insist it's there, but, can't ever show it's there.. you sure you're not a religious nut too? consider it, they also don't require evidence Sir Loin: Cut the bullshit Bozo. It's exactly where I posted it, a few pages up. I can't be bothered with your nonsense any more, you know where it is so stop pretending it's not there bonzono: is that so? here are the links to the "first 3 pages this forum" : www.wireclub.com/topics/science/conversations/XMbqFgOqnBTAYeiZ0 www.wireclub.com/topics/science/conversations/XMbqFgOqnBTAYeiZ0/1 www.wireclub.com/topics/science/conversations/XMbqFgOqnBTAYeiZ0/2 loin hasn't posted in a single one. in those first three pages, it's mostly a conversation between ghostgeek, cotojo1 and theHating. loin didn't start posting regularly in this forum until about page 50. I mean, help me out here, but at this point it seems you too dont really have a clue what you're saying. so asia, since your dullard, fraudulent and incompetent sad sack of a husband can't figure out how to post a link, can you? Why is it so hard for you douchebags to post a simple link? (Edited by bonzono) Sir Loin: Enough of your silly childish games Bozo. You've seen the data I posted and commented on it and nauseum bonzono: ohhhhh, you mean the grap in your BLOG!! lol. again, we find that you struggle to find the actual words you mean, and it's caused a real problem. but as you know, the data you've provided does not show what you claim, mostly because the two traces are positioned in such a way that you can't make an intelligent eyeball assessment. but also because the scales of your graph is SO BIG that you cant even resolve the issue you're talking about, a few hundred years is something lke 0.05 mm on your graph, when drawn on A4 page. even the lines are much thicker than that!.. ....and loin, you and I both know you can't do more than a simple eyeball guess, you're simply incapable. but I digress - you stupidly claim that those data show that global temps precede CO2 rises. They dont, at the scales of your data, they're almost simultaneous.... but not quite... sadly for you, the lack of simultaneity is actually .. opposite to what you want. happily for me, sadly for you, these data re-plot the two traces directly on top of each other: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/ You'll have to scroll down a bit, I think you can manage. and there you can clearly see that your claim is factually wrong. Temps do NOT precede CO2 rises. see, loin, you've made a rookie error - and it's why actually qualified scientists dont simply eyeball things, it's because your eyeball is simply not good enough to resolve the structures you're talking about, with the traces separated as far as they are, in that graph.. plotting the two traces directly on top of each other solves that problem, and you can see, by eye, that your claim is utterly wrong. so here's a question - would you put the data which refutes your claim on you blog? of course not!, you're completely dishonest! how about you extract the data from those plots, and re-plot them yourself? of course not!, you don't have the first clue how to do that! You're completely incompetent! (Edited by bonzono) Sir Loin: Utter bullshit as usual Bozo. The data have already been plotted, no need for me to replot it. In any case the digitised data aren't available. If you can't read a graph blame your maths teacher, not me. bonzono: if you're coming to the conclusion that co2 precedes temps from those graphs, little idiot loin, you can't read a graph. it's that simple. Sir Loin: Actually I didn't immediately pick up that fact. When the president of IPCC first alerted me to it is when I started looking at the data bonzono: but what you said earlier is true, you dont need to plot them again, on top of each other, they are indeed plotted like that, already: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/ plot that way, where your eye is not misled by the jagged line, you can see that temps do not, in fact, come before co2. again, the data simply do not agree with you. btw, qualified scientists are fully aware of the problems generated by plotting data with gaps between them, and attempting to use plots like that to demonstrate temporal relationships. qualified scientists will generally either perform a different kind of plot, where the parameters are plotted against each other (as i did, on my blog), or directly plot one on top of the other, with a common time base. in doing so, you eliminate biases and optical effects that you, stupidly, have fallen into - nd you could avoid if you had replotted the data in an intelligent way. but, you are not, of course, a qualified competent scientist. (Edited by bonzono) Asiababe: Bonzo I see your post saying can't read data in the graph coz time scale is too big but now you saying data don't agree with what Dave tell my Hubby. BUT you can read this data????? HMMMM Strange to me. See I did learn something from his critical thinking classes bonzono: Both of my statements are correc , they do not contradict in the way you imply, because you are an illiterate fool, and I am not. Let me explain, in small words so we don't stress your already overtaxed brain: The graph little lunatic loin provided has a scale of around 0.05 mm for every 100 years, roughly the time loin said this offset occurs, so no, he cannot show that temps lead CO2 by this amount, or even up to a few hundred years. However, in the link I provided, which displays the data in an actually intelligent way, given the context, there is ALSO no leading of temps by CO2, however, the data DO show that temps LAG CO2, by several thousand years, an actual length on these scales of a few mm. The lag is most obvious at the troughs, particularly at around 450 kyr no, but also at the peak at around 700kyr bp. Maybe you did learn something in your fraud husband's fake classes on how to access conspiracy blog sites, such as how to be a scientifically and numerically illiterate fool, or how to lie about colleagues, or attempt to slander actually qualified researchers, but you certainly didn't learn anything useful nor functional. Its fookin funny, neither of you two utterly useless asshats have even bothered to look at the data you yourselves provided, neither of you have attempted to do anything more than wave your pudgy little fingers at it, neither of you have bothered to do even the most superficial quantification of the data, beyond your pathetic whining, foot stomping and tantruming about it - hilariously, you've not even bothered to take a ruler to it, to check correlation simply. Neither of you have accessed the link I gave you which ABSOLUTELY DOES do all those things. And the inane, pathetic and stupifyingly useless pair of you carry on this embarrassingly pathetic charade of competence, without doing the slightest thing that would be reasonably expected from someone with a fraction of the qualifications that you mental pygmies claim to have You're an embarrassment to yourselves, to the people you claim to be friends with, the institutions you claim you work for, your country and your poor, poor family who have to deal with your incompetent, insane unhinged, idiotic conspiracy ranting. (Edited by bonzono) Sir Loin: You did contradict yourself Bozo or were you just lying again? You claim this particular graph can't be applied to my argument but you use it for exactly that, and it still supports my hypothesis even when you manipulate it. I realise you're become desperate here but you really shouldn't lie so blatantly Sir Loin: It is NOT NECESSARY to post links, I posted the basics my own hypothesis which involve critically examining the data available and applying a reasonably thorough knowledge of atmospherics to construct an alternative argument for the causes of climate change. Bozo YOU lack a good understanding of the physics involved in atmospheric processes yet you feel qualified to vilify my hypothesis with half truths, misquotes and outright lies. I would've appreciated some constructive criticism but you're unable. bonzono: Dimnulb, read my reply to Asia. You both made the exact same stupidi mistake. I mean, I'd expect someone who pretends they're a scientist to read the posts, understand why they've provided inadequate data and a complete lack of defensible comment.... But, you don't. As a rebut to your last post. You're wrong. The available data you provided does not lead to that conclusion. It cannot, the graphs are insufficient The graphs I provided, on the other hand, which are a different format ARE adequate to check your conclusion, and ... The do not support it. Sorry. You were wrong before, and you're wrong now You will refuse to check the links I gave you, and that is why you will continue to push the incorrect conclusion. | Science Chat Room 4 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
Wireclub is a social network that is all about chat and conversations. Discover endless topics with interesting people and chat rooms!
Copyright © 2005-2024 Wireclub Media Inc.