Why is the climate changing. (Page 332)

Sir Loin: Bozo google the Dunning Kruger effect. It's directly applicable to you.

bonzono: Apparently you've forgotten that you've been accessing conspiracy blogs and are a habitual liar about not just other scientists, but also people you claim wete you colleagues.

So again, explain to me how someone who refers to conspiracy blogs for science input, and lies about their colleagues can regard thems ves as a qualified scientist?

bonzono: What you are loin, so constantly wrong, so confused, so fraudulent, so incompetent and so clueless..is truly bewildering, loin.

"Dunning Kruger effect." applies to people who refer to conspiracy blogs for information, and think it's valid. It applies to people who constantly conflate terms relevant to the field they claim experience in.

All of those lion, you are completely guilty of doing.

bonzono: The fact remainswhat you claim validate your hypothesis, most certainly does not. More so because you literally simply point at some data and have a tantrum "lllooookk, why don't your respect meeeeee????"

NASA explicitly reject your unsubstantiated claims.
As do journals around the world who have a level of honesty, integrity when it comes to publication of scientific content.

They know, loin, that 'lloook, I haz expereyunce' does not a valid scientific claim make ,


They also need references that are not conspiracy blogs, they also need quantitative analyyprocing the conclusion follows from the data. Not finger pointing, not plastic rulers on the screen. Actual analysis.


Oh, and they need you to understand the meanings of the terms you use - no more mixing up, or misunderstanding scientific term, little lunatic loin!

Sir Loin: Wrong on every point Bozo

bonzono: Stomping your foot and whining does not make it wrong hun.


And it's an absolute provable that NASA reject your hypothesi that solar activity has anything to do with climate change.


Or did you want to go round this stupid loop again, because you idiotically think 'solar activity' means the sun is hot?

Sir Loin: Ummmm news flash for you Bozo. The. Sun is hot

bonzono: and you believe that's what 'solar activity' means.
because you've never bothered to look up WHAT that means when scientists use that term.

again, another demonstration of your ... extreme.. incompetence and arrogance.

Sir Loin: Solar activity includes everything that happens on the sun; CMEs, sunspots, solar winds and most of all nuclear fusion

bonzono: Qualified scientist disagree with you.
As you'd know if you knew how to do the slightest bit of research and find out the meanings of the.words you use.

Again, just another manifesation f your bloated, but weak ego, and your ignorance

Sir Loin: Crap, utter crap. Do you even know what the sun is?

bonzono: I've already cut pasted the scientific meaning of 'solar activity '
You've been round this loop before, you've been informed, you know how to find out for yourself.

you now continue on your agenda of wilful mistruth and conspiracy nonsense.

That you continue to lie, even after having been shown the actual meaning, used by qualified researchers around the world is consistent with your pathetic wounded ...and utterly self-imposed, drivelling idiocy.

Go look up the meaning of the term, and stop behaving like such a useless, entitled and stupid child.

Sir Loin: Once again evidence you don't know how to read Bozo. The scientific definition of solar activity is "Includes" the activities you mention Not that it consists entirely of them. Of course it consists of it's main constituent; nuclear fusion. This requires no more mention than a hydrologist stating that water is wet.
Try thinking for yourself occasionally instead of merely cut/pasting real scientists words. Your over-reliance on your computer finding answers for you has stifled your ability to use your brain.

bonzono: Wrong.

I've already cut and pasted the meaning of the terms used by scientists a number of times . It doe not 'include' fusion whatsoever.
It refers ONLY to magnetic related phenomena. NOT fusion



Re defining terms with an existing meaning because you're too stupid and lazy to educate yourself isn't 'thinking for yourself' dumbass, it's being stupid and lazy.

Jesus Christ you're really a special kind of incompetent. Never before have I come across anyone over the age of 12 who is quite to ignorant, egotistical and stupid.

Sir Loin: Fusion doesn't need mentioning because it's common knowledge. Magnetic phenomena are extras. Just what the hell do you imagine causes the magnetism but fusion?

bonzono: lol.. so utterly ignorant.
you're a child, loin, an absolute child.

just.. go look it up. there isn't a single description of the term 'solar activity' that includes fusion.
they ALL refer to magnetic phenomenon.

and it looks like you'll have to look up what fusion is too, if you're so stupid you think it has anything to do with magnetic properties.

what a monumentally ignorant douche.

Sir Loin: There is no point continuing this because you are totally ignorant of the topic and just want to hurl insults. You're an abusive ignorant bitch, nothing more than an unpleasant troll

bonzono: oh god, he STILL wont bother to find out the meanings of the terms he uses..
just stomps his old man foot on the ground, pouts an old man pout, and shakes his old man fist at the sky..


loin, stop being an idiotc stubborn, arrogant old man and just go look up the meanings of the words.

That you continually refuse to educate yourself is a classic stereotype of your generation - entitled boomers like you who insist they know better than anyone else. Fortunately, people like you are thin on the ground, you're just loud and obnoxious.

you, loin, and people like you are what's poisoned humanity, the planet will be vastly better off without you and your generation.

bonzono: Let's pull your latest, off topic brainfart on a different forum, to here.
Here is what you said:
Topic: Politics


"This is probably why a colleague from my teaching has requested to co-author a paper with me on climate change and ocean currents. He's very interested in my research on AMOC and wants to add a quantum physics perspective."



putting aside for a moment you dont know the difference between quantum mechanics and quantum physics - or in fact, even understand the slightest aspect of any of it, do explain how you think 'a quantum physics perspective' applies to 'research' on AMOC.


I'm going to assume you're going to move on from making an idiot of yourself about 'solar activity', simply because you dont know what is meant by 'solar activity', and you'll now make a fool of yourself in the context of 'quantum physics' - even though you .. don't know what it is either.

to iterate:
do explain how you think 'a quantum physics perspective' applies to 'research' on AMOC.
I genuinely don't know.....

...but i also know you don't either

Sir Loin: Yes you're right I only studied quantum mechanics in first year chemistry and have never done quantum physics so I'll leave that to my colleague

bonzono: Oh. By 'study' quantum mechanics, you mean you learned what a 'p'and 's' orbital is...not, actually, how to use Schrodinger's equatin so solve, for example, the energy levels for a trapped electron.....
So you learned letters of the alphabet. Good for you.
Which also means you have no idea if there even is a difference between 'quantuk mechanics' and 'quantum physics' at all. You were just trying to appear knowledgeable and petulant.

So, I asked earlier, with no answer from you - does this colleague know you draw on conspiracy sites for information and data?
Probably not. Will you tell him?
Probably not. Why? Well, cos... You know. That ain't how ya actually science.
You moronic muppet.

Sir Loin: But I don't. I accessed some valid data which had been posted on that site, which is only a conspiracy website because you say it is Bozo. However if Bozo says something, we all know it is most likely bullshit.
The paper I looked at was correctly referenced and topical so just STFU about it, you're getting tedious. It's time you grew up a little Bozo

bonzono: Lol. Erm
...
What you linked me to was an article, claiming nasa said something which they didn't say. Nowhere in the article was NASA actually saying anything like it. These was not single reference in it to any NASA researcher saying anything remotely similar to what they were claiming. Feel free to locate one and prove me wrong.

It's a conspiracy site because of its content. You don't have to work hard to find reviews of that site online - as I already proved to you., you don't have to work hard to locate the anticancer, anti science nonsense you and you Trump loving, gun totin motions are famous for.

You clearly didn't even read the conspiracy article you referred me to, or if you did, you completely misunderstood every aspect of it. More than happy to go through it for you: better yet, YOU can copy the paragraph where you claim they're doing what the article headline claims it is... Good luck with that. .

Buuuuut, you don't answer my question, little lunatic loin: are you going to submit your article to peer review? Of COUT you are!! And, if you have a competent author on it -absolutely NOT you, it might even get through, and you'll have to concede peer review is critical...

Sir Loin: Oh Bozo, just learn to read. There's nothing wrong with the words I use, you've merely googled them and read the phenomena that are additional to what is the main one.
I mean you actually think nuclear fusion doesn't take place on the sun! How ignorant can you get?
You use arguments that are common amongst AGW adherants, totally irrelevant and asinine. You're obviously competent at googling but what you need to do is study how the atmosphere actually works. You can only do this by working in the field for a few years. Until then you're vastly underqualified to have this discussion.

bonzono: Huh?
We're talking about your penchant for referencing an articles in an anti science, anti vaxxer conspiracy blog, when you've not even read the article you've referred to.

You have so many mistakes loin, even you can't keep track of them? Lucky for you, I've kept a list.

A tip: when responding to a comment, read the comment you're responding to first.

The context for this entire page is how much your supposed ci author is aware of your penchant for referencubg conspiracy blogs, and not even reading the article you're referring to : lmao:


We can talk about your failure to learn the actual meaning of 'solar activity ' another time

Suffice to say, you certainly do come across as a bumbling, forgetful old man, desperate to stay afloat in a world that is rapidly becoming more and more unfamiliar....