J
Jon Kirwan
Guest
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:08:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.
flaws. I do, you don't.
Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.
Jon
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
When you must hide in a dark corner of superstition and call ISI JCROn Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?
Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.
Jon
So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.
This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.
Data from the Hadley Centre:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?
I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?
But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.
Jon
It is a religion with you
If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.
But that's _your_ problem, not time. You are just projecting your ownIf you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.
flaws. I do, you don't.
Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.
Jon