Reply With Quote
That's not the point at all now is it.
I specifically indicated in the OP that I hadn't verified it yet.
That's not the point at all now is it.
I specifically indicated in the OP that I hadn't verified it yet.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-18-2013 at 11:46 PM.
That didn't stop you from criticizing the points made by people who actually did read the article. And you should have verified the article if you were going to post it.
This is just another instance of Wild Cobra getting mad at others for making fun of his stupidity.
Quite the contrary. I am laughing because you all are making fun of me out of your ignorance. Plus, you are being an ignorant ass by not reading it and following what occurred.
Fuzzy for example, quoted a presentation from a speaker at the event. Not the conclusion of the event. The first sentence I quoted in the OP was from what a NASA speaker said at the event. Not any conclusion of the event. This event had several voices across the board, so no one voice should be considered the "conclusion" like fuzzy would have you believe.
what else is new?
God, youre a moron. As I said that entire do ent did not even have the word Hansen in it nor was he present. At no point in the entire log was a statement saying someone was prevented from studying solar effects. As has been said the supposed statement was not sourced. It's just your random site that claims that took place and that is corroborated nowhere.
Further other parts to the unsourced article cited Wirth. I quote Wirth stating the opposite of what was claimed.
You know when everyone is mocking you then perhaps it's you and not us, eh?
Polerack yourself. And then change the OP stating that the article was misleading and unsourced therefor should be disregarded. Otherwise you are just being your biased dumbass self. I expect the latter to happen.
Who were you arguing against other than the straw man you built?
Where did I mention Hansen in reference to this article?
Where did I indicate someone was trying to prevent solar studies?
You posted the article. If you cannot defend those things then you are agreeing that the article is full of . As such you should remove it and apologize for posting something without knowing wtf it contains.
Are you trolling me with your stupidity or what? It's not hard to fathom.
You are the one being stupid about it. I have always said that solar forcing has more impact than it is given credit for. Nothing is changed. I'm not apologizing for your stupidity. It is what it is. I posted the article, reminded everyone I have been saying the sun has more impact than given credit for, and even stated I did not verify the source for the article yet.
You, Fuzzy, should be apologizing for your stupidity over this matter.
Who cares if you said that. The articles basis for saying that are incorrect. So you found an article that came to the conclusion that you wanted but you don't care whether or not it was accurate in the manner that it comes to that conclusion. That is intellectually dishonest.
Ideology and confirmation bias with more than a touch of stupidity is the WC way.
Liar.
I was not being dishonest. I will admit the article did not provide what I thought it would, but the silly is on you. You keep barking like an ankle biter, that is too stupid to know when to stop.
So if you agree that the article does not say what you thought it said then why have you not edited the OP? This is the first time you have admitted that the article was completely full of and misleading so fix it. If you leave it as it is now you are misleading people. It's as simple as that.
There was no NASA U-turn or admission of bias. You still have your name on something saying it is as so. This is not hard to figure out. Your name is on the lie. Own up to it and fix the damn thing.
Why should I? it's already out there.
Think what you want. I don't care what you think.
It only misleads feeble minded people like you. I'm not editing it.
I agree.
Keep dreaming...
So then you are willfully leaving up information that you know to be wrong.
I was never mislead. You were the one that didn't realize that it was wrong and posted it in the first place. As you admit those that were mislead by it are feebleminded. You were fooled by it. Can you figure out the logical conclusion of that?
Is it really misleading? There are several solar studies by NASA that confirm the sun has a greater effect on global warming than previously thought. Just search the NASA site.
As for you bringing Hansen into your assumption, he is not the only NASA voice.
The article accuses of bias and that such studies don't exist. It's in the el and clearly a ing lie. You even admit this. You are obviously satisfied with supporting a lie. It's things like this that make me think you would do the same for any tyrant that you were partisan for.
There is no 'new' revelation about solar availability. It was big around 2008 and the Heartland Ins utes of the world were all over it. I have a friend that was working as an aide for a GOP senator at the time and he used to send me the briefs they would get. This was stuff was from astrophysicists, legitimate, and very compelling. The thing is though that when they applied the new data to the models it didn't change all that much and the change still didn't account for the warming we receive.
This is because this is how science works. The astrophysicists and the climate guys --both work at the same ing place-- got together and figured it out. You notice it's not astrophysicists that are complaining about how solar analysis is not given proper treatment?
You like to dumb things down to black bodies or vision of coke cans. They and pretty much most everyone else works at a higher level.
I guess you don't know about the new satellite up there.
Point to me the part in the article that discusses the 'new satellite.' Just because you googled up some more does not mitigate that this article is a misleading piece of that does not demonstrate bias. You are enabling a lie for your partisan purposes. Wonder how far you would go with that for someone you decided to follow.
The article doesn't mention it. Thing with all the solar and earth sensing satellites up there is a thing called instrument drift. Even the initial calibration doesn't hold once launched. The data we see on charts from satellites drifts, at unknown levels. The drift is just educated guesswork. I forget which satellite instrument it is by acronym, I think it is TIM, or maybe it's TMI. Anyway, NASA has determined it is the most successful with the least instrument drift. They are about to launch an improved version of it.
Correction...
The new TIM was launched in March 2011.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-19-2013 at 09:20 PM.
Click on the image for a good link about TIM (Total Irradiance Monitoring.)
I also suggest reading the top two PDF do ents in the bottom of this link:
GISS/NASA: Glory TIM Science
I've been reading quite a bit of the linked material and searching these peoples work out today. Please note that it is only a presentation summary of the actual event. I have read some very good stuff.The article, WC, that you couldn't be bothered to source, by the way.
Effectively, all theses scientists are saying how little we actually know about the suns influence on our climate, and that more effort needs to be made. Nearly every one acknowledges one or more solar factors in their studies that either could, or do, influence climate by more than previously thought.
The article was about NASA bias towards solar variability.
Now you are showing me NASA figures as proof of the suns impact and how they are working on refining their model. Which is going to be?
Bias or that their models consider it and they are trying to improve them?
That is the subject of the article. I am not going after your red herring. Quite frankly I am not going to give your Dr EZ bake science anything better than a
Wow...
What asinine correlations you bring to a discussion.
Have any proper questions? Anything not already covered?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
