sunsettommy Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) Watts Up With That? All Quiet Alert “All Quiet Alert†- That sounds like an oxymoron, and maybe it is, but the sun is extremely quiet right now, so much in fact that the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium has issued an “All quiet alert†on October 5th. Since then, the sunspot number has remained at zero. Here is what the sun looks like now: Daily Sun: 15 Oct 07 (Go to the link for the photo.The insert image button here is worthless.) The sun is blank–no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI LINK Edited October 21, 2007 by sunsettommy Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
ScottSA Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 CNN did a most ridiculous "expose" last night...I just about gagged. It was supposed to be about "keeping people honest," and in particular keeping Gore and his agitprop honest, and the parts that I saw before I turned it off was a ridiculous slathering and grovelling at his feet. Of course they were showing great dismay at polls showing the the "ignorance" of the public for not buying into this idiocy, despite "overwhelming scientific concensus" (that no reasonable scientist will actually admit to consenting to without reservations) that man is at the root of it. Whatever happened to 'news'...the reporting of it as opposed to the formulation of it? It's ridiculous that we have these semi-educated buffoons parroting away when very few of them have the slightest idea even roughly what they're talking about. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 It's ridiculous that we have these semi-educated buffoons parroting away when very few of them have the slightest idea even roughly what they're talking about. LOL! My thoughts exactly as I read your post... Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Michael Hardner Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 Whatever happened to 'news'...the reporting of it as opposed to the formulation of it? It's ridiculous that we have these semi-educated buffoons parroting away when very few of them have the slightest idea even roughly what they're talking about. Scott, Once again you are correct. (Your streak remains intact.) My solution is for us to allow 'news' to continue it's slide towards celebrity gossip. At this rate, politics, science and knowledge in general will have disappeared from 'news' in twenty years. Intelligent people will have to look hard for fact in order to form opinions, and the soft-minded will drop out of the electoral process entirely, not being able to understand what it is all for. We will all be better off. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
sunsettommy Posted October 21, 2007 Author Report Posted October 21, 2007 ................. okay, How about getting back on topic? I posted this to expose a significant solar event.Something very rare and possibly with long range significant implications. Already NASA's solar cycle prediction is way off the mark. There is a growing belief that we may be entering a significal reduction in the next 2 solar cycles of sunspot numbers.Implying that a COOLING trend is on the way. Already we have known that there has been no warming trend since 1998.That is why it is worriesome when the next solar cycle is late in beginning. Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
ScottSA Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 There is a growing belief that we may be entering a significal reduction in the next 2 solar cycles of sunspot numbers.Implying that a COOLING trend is on the way. Damn, I knew GW was too good to last. And here I was going to import some slaves for the coming banana plantations outside Winnipeg... Quote
jazzer Posted October 21, 2007 Report Posted October 21, 2007 Of course they were showing great dismay at polls showing the the "ignorance" of the public for not buying into this idiocy, despite "overwhelming scientific concensus" (that no reasonable scientist will actually admit to consenting to without reservations) that man is at the root of it. And yet you seem to ignore the hundreds of scientists and climatologists who attended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 to confirm man is indeed at the root of climate change now and in the future (barring any radical change in our CO2 emissions. link Quote
sunsettommy Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 And yet you seem to ignore the hundreds of scientists and climatologists who attended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 to confirm man is indeed at the root of climate change now and in the future (barring any radical change in our CO2 emissions. link You really expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a post.That ask us to read an entire report to bolster your unwritten point? Get real! We all know man has promoted some warming throught various ways.But.............. How about getting back to the posted article? Do YOU have any comments about the possible implications of a much less active next 2 solar cycles? Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
jazzer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) You really expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a post.That ask us to read an entire report to bolster your unwritten point?Get real! We all know man has promoted some warming throught various ways.But.............. How about getting back to the posted article? Do YOU have any comments about the possible implications of a much less active next 2 solar cycles? This can't be a very serious topic for you if you're unwilling to read a bit of information. Sorry for having provided the proof. Edited October 22, 2007 by jazzer Quote
jazzer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 Do YOU have any comments about the possible implications of a much less active next 2 solar cycles? I was responding to a comment previously made. Quote
ScottSA Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 This can't be a very serious topic for you if you're unwilling to read a bit of information. Sorry for having provided the proof. You're unwilling to even look at his question, so I daresay you're throwing stones in a glass house. Quote
jazzer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 You're unwilling to even look at his question, so I daresay you're throwing stones in a glass house. You're the one who went off on a hate Gore tangent. Quote
sunsettommy Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 jazzer: This can't be a very serious topic for you if you're unwilling to read a bit of information. Sorry for having provided the proof. This fool was replying to what I wrote: You really expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a post.That ask us to read an entire report to bolster your unwritten point?Get real! We all know man has promoted some warming throught various ways.But.............. How about getting back to the posted article? Do YOU have any comments about the possible implications of a much less active next 2 solar cycles? my emphasisLOL, I read this a while ago.It is unimpressive stuff. What "proof" are you talking about,and what does it have to do with the threads topic? To make it real simple for you here is why I am calling you a fool. The summary report you gave us a link to is EIGHTEEN PAGES LONG! You did not specify anything in particular in the link for us to think and reply about .You did not make a "point" of anything. The report is mostly UNVERIFIED! It is full of FUTURE PROJECTIONS. Meaning this it is NOT a valid science report. Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
sunsettommy Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 Jazzer when you will start getting in the topic? Do YOU have any comments about the possible implications of a much less active next 2 solar cycles? Maybe by answering my question you have already passed on once. Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
jazzer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 jazzer:This fool was replying to what I wrote: To make it real simple for you here is why I am calling you a fool. You lost credibilty at that point. Insults only show ignorance. Quote
sunsettommy Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 That would be a "no". I agree. It is obvious that he is talking out of his hat. He refuses to get back on topic. He refuses to understand my complaint about his illigitimate use of the link and not direct us to something in it that would support what ever he wanted us to think about.He still has not clarified on why he wanted us to read an 18 page report. He refused to answer my question TWICE now. Now he is whining on why I correctly called him a fool.I explained to him why I called him one and he does not even dispute it. He is an even greater fool than I thought. Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
sunsettommy Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) You lost credibilty at that point. Insults only show ignorance. How did I lose credibility when I asked YOU a specific ON TOPIC question (that YOU have so far ignored)? Explained why you asking people to read an 18 page PGF filled with charts and numbers and political jargon.Without any particular direction from you to consider in reading it.You never asked us what to look for in it. You have not been on topic and resisted MY invitation in getting yourself back on topic. Go ahead and make my day and run like a little troll you are to Charles Anthony and cry about me. You are a fool. Edited October 22, 2007 by sunsettommy Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
sunsettommy Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 You lost credibilty at that point. Insults only show ignorance. Your non answer to my on topic question and refusal to get/stay on topic reveals a budding troll. Quote Visit GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
kengs333 Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 CNN did a most ridiculous "expose" last night...I just about gagged. It was supposed to be about "keeping people honest," and in particular keeping Gore and his agitprop honest, and the parts that I saw before I turned it off was a ridiculous slathering and grovelling at his feet. Of course they were showing great dismay at polls showing the the "ignorance" of the public for not buying into this idiocy, despite "overwhelming scientific concensus" (that no reasonable scientist will actually admit to consenting to without reservations) that man is at the root of it. Whatever happened to 'news'...the reporting of it as opposed to the formulation of it? It's ridiculous that we have these semi-educated buffoons parroting away when very few of them have the slightest idea even roughly what they're talking about. Actually, most climatologists do agree that man is having an impact on the environment. The best that the detractors can muster is mathematicians like Bjorn Lomborg and scientists funded by the oil and gas industry and dubious special interest groups secretly backed by corporations. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.