You can't even explain wind or clouds so why do I have to fear loosing money on the electric theory.
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
What myth? I've never experienced a warmer weather in my lifetime during December/January months of this year. Are you disputing the cause of Global Warming or Global Warming altogether ? What myth was disproven?
What does that have to do with anything. I have never experienced a colder snowier winter than I did last year. Is that a sign of global cooling?
What are you talking about? Alberta had a very mild winter last year ... In fact pine beetles were able to flourish and become such a problem because of the milder winter.
This year :
Where is all the snow? Alberta was the warmest spot in Canada on Christmas Day, hitting a high of 12.5 C
This year :
Where is all the snow? Alberta was the warmest spot in Canada on Christmas Day, hitting a high of 12.5 C
Yep, but the thing is there are scientists on every end of an issue and it is through the process of acquiring ALL the available viewpoints and data that we can reach all the available facts. And THAT gives us the truth in the issues. It's how we are able to determine what mistakes Darwin, for instance, made in the theory of evolution. Science is a process of determining what is fact from fiction and assembling the fact into a cohesive, concise view of our universe and the stuff in it.
Bullshyte. Science is a tool, not a belief. Just because some people use the tool for reasons other than describing our universe to us, does not make it a religion. A tool is just a tool. Same for religion.
lmao Tinfoil hat is sitting square on your head.
That's not a gamble, it's pretty much a sure thing. For instance, the reason why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface is because spicules that are millions of degrees in temperature shooting out from the sun's core heat it up. And what do Scott et al postulate? Why, they don't even have an explanation for the corona being so hot.
"Electric Universe" theory(?) says:
"1.we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
2.that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
3.the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
4.periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
5.the solar wind is an effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field."
1. Hell's bells, I know that we study the neutrinos coming from the sun. There's a neutrino collector in a mine in ON that does just that.
The "Electric Universe" view on neutrinos? We haven't found any neutrinos.
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Part 1 - Canada Science and Technology Museum
2. Observational constraints, conceptual difficulties and numerical limitations have all concurred to prevent a DETAILED understanding of the supergranulation phenomenon so far. It has nothing to do with convection actually being impossible, as "Electric Universe" says.
3. The inverse square law only applies to radiant energy in a vacuum. Planets have atmospheres and so does the sun.
5. Solar winds contain BOTH positively charged and negatively charged ions. An "electric" sun would be positively charged and negative ions would stick to it like shyte on a$$wipe, but they don't.
"Electric universe" theory(?) is based upon mid '70s research. Catch up, dim rodent.
Balls. It's extremely likely that you simply dismissed any explanation he might have given, like you do with other provable facts.
lol Exactly.
As I have pointed out many times before, local weather conditions are not indicative of global climate.
Maybe you're right. That must have been cocaine that was piled 12' high in town and caused a delay in my golf season.
If you can find the statistics for the winter of 1958, check them out- you might be surprised.
Environment Canada has historical climate data, but it's hard to know which station to use, gore doesn't list where he's from. He did mention Alberta, are you thinking of Alberta's 1958 winter, or BC's?
Anyways, comparing two winters is pretty much meaningless in a discussion of climate. Cimate is an average weather over a thirty year interval.
The armadillo's are coming to a store near you soon.. "The nine-banded armadillo has expanded its range northward into the United States over the last 150 years. Prior to about 1850, the nine-banded armadillo was not found north of the Rio Grande river. The sudden and extremely rapid armadillo colonization of the southern United States has puzzled quite a few biologists. The degree of range expansion per year is nearly ten times faster than the average rate expected for a mammal. Sightings of the animals farther north are reported every year, prompting many people to wonder just how far north the armadillo will go."
https://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/expansion.html
B.C. but if B.C. is very mild (or very cold) AB is likely similar. We are having an unbelievably mild winter here now, no snow on the ground anywhere around and daytime temps some days close to 10C.
There's a large softball field next door to the apartment complex where I live. The field is full of green grass! This is the first time in my 25 years of living in Gopherland that we had grass this late in the Winter season. Temperature was 54F but felt like it was over 60F.
Farmers were harvesting cabbage in January, here in PEI. Very late, conditions were good.
Absolutely, but if you're comparing temperatures from one year to another, then ideally you would want to be comparing macintosh to macintosh, not macintosh to red delicious.
It's obvious that you are completely ignorant of Les? that was easy
Anything is possible, but if you are right he's a great imposter and doesn't need either your or my approval. I generally take 90% of people at face value, and the A$$holes I can generally spot pretty fast as one or two of them on here know full well. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Les is no dummy, but the electrical basis of the universe and life is proven fact by the very same scientific method advocated right here in these threads by the well known protectors of error and revenue streams.
"It ain't over until it's over". E= mc squared, was also supposedly scientifically proven and is now, 100 years later is being brought into doubt!