Search results

are you speaking to the original paper you linked to? If so, it absolutely doesn't address your claims concerning sunspot influence on glacier fluctuations... for the most immediate period of warming in question. Of course, correlation between sunspots and glacier fluctuations exist in the...

getting your attention is to showcase you're just another denier who refuses to engage in real meaningful discussion/debate... who can't speak to any actual issue related to GW/AGW/CC... or policy extensions of same.

I don't recall the specific paper you're speaking to... enlighten me? More pointedly, you trot out these fringe plays as if they hold weight/substance/dominance in the real world. Your pet theories are exactly that... your pet theories.

no - none to-date... no matter how hard you try to make shyte up! no - there is no "global cooling"... no matter how hard your denier-self keeps insisting there is.

in the context of your original post that set this most immediate discussion forward... already asked and answered; again:

you know... the one's in the graphic you tried to flog as being "mainstream scientific findings"... those ones! Of course, you're wildly distracting from that now since I chose to single out one of your misconceptions... "the 70s Global Cooling meme". within the exchange in question, I didn't...

your first linked paper blew up on you with a direct attribution to atmospheric warming... from there you chose to link to an earlier paper (from the same authors, no less), thinking it gave you "sunspot cover". Unfortunately, for you, that paper also blew-up on your claim. Now, if you persist...

you still smarting from your big-time glacier melting blow-up... you know, where your sources blew-up on you, real good! a linked paper, quotation from it... and a related graphic! And, preceding that, a high-level assessment on the state of mainstream media limitations in properly conveying...

ah yes... your fav go-to! It's where you guys perpetually play out your preconceived notions... which, apparently, no one can actually question/challenge... cause "it's all been discussed to death"... says you! :mrgreen:

whaaa! "Gish Gallop"!!! I spoke a bit about the limitations of mainstream media and I singled out one of the items on the graphic in question. Ya baby, that there is some big-time "Gish Gallop" :mrgreen: I guess it's for you to play that silly-card then actually address my reply, hey!

it's clear you, taxi and daBear have absolutely no interest in conversing on the GW/AGW/CC subject... because you can't; you haven't the basic wherewithal to do so. Instead, we get you chuckleheads forever dropping into threads and recycling your nothingness! Clearly, you don't like your lil'...

I respectively replied to your prior post... are you choosing to ignore my reply as an instance of your discomfort?

it's a pretty basic graph... even you should be capable of understanding it! As a meta-study (of publications) in that relevant period, the graphic visualizes the number of respective papers that held cooling, neutral and warming positions..... it presents a visual to bust the "70s Global...

you declaring it meaningless... is meaningless! Care to showcase your chops and state why you "declare it meaningless"?

they were/are not mainstream scientific positions/findings. Surely, media projection isn't your measure of "mainstream science"... is it? The sorry state of media coverage of science is a reflection of the ever-diminishing reliance on things like news agencies that simply host articles for broad...

you had a kick at extent... now area? What's the difference between extent and area? or..... changes in Arctic Sea ice area, thickness, and volume: Sea Ice Thickness Comparison: 1979 vs 2013 - YouTubeThis animation compares the difference in the area, volume and depth of the average...

what hollow promises made by respectable scientists? Media types??? If you're railing on how the media covers climate change... covers science... that's a whole different discussion, because that one plays both ways and I suggest there's been quite the imbalance by media attempting to provide...

oh my! Haven't you noticed the authors are Chinese who belong to an institution of the Chinese state,... given your plethora of spew against the Chinese in recent weeks, how do you suddenly reconcile your hypocrisy? :lol: of course, there's a brazillion papers on sunspot activity/solar...

how did that skeptic paper make it through? No skeptic papers are ever pubished..... uhhhh, except when they are. Hey Locutus, tell me you're not one of these guys who lives and dies based on the findings a single paper. Perhaps you should hold the parade and wait for a lil' ole Peer Response...

oh no Locutus... you've been burned with yet another piece of your go-to-guy Goddard's purposeful misinformation! And look at all the claimed "skeptics" that just accepted your post, lock-step! Skeptics you claim to be, hey..... not so much, hey guys! :lol: your/Goddard's linked graphic is one...