Global Warming

[next to nothing]

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on ... o2.svg.png

[garyb]

and that proves?

what are the x-y scales?

i already gave links to other graphs.

sir, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. it is a FACT. the sun has been at it's most active in quite some time. 1-8000years to be exact.
just a google of "sun more active" brings these right off the top:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4321.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4326
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4313
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 221144.htm
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrations ... e20041028/
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm

you can't look at a few hundred years of activity and make ANY proper statistical conclusions about a system that has thousand and ten thousand year cycles. DUH!!! deny this and be willfully stupid and deserving of the culling to come.

here's another picture for you since you like graphs...

[next to nothing]

post a bigger version so i can see the text?

[next to nothing]

after i wrote the last post and saw that undersized graph i thought i should read through your links. as a funny coincidence i started with your bottom link, and hey, as an even madder coincidence i read the last sentence first:

" This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth."

again, Gary, SOURCES!

yet another edit: conclusion of article:
" Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

"

so this proves what

[garyb]

you know, what's really funny about sheeple is that they're very selective about what they read, if they read at all. upon it's founding, the Club of Rome and Bilderbergers both wrote policy papers describing how the public's fear of disaster could be used to implement global government using the threat of weather. and that a global tax run from that fear could be used to fund it, just like the PNAC(written by Cheney, Baker, Wolfowitz and other criminals) document called for "a pearl harbor event" to galvanize the american population and justify an invasion of the middle east.

SHEEP ARE TOO STUPID TO READ THE POLICY PAPERS. THEN THEY ARE SURPRISED BY AND BELIEVING OF, THE MOST CYNICAL LIES IMAGINABLE, BECAUSE THEY TRUST THE SHEPHERD WHOSE PLANS FOR THEM INCLUDE SHEARING AND COOKING...

[next to nothing]

blablablablablablabla.

You provided a link, claiming it would enlighten me on how the solar activity is the "main factor" behind global warming.

Read the conclusion of the article man. and if you still consider me to be a selective, king-following sheep, well hey, you guided me to the article.

[garyb]

after i wrote the last post and saw that undersized graph i thought i should read through your links. as a funny coincidence i started with your bottom link, and hey, as an even madder coincidence i read the last sentence first:

" This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth."

again, Gary, SOURCES!

yet another edit: conclusion of article:
" Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

"

so this proves what

this proves you'll find the evidence that you're looking for and be happy. you won't challenge sources really, and you won't question "officials", even if they make conflicting claims. as i said, this was just a quick googling , these are not my favorite sites or anything, they are just site that show the sun is more active than it's been in thousands of years, which was the immediate point. on one hand, the sun is more active and thuis seemed to make a big difference in the past, but for some reason, it's a small influence now. the other planets in the solar system are heating in the same dramatic fashion as the earth, but it's unrelated. what a big steaming pile. i can STILL think for myself.

look piddi, i'm not going to change the world or make a huge difference by typing on a Scope message board's off topic pages. i'm not going to lay it all out wrapped in a nice bow, that would take too much typing and HARD CORE research, not just some quotes from webpages. still, i gotta be amazed by how little actual evidence(which seems to be quite a bit by some people's estimation, but not by most scientists, although it's more than enough for politicians who want to tax the hell out of everyone) it takes for people to be rabidly attached to the idea.

still with strawmen.

[garyb]

blablablablablablabla.

You provided a link, claiming it would enlighten me on how the solar activity is the "main factor" behind global warming.

Read the conclusion of the article man. and if you still consider me to be a selective, king-following sheep, well hey, you guided me to the article.

no Sir, i gave you links which showed the sun was more active than usual. i don't give a flying F$%%^ about the article's conclusions, i can come to a conclusion myself just fine. i would NEVER come to a conclusion from reading a pop science article. the reason i posted those links was because you posted a graph that claimeed that sunspot activity was normal, while CO2 and temperature were skyrocketing. actual analysis shows that CO2 is slightly up and temps are slightly up(the hottest decade in the last 100 years was still the 1940s), but sunspot activity and sun activity in general are way up and that the entire solar system is heating.

there's a whole lot of hysteria with this warming thing, just like blaming these fires where i live on the big bad scary monster, when half were arson, and all were in places that burn EVERY year to some degree or another.

[next to nothing]

"this proves you'll find the evidence that you're looking for and be happy."

- no, it proves the article you provided had a different conclusion than what you hoped for. and i didnt even have to look for it, you provided the link, but didnt even care to read it. now hows that for "finding what youre looking for" and "challenging sources"?

"You won't challenge sources really"
-well atleast i got the conclusion right, and i didnt claim that the kosovo war started with a UN invasion in december 2000.

"and you won't question "officials", even if they make conflicting claims."
-most rediculus claim i ever heard.

"but for some reason, it's a small influence now."
-weird, as it is "the main engine" according to some. you are probably reffering to the latest 20 years, where temperature and CO2% has risen in close paralell?

"i can STILL think for myself. "
- Thankfully there are more of us.

"look piddi, i'm not going to change the world or make a huge difference by typing on a Scope message board's off topic pages."

-thanks for realising

"still, i gotta be amazed by how little actual evidence(which seems to be quite a bit by some people's estimation, but not by most scientists, although it's more than enough for politicians who want to tax the hell out of everyone) "

Well, how is this for "little evidence":
1.You are claiming UN started the Kosovo war, indirectly proving they went in before nato with a hillarious attempt to rewrite history.(challenge sources? Tough luck. Read up.

2.Please compare these two sentences:
"the MAIN engine is SOLAR activity. FACT."
"on one hand, the sun is more active and thuis seemed to make a big difference in the past, but for some reason, it's a small influence now. "

Which of these two are the "FACT" youre yelling about?




wheeesh.

[garyb]

i don't even know where to start with a man that so misunderstands me, and twists my words.

i misspoke nothing on kosovo and am not rewriting history. i did not do what you say and taking my words out of context won't change that. i tried to communicate with you and explain myself, but you don' t care, so fine. i DID NOT claim that the kosovo war started with a UN invasion in 2000! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

again, i did not give those links for any other reason than to show that solar activity had increased. i was not refering to the article's conclusions which had noithing to do with the information. just because a good writer writes a conclusion to his article that sounds nice, doesn't mean that it makes sense as far as the info is concerned.

an example of a conflicting claim is that the sun is more active than normal, but this has nothing to do with rising temperatures. ridiculous!

and this part:
"still, i gotta be amazed by how little actual evidence(which seems to be quite a bit by some people's estimation, but not by most scientists, although it's more than enough for politicians who want to tax the hell out of everyone) "

Well, how is this for "little evidence":
1.You are claiming UN started the Kosovo war, indirectly proving they went in before nato with a hillarious attempt to rewrite history.(challenge sources? Tough luck. Read up.

2.Please compare these two sentences:
"the MAIN engine is SOLAR activity. FACT."
"on one hand, the sun is more active and thuis seemed to make a big difference in the past, but for some reason, it's a small influence now. "
just shows how little of my english you follow.

1. something i never said. i was showing that NATO and the UN were on the same page and that the UN was relying on NATO forces to do the actual fighting, which was borne out by NATO's own website which showed the UN resolutions that NATO used to justify it's actions. you still haven't explained how no NATO officials were even censured for their actions if their actions were NOT approved of by the UN, officially or otherwise.

2. these two conflicting points show sarcasm. i am sarcastic that i can be told that on one hand, the sun is the main engine of climate change, but then it's not. the fact that the sun is more active than anytime in the past 1000 years and maybe the past 8000 years is MAJOR.

lastly, there is no clear direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rise, in fact ice core samples show the exact opposite. when the earth goes into a warming cycle, CO2 levels rise. in other words, first the temp goes up, then the CO2 levels rise. it's been like that for millenia.

look, i know you beat up people in bars for a living and that a "one up" attitude is the way to do it, but if you want to fight, you're going to have to come here. be warned, i carry a .44 these days, and a baseball bat.... or we can just have a nice day at the beach.

[BingoTheClowno]

i don't even know where to start with a man that so misunderstands me, and twists my words.

i misspoke nothing on kosovo and am not rewriting history. i did not do what you say and taking my words out of context won't change that. i tried to communicate with you and explain myself, but you don' t care, so fine. i DID NOT claim that the kosovo war started with a UN invasion in 2000! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

again, i did not give those links for any other reason than to show that solar activity had increased. i was not referring to the article's conclusions which had nothing to do with the information. just because a good writer writes a conclusion to his article that sounds nice, doesn't mean that it makes sense as far as the info is concerned.

an example of a conflicting claim is that the sun is more active than normal, but this has nothing to do with rising temperatures. ridiculous!

and this part:
"still, i gotta be amazed by how little actual evidence(which seems to be quite a bit by some people's estimation, but not by most scientists, although it's more than enough for politicians who want to tax the hell out of everyone) "

Well, how is this for "little evidence":
1.You are claiming UN started the Kosovo war, indirectly proving they went in before nato with a hilarious attempt to rewrite history.(challenge sources? Tough luck. Read up.

2.Please compare these two sentences:
"the MAIN engine is SOLAR activity. FACT."
"on one hand, the sun is more active and this seemed to make a big difference in the past, but for some reason, it's a small influence now. "
just shows how little of my english you follow.

1. something i never said. i was showing that NATO and the UN were on the same page and that the UN was relying on NATO forces to do the actual fighting, which was borne out by NATO's own website which showed the UN resolutions that NATO used to justify it's actions. you still haven't explained how no NATO officials were even censured for their actions if their actions were NOT approved of by the UN, officially or otherwise.

2. these two conflicting points show sarcasm. i am sarcastic that i can be told that on one hand, the sun is the main engine of climate change, but then it's not. the fact that the sun is more active than anytime in the past 1000 years and maybe the past 8000 years is MAJOR.

lastly, there is no clear direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rise, in fact ice core samples show the exact opposite. when the earth goes into a warming cycle, CO2 levels rise. in other words, first the temp goes up, then the CO2 levels rise. it's been like that for millenia.

look, i know you beat up people in bars for a living and that a "one up" attitude is the way to do it, but if you want to fight, you're going to have to come here. be warned, i carry a .44 these days, and a baseball bat.... or we can just have a nice day at the beach.

I'm not quite sure if you are really demented or you're just trying to piss people off changing your stories and pretending we don't understand you. I'm leaning toward the last option.

[next to nothing]

"
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2007 21:22 Post subject:
i don't even know where to start with a man that so misunderstands me, and twists my words.

misspoke nothing on kosovo and am not rewriting history. i did not do what you say and taking my words out of context won't change that. i tried to communicate with you and explain myself, but you don' t care, so fine. i DID NOT claim that the kosovo war started with a UN invasion in 2000! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. "

i guess you remember this one:

"here is an article showing the UN retreating before NATO forces(in support of the UN) went into Kosovo. the UN was there at the beginning, exasperated the situation and stayed to the end."

This was to prove UN invaded kosovo before NATO. Only you were year-and-a-half late. ok, you arent rewriting history, just giving it a little "edge". And im sorry for putting words into your mouth, but as you were posting this link as proof UN was there BEFORE NATO i took it as such.

"1. something i never said. i was showing that NATO and the UN were on the same page and that the UN was relying on NATO forces to do the actual fighting, which was borne out by NATO's own website which showed the UN resolutions that NATO used to justify it's actions."

So you never claimed UN started the kosovo war? Im confused, as to what you said:

"what wars did the UN start?

well, let's just check some of the most obvious UN "actions".
1. the Korean War
2. the Vietnam war(a UN police action, how else can the USA commit acts of aggression without a declaration of war? check it out)
3. Kosovo(American troops wore UN badges)
"

and as to this one:
"look, i know you beat up people in bars for a living and that a "one up" attitude is the way to do it, but if you want to fight, you're going to have to come here. be warned, i carry a .44 these days, and a baseball bat.... or we can just have a nice day at the beach. "

First of all, im happy to say that during my 6 years as security i never hit anyone, and that one year ago i started working as an engineer (you gonna hate me for this, but we just shipped of the worlds biggest ship for seismic researh).

.44 and a baseball bat? man are you going light these days?

[next to nothing]

i forgot to specify that the document you are linking to is to justify the ground operations after they bombed the shit to smitherins 2 months earlier.

[garyb]

i'm not denying my posts piddi. just your interpretation.

the UN was in kosovo from the beginning, though not in a military function and not "officially" . the UN did back out of kosovo at the point i mentioned to allow the dirty work to be done by NATO which i posted to show UN/NATO cooperation. NATO soldiers were in service to the UN even though it was not official when they first bombed and that's why no one from NATO was charged with war crimes for destroying cities and their population. in fact, the US soldiers were signed over to the UN security council by William Clinton during that conflict(and technically before with PDD25), which is why i mentioned soldiers wearing UN patches which caused controversy here in the USA because that action was illegal and unconstitutional.

do you know where the word "slave" comes from? the people in the balkans have been used and manipulated for centuries(and little girls kidnapped from there to be used as prostitutes for other rich europeans, but that's another issue). why do you think ww1 and 2 started with the slavic nations?

if you follow who the key players in the UN are and then see who the key players in the Kosovo war were, you'll know what i mean by UN involvement. funny how the UN allowed all that depleted uranium to be used there. yes, that's right, low level atomic munitions....

why would i hate you for working on a ship as an engineer? you really do misunderstand me. oyu focus on side issues instead of the bigger, general issue that i am pointing to, which is related to Agenda21 plans for population reduction and acknowledged plans to use global warming as the engine to achieve this. sure it sounds kinda wild, but the men who came up with the idea left a paper trail and they own the newspapers, publishers, tv stations, radio stations and wire services, so even though the policy papers tell the whole story, popular press only hints at in in the most obscure fashion.

you don't have to agree with me, but if you won't go down the rabbit hole yourself, or eat the red pill as it were, please don't just call me a liar. i don't mind if you think i've gotten the evidence twisted and that i'm wrong, but i've not done you any harm so i don't deserve to be slandered, or more than mildly disrespected. you've taken some of my general statememnts and applied them directly to you, which is a mistake, piddi(like the sheep comment). i have not disrespected you directly yet.

[garyb]

i forgot to specify that the document you are linking to is to justify the ground operations after they bombed the shit to smitherins 2 months earlier.

yes, i agree. that's my point. IT'S A WAR CRIME, A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY TO BOMB CITIES FULL OF PEOPLE TO THE GROUND, yet there were no condemming actions from the UN, rather they all got together and had a party and a lynching.....

[next to nothing]

for the sake of saneness of all plantez users ill shut the hell up.

"look, i know you beat up people in bars for a living and that a "one up" attitude is the way to do it"

nah.

[hubird]

that's too rude Gary, security people in my and prob Piddi's country mostly are certified trainees who know to de-escalate conflicts.
Nah...

[garyb]

ok, so be rude to me, but not in return?

ok.

i understand now. we're enemies i guess. fine. i'll shut up too.

[hubird]

no, I don't see where Piddi was treating you so badly.
at least he's argueing.
My guess is you're determined by Bingo's style, but Piddi can't help that

I like your input, as it passes by the traditional left-right propositions (something Bingo obviously isn't able to take it that way, no offend Bingo).
Also you are always extremely well informed, but the way you combine all that information to a rather deterministic, hence pessimistic, a-historical and leaning to conspiracy universe of your own sounds rather weird to my European ears.

[next to nothing]

i will open my orals again just to inform all involved parts that were not enemies (at least from my part). i took no offence btw. and i was certified ofcourse.