| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 108:21:25 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 905 |
| Messages: | 76,683 |
D wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 12/3/2024 7:59 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 12/3/24 17:01, Lynn McGuire wrote:
???Climate Change over the past 4000 Years???
I have quite a bit of experience running forced flow and natural flow >>>>>> reactors. Sol acts exactly like a natural flow reactor with both
short
and long cycles of variability.
You have zero climate science background, so your experience with
non-nuclear reactors seems somewhat irrelevent.
Nonsense. Climate "science" is political. The real stuff is climate
science reduced to physics.
Let's try a little test, shall we?
What do you think is used to create climate models?
No cheating, no looking it up. I want to know what you thought at the
time you wrote the above.
William Hyde
That models can be whipped up at will, based on the directions of the
people who are funding it. Climate gate is an excellent example of the
corruption in the field. It was probably just the tip of the iceberg.
That is not an answer to the question I asked.
Try again.
On 6 Dec 2024 at 00:14:55 GMT, "William Hyde" <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
D wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 12/3/2024 7:59 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 12/3/24 17:01, Lynn McGuire wrote:
???Climate Change over the past 4000 Years???
I have quite a bit of experience running forced flow and natural flow >>>>>>> reactors. Sol acts exactly like a natural flow reactor with both >>>>>>> short
and long cycles of variability.
You have zero climate science background, so your experience with
non-nuclear reactors seems somewhat irrelevent.
Nonsense. Climate "science" is political. The real stuff is climate
science reduced to physics.
Let's try a little test, shall we?
What do you think is used to create climate models?
No cheating, no looking it up. I want to know what you thought at the >>>> time you wrote the above.
William Hyde
That models can be whipped up at will, based on the directions of the
people who are funding it. Climate gate is an excellent example of the
corruption in the field. It was probably just the tip of the iceberg.
That is not an answer to the question I asked.
Try again.
You'll find it an easier life if you stop trying to engage in logical >arguments with people who don't believe in facts, science, evidence or
logic.
On 6 Dec 2024 15:53:34 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2024 at 00:14:55 GMT, "William Hyde" <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
D wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 12/3/2024 7:59 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 12/3/24 17:01, Lynn McGuire wrote:
???Climate Change over the past 4000 Years???
I have quite a bit of experience running forced flow and natural flow >>>>>>>> reactors. Sol acts exactly like a natural flow reactor with both >>>>>>>> short
and long cycles of variability.
You have zero climate science background, so your experience with >>>>>>> non-nuclear reactors seems somewhat irrelevent.
Nonsense. Climate "science" is political. The real stuff is climate >>>>>> science reduced to physics.
Let's try a little test, shall we?
What do you think is used to create climate models?
No cheating, no looking it up. I want to know what you thought at the >>>>> time you wrote the above.
William Hyde
That models can be whipped up at will, based on the directions of the
people who are funding it. Climate gate is an excellent example of the >>>> corruption in the field. It was probably just the tip of the iceberg.
That is not an answer to the question I asked.
Try again.
You'll find it an easier life if you stop trying to engage in logical
arguments with people who don't believe in facts, science, evidence or
logic.
But ... but ... but ... it's so much /fun/ tweaking them!