On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order
yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial
chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data
Axil,
How about a very dynamic isotropy? while C MUST appear
constant throughout our macro frame adhering to the rules of SR, acceleration
and gravitational fields, what if….. the rate of virtual particles passing
through our plane had a certain dynamic flow. By the rules of SR
This is not OT since this is science.
A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the
inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time
to find it but here are some:
1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141,
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
It took me some time to find it but here are some:
1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637
2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6,
Sept-Oct `971 p.211
3. Shells from Living
Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950
because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions.
The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals
together.
You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating.
JoJo,
Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be
incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
It took me some time to find it but
OK, what would be the explanation why different parts of the mammoth would be
dated so widely differently? A few hundred years maybe acceptable, but
thousands of years is ridiculous. The only explanation is that the technique
is faulty and unreliable.
The dates are all after 1950s. So your
Stewie,
No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too many
finicky assumptions based on processes we do not fully understand. How can we
build a solid scientific foundation based on such faulty scientific methods?
Radionucleotide Dating simply does not work reliably
Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will
have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years.
An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results.
You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar
dates is specially
I don't believe time exists (we are all just decaying), some at different
rates than others.
But it is good to try and make sense of it all.
On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Stewie,
No, I am claiming the technique itself is unreliable and based on too
Jed,
The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide
circulation. Do you think these are all errors? Don't you think they would
have checked for errors before publishing it? Your contention that these
measured dates are errors simply do not make sense.
My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating examples.
Cause I knew someone will retort using a senseless reason like you just did.
The widely differing results clearly show that the technique is inherently
unreliable, no matter what Radionucleotide you use.
Jojo
Yes ADD. No I do not believe time exists, wives made it up to tell husbands
when they are late.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
My dear ADD friend, that is the reason I provided 4 mammoth dating
examples.
Jojo, while you are at it, would you tell me what kind of mushroom are you
taking:
Except that we don't realize that these aliens are not extraterrestrial
BIOLOGICAL beings from another planet. These ALIENS are aliens to our
dimension. They are INTERDIMENSIONAL beings of spirits, fallen angels
To me, all of the expertise, all of the Ph.D's, all of the tenure and all of
the opinions of climatologists are simply worthless in relation to the world at
large - except for their ability to make accurate predictions.
Really, of what general value would climatology be without an established
Danny boy, I wanted to respond to this assertion earlier but I was laughing so
hard, that I had to calm down first before I can respond sensibly.
So, the river is between 0-600,000 years old using K-AR dating. Well, praise
mother earth, that is some useful result. Heck, why do we even need to
Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Genesis 6:1-5
It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a
hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of
I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating
results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in
various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is
an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.
I found it
And they are aliens because...?
2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
Genesis 6:1-5
It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing
a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.
Jojo
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Oh ... the decay rates are accurate and more or less stable all right. It's
the assumptions surrounding this that I have a lot of problems with.
For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they were
5,000 years ago? There is proof that C-14 levels have not reached
Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon
dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil fuels. In fact
that is one way we know that the CO2 causing global warming is from man
made sources.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Rocha
Because they are Interdimensional Beings of spirits, fallen angels and demons.
But since you appear to be ignorant on this subject, let me see if I can
educate you.
There are 2 current prevailing theories of who the aliens are. One theory says
these UFO aliens are biological beings from
Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that
the Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the
Bible are more trustful than science.
2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
But since you appear to be ignorant on this
Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html
2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they
were 5,000 years ago?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
And what exactly makes science more trustworthy. Is it because it is
repeatable? or is it because we can feel it with our senses? or simply because
it is presumed to be the opposite of religion? It seems that science now a
days means anything that is anti-relgion.
To me science is simply the
Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question
your ability to make science.
2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
Is it because it is repeatable?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
More assumptions to calibrate an assumption.
Whatever
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that
You have the right general idea about the fit not being adequate. I suspect
that their model is far more complex than a simple linear model and of much
higher order. The net prediction of future temperatures is a result of how
all of these terms combine and it will diverge more and more
Dave,
I agree. Maybe the tug of gravity can be endothermic or exothermic
depending upon local conditions
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
You have the right general idea about the fit not being adequate. I
suspect that their model is far more
For technical details of the photobioreactor and its economics see the
see Algasol's
presentation at the 2013 European Algal Biomass Conference
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf
.
Algasol Renewables pr...@algasolrenewables.com via
Jed--
I think your reliance on experts is a little over stated, and I tend to agree
with Dave’s assessment of expecting short term predictions to be possible.
Many so-called experts in the nuclear industry endorsed the idea of storing
spent fuel in wet storage at locations subject to both
Chris-
Your considerations are much the same as mine.
Bob
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Chris Zell
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
To me, all of the expertise, all of the Ph.D's, all of the tenure and all of
the opinions of
~10.8 F?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
Jojo, I really think
Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?
Sent from Windows Mail
From: CB Sites
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global
average temperature was 6C above average. That is
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of
wide circulation.
I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
authors, and used
Congrats - you must have been funded.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and
I wrote:
Do you think these are all errors?
I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
instruments work.
I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have
spent
On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence
for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It
took me some time to find it but here are some:
I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies.
Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as
called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Calling out some of the people involved in climate science who have
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times.
Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before
commenting.
- Jed
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
There are plenty of correlations that have emerged in relation to C-14 dating,
tree rings, astronomical events, Egyptian history just to name a few. In
addition, the variations in C-14 formation have been fleshed out over
The showcase is not the production line.
People are still starving and species are still being driven to extinction
for no reason.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com
wrote:
Congrats - you must have been funded.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I
think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
100M years old.
Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A
Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I
think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
Cold fusion has been replicated more than 14,700 times
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg87609.html
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
Jojo
- Original Message
There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your
point is? You have a problem with Einstein?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19
Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing
95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So...
Although the haircut does help reinforce evolution theory
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-886-15ACADD205DC-783_634x622.jpg
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological
Constant
Date:
November 28, 2007
Source:
Texas AM University
Summary:
Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a
cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
from
That must be one smart monkey. Maybe he and the millions of others banging
on typewriters right now in another thought experiment will find the dark
energy that's missing.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Although the haircut does help reinforce
Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists
believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from
biological evolution but from cultural determinism.
Oh, yes, I know they'll deny it when I put it that way but when it comes to
public policy the gaping
But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it?
Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95%
leaves a lot left to figure out.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin
Yes.
Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it?
Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
Einstein was smart enough to
Email?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes.
Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
wrote:
But
James B.
I hope I understand what you are saying. There are biological reasons for
our behavior and it is hard to replace them with some cultural etiquette.
If that is what you said then I agree with you. I also believe this kind of
believe is accentuated by our school system and our most
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists
believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from
biological evolution but from cultural determinism.
I have no idea who or what your are talking about here, and I
You obviously weren't around Harvard when Gould and Lewontin went on their
rampage against Wilson over sociobiology.
You're out of touch with the facts on the ground in academia with regards
to the social sciences.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Good enough. Now if I could just get a few million others to accept that I
just won a Nobel Prize, life would be golden.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Email?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png
it is also unbelievable that educated people repeat the consesus fairy tale
against cold fusion, despite huge evidences agains, and no valid refutation
to support their cause...
anyway they did because they were the consenus, because opposing mean you
were the blacksheep of the lab, ...
note also
Awwwh. :(
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Thanks for identifying yourself my friend. I already forgot who it was that
challenged me and I wasn't inclined to waste my time searching the archives.
You asked for proof of my assertion that radionucleotide dating is unreliable,
and I provided several actual egregious examples from
Bob, please read the context in which this number came up? CB was talking
about the increase which he claims would bring the global average to 42.8F,
which I point out he probably meant 42.8C
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Bob Cook
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday,
Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves. Last time I
checked, Science is and was a reputable publication.
You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from a
tight spot. You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument errors,.
Jed,
If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so much
problems convincing the rest of the world.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon
Since google.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F?
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
Jojo, I really
Like Jed says, Please stop making ignorant assertions. At least this is
an interesting ignorant assertion. The problem with Cold Fusion acceptance
in scientific circles is not due to problems getting results replicated.
It is due to PAST stigma attached to the field of inquiry and current
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
I have a simple question:
1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind)
turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution
Hi Folks,
I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities
The article does not really explain the phenomena of NDE, but it does
provide an interesting synopsis of what is known about the experience.
Harry
Near death, explained
New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body
experiences -- with shocking results.
Opps, my bad, I'm too quick to use google. Delta 10.8 Degree F is correct.
Where was my brain? Duhh. Embarrassing, but thank you for correcting me.
Still that is a major change and would effect many many different eco
systems, and AGW effects already have upset several. 10.8 is an average
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:32:18 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The novel part happens when the drop of metal turns black and then
transparent and then explodes.
Harry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIGMfai_ICg
CO2 levels were 5 times higher during Jurassic than today, 3 C higher
http://www.livescience.com/44330-Jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with
five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers
say, and
Opps I meant C14. Here is the processes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon
dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil
Also the great mass extinction we are in is not due to global warming, it
is primarily billions of watts of pulsed electromagnetic radiation
destroying natures health along with all the other pollution humans generate
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
CO2
Dear Jack,
I would be interested in seeing what happens when some chlorine bleach is
used instead of water.
Chlorine produces a UV laser output when combined with hydrogen in an arc.
Mills uses chlorine and so did Papp.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to H Veeder's message of Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:34:52 -0400:
Hi Harry,
Now actually *read* the message you replied to.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:32:18 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The novel part happens when
From Jojo
By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind)
turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution
(aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want
macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as
called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
I have a simple question:
1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian
evolution is occurring. For you, or
Hi Axil,
I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know
if UV is emitted?
Best,
Jack
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Jack,
I would be interested in seeing what happens when some chlorine bleach is
used instead of
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know
if UV is emitted?
Be careful about fumes. I recall reading that chlorine can form some
pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions.
Eric
A UV light, say at 244 nm or 300 nm, can not be seen at all with a human
eye. However if you put a piece of paper in its path the paper will glow
blue. This happens because the UV excites blue dyes in the paper (the paper
manufacturers put blue dyes in all papers to make them appear more
'white').
Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on
and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory
tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous,
are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been
I think all of us, including the universe are creating every day, evolving
every day and dying a little each day.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on
and off my intellectual
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-confine-crystal-surface-transparent-nanoparticles.html
This explains how heat can be converted into dipole motion, the source of
LENR power as follows:
Silver has conducting electrons, and when the particular blue wavelength
interacts with them, those conducting
One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of
time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do
his work for him.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists
I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the
majority of climate scientists. I'm interested in seeing if there's real
science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time
is: NO. What is there has been driven more by politics than science.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly,
Good warning. Chlorine gas can do great damage to your lungs and even cause
death.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on the integrity of the
majority of climate scientists. I'm interested in seeing if there's real
science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this
Eric, all you have to do is to read about the current long lasting pause in
warming along with the statement from these guys that this pause might last
until 2025. Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have
been a more rapid rise, how much more in error could they be? Of
94 matches
Mail list logo
