Sciencescience

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 03:01 PM

Scientists from Finland and Japan find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Scientists from Finland's Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Turku and scientists from Japan's Kobe University submit data that completely discredits the man made global warming alarmists claims.
______________



Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Turku (Finland), June 29, 2019:

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
--

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic (man-made), we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2is emitted from oceans,according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.

3. Conclusion:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
-

"During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

"we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature."

"During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

"we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature."

"During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

"we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature."


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Kobe University (Japan), July 3, 2019:

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth's last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth's climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.
--

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm


42 replies, 733 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scientists from Finland and Japan find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" (Original post)
Iron Condor Jul 2019 OP
Cold Warrior Jul 2019 #1
Red Bull Jul 2019 #4
Cold Warrior Jul 2019 #5
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #13
def_con5 Jul 2019 #2
Cold Warrior Jul 2019 #3
oflguy Jul 2019 #8
orson Jul 2019 #6
oflguy Jul 2019 #9
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #10
oflguy Jul 2019 #14
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #15
oflguy Jul 2019 #16
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #18
Currentsitguy Jul 2019 #26
orson Jul 2019 #27
Currentsitguy Jul 2019 #29
orson Jul 2019 #32
Currentsitguy Jul 2019 #33
orson Jul 2019 #34
Currentsitguy Jul 2019 #35
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #36
Currentsitguy Jul 2019 #37
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #39
oflguy Jul 2019 #38
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #40
oflguy Jul 2019 #41
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #42
oflguy Jul 2019 #7
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #11
oflguy Jul 2019 #17
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #19
oflguy Jul 2019 #20
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #21
oflguy Jul 2019 #22
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #23
oflguy Jul 2019 #24
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #25
oflguy Jul 2019 #28
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #30
oflguy Jul 2019 #31
SatansSon666 Jul 2019 #12

Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 03:11 PM

1. Interesting hypothesis but I will wait for the peer-reviewed article to come out

As it is it’s simply an non peer-reviewed hypothesis. I also note that the Science Daily has a completely different take on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 05:36 PM

4. Man made climate change is horseshit

Just when Mount St Helen's erupted alone it threw more shit and greenhouse gasses into the air then anything man did from day one till present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Red Bull (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 05:43 PM

5. Sigh, aren't fairy tales nice?

Did you ever hear the one about a 600 year old man who talked to Yahweh a lot and built this big boat?

“Now how does that compare to human emissions? For starters, there are 318 million people and 253 million passenger vehicles in the USA. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that Americans totalled 3.06 trillion miles of driving in 2015. That works out to an average driving distance of approximately 12,000 miles per vehicle. The average fuel economy in 2015 was 25.5mpg. Based on those numbers, 3.06 trillion miles divided by 25.5 mpg = 120 billion gallons of gasoline consumed each year. A gallon (or 6.3lbs) of gas burned in an engine produces 20lbs of CO2 because the burning of gas requires oxygen which then binds to the carbon atom to make the heavy CO2 molecule. So, 120 billion gallons x 20lbs = 2,400 billion lbs of CO2 (or 1,200 million tons) is produced each year from passenger vehicle emissions in the USA.

Since the Mount St Helens eruption produced 10 million tons of CO2, this means that passenger vehicles in the USA alone emit as much CO2 as a Mt St. Helens eruption happening somewhere in America every 3 days. The transportation sector (airplanes, trains, ships and automobiles) makes up 26% of US greenhouse gas emissions with the remainder coming from electricity, industry, agriculture and commercial/residential use. Total US greenhouse gas emissions (6.8 billion tons per year) are the equivalent of a Mt St. Helen's eruption happening almost twice a day in the USA alone. Factor in global human greenhouse gas emissions (46 billion tons per year) and that works out to 4,600 Mt St. Helen's eruptions occurring every year (or 12.6 eruptions per day). Remember, a VEI-5 volcano like Mt. St Helens only happens on average once every 12 years on the entire planet so to have CO2 emissions from one of these explosions happening 12.6 times a day is quite disturbing.”
https://skepticalscience.com/1980_mt_st_helens_eruption_co2_emissions_compared_to_us_transportation_sector.html

Don’t ever give up those feeeelings that Conservatives rely upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 05:33 AM

13. Confirmation bias is strong around here.

It's pretty funny.
Ten minutes of reading easily explains the false claim about Mt. St. Helens.

Can tell it over and over again but it's easier to believe the loons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 03:12 PM

2. Here come the attacks

They aren't real scientists,they work for the fossil fuel industry.

Thanks to Trump, people are beginning to tell the truth about global warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 03:22 PM

3. Not sure if they are paid by the fossil fuel industry ot not

I do know the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:10 PM

8. Peer reviewed by who?

The IPCC worshipers like you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:14 PM

6. Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws

The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO2 has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

In reality there is strong scientific evidence for conclusions in stark contrast to those of Kauppinen and Malmi, namely that (a) all of the CO2 rise is from human activity, (b) that 100% of the CO2-induced warming is therefore anthropogenic, and (c) that (together with anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases like methane) the total anthropogenic warming is around 1 degC.

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

edited for link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:19 PM

9. "multiple flaws"

You mean like all the flaws in all the global warming models the modelers have ignored? The ones that projected outrageous warming that never took place?

Those flaws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 05:10 AM

10. Your complete lack of understanding of science and models is astounding.

To answer your question, there were many flaws pointed out.
The paper hasn't been peer-reviewed either. My guess is it won't make it past the first step. Do you know what that is?
Do you even know what peer-review is?
They don't send the paper to the IPCC for them to read and decide if they like it or not.
I know science is hard, but you could always try..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 10:36 AM

14. They don't send it to the IPCC silly

They send it to their worshipers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 10:57 AM

15. nope. they publish them in journals.

So other scientists can read and cite them in their research so they don't have to calculate everything every time. When dicoveries are made scientists use them to further their own work. So they don't have to keep making the same "discoveries" over and over again.
You really have no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:01 AM

16. You are the one that is clueless

I didn't say it loud enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:08 AM

18. So what I said about peer-review is wrong?

Lmfao..

You saw a loon yap about the Russian model the other day and you keep mentioning it over and over again.
Without understanding a thing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 01:33 PM

26. The ultimate test, of course

Would be to go back a few years, run against the study's predictions, and see how accurately they match current conditions. If they do, then "consensus" is called into serious question. If they do not, than back to the drawing board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 01:50 PM

27. Trust me, they won't do that

If they were serious,that's where they would have started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 02:09 PM

29. I am open

Consensus means absolutely nothing to me. So far the mainstream model has been worse then useless in making predictions, other than howling and gnashing of teeth over our impending doom.

This model does seem to take more factors into account, which cannot but make for a more complete model.

In the end, I think it is the height of arrogance to think we have much of an impact on the climate on a global level. I have no doubt we can and have polluted the hell out of the place, and that is shameful. We have, however taken great strides in that area. One need only google "1950's Pittsburgh pollution" to realize where we were not all that long ago in the greater scheme of things.

Ultimately there are too many damn people and it's only going to get worse. Even assuming for the sake of argument global population were to remain static our power needs are going to continue to skyrocket and even greater energy and resource demanding means of generating power and providing transportation are going to be needed. It is folly to think otherwise.

What's going to happen is going to happen and there is little to nothing we are going to be able to do about it. Our efforts should be devoted to learning to live with change instead of acting like King Cnute in his futile efforts at commanding the tide to recede.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 04:24 PM

32. Living with change becomes problematic

if change involves rolling power blackouts, starvation rations and/or water up to your hips. The mainstream model is the one put forward by the IPCC and they low-balled it to keep the Saudis, the Russians and other oil states on board. We're on their worst case timeline right now. In Antarctica there's an ice sheet the size of Florida that's melting from below and that's something no one predicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 04:51 PM

33. We have yet to see that

One need only look at the opening credits of the film "Where the Boys Are", filmed in 1960, and current imagery to realize that despite the claims in Florida the levels haven't changed one iota.

1960:


2014:


Regardless energy demand is going up, not down. There isn't enough sand on earth to build the panels, and the carbon that would be released from the manufacture of the sheer amount of windmills, in terms of the forging of steel, and the manufacture of concrete, will far exceed the amount released by current methods over their lifetime. This is basic thermodynamics. You can't get something more from something than you put in at some point in the process.

Setting all of this aside, there are the limitations in material science. The simple fact is you can only transmit electricity so far before you pass the point of diminishing returns. It isn't as if you could cover the Mojave with solar panels and the Plains with windmills and power the country. It just does not work that way.

Do renewables play a role? Sure, as part of a diverse portfolio that includes wind, solar, coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear. If we get lucky we will commercialize Thorium Molten Salt, or stumble on Fusion. Renewables are basically useless for supplying base load, but they can add to the grid in peak demand times, in and near areas where they are located. Perhaps some day when ambient temperature superconductivity is practical on an industrial level at an affordable cost that will change, but that day is not here. To believe otherwise is a pipe dream of the ultimate vaporware con.

Like I said it's population that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. You can't keep increasing population at the rate we are and not expect energy demand to increase exponentially, and if water levels ever begin to rise then we are just going to have to move inland or build on stilts because those are the only real alternatives we will face at that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 07:04 PM

34. Populations have natural cycles too

They boom and bust. Humans aren't exempt. We're in road runner mode now. We're fine as long as we don't look down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 16, 2019, 08:51 AM

35. I won't argue that point

I think the thing people, both Left and Right seem to overlook or even outright deny is that we are just another species on the planet. We are nothing special or outside of natural forces. More than once in our evolution natural forces have damn near wiped us out. At some future time it can and will do so again. That is one of the primary reasons I advocate moving out into the Solar System. It's an insurance policy against the stupidity of putting all of our genetic eggs into one proverbial planetary basket. Another Chixalub level event is inevitable. It's only a matter of time. I'm sure the dinosaurs in their own way thought they were the masters of the planet right up until that asteroid slammed into Yucatan.

I'll state something that will be very unpopular but I think is true on a biological level. Although the whole thing revolving around sexual identity, regardless of where you fall in your opinion, is superficially a political issue; in reality it is inherently biological. It's a luxury that only an overpopulated and rather well protected species can afford. Something tells me that in the aftermath of a planetary catastrophe what pronouns you like will not be an important issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 07:13 AM

36. Models are tested against knowns for their accuracy.

For example. If a model is focused on CO2 concentrations as a parameter, they start running it from say 1920 to present to see if it is close to actual recorded data. If it fails to "predict" what we already know within a margin of error, then there is something wrong.
Then they'll test different types of models with different parameters and see how they match up. They use control models as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 08:25 AM

37. I think that is basically what I said

I'd add one more criteria. I'd take some of the more catastrophic predictions and start that as the baseline and run the model in reverse to see if you get current conditions. If not, then your assumptions are wrong.

Where the consensus crowd goes wrong in my opinion is any study or prediction that does not result in some future catastrophe is immediately dismissed out of hand as flawed or worse yet, false. This tells me that for those at least who are sounding the media alarm have a larger political, economic, or sociological ax to grind than just science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 01:00 PM

39. That is where the problem lies.

People blow shit out of proportion.
Politicians aren't scientists and care more about their agenda than what the science says. If some loon tells then what a research paper says they don't care if it's accurate, only if it forwards their agenda.
Then you have bloggers and stuff regurgitating the falsehoods about what the actual science says, then it becomes a political "us vs. Them" attitude and the facts get lost in the mix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 08:29 AM

38. "there is something wrong"

sure is but they don't care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 01:02 PM

40. leaving out the rest of what I said doesn't help you.

You clearly don't understand what scientific computer modeling is, does or what it's purpose is.
Only what the loons say matters to you.

You new favorite comouter model, "the Russian one".
What type of computer model is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 01:46 PM

41. Yeah, I know

I don't understand what ANYTHING is, according to you

The models are a joke. The Russian model has proven to be the most realistic whether by accident or not.

I'm sorry you are butthurt by that.

The amazing part is they refuse to admit their failures. They are as hard headed as you.

Why don't you tell the forum how computer modeling works and what its purpose is, since you are the only one that understands these mysteries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #41)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 02:30 PM

42. Its the most accurate for what type of climate model?

It's not called "the Russian model" either, so what type of model is it and why is it more accurate than the other models?
Was it compared to similar models or did they compare it to different types of models that projected different things?

All questions you have to answer before you can say it's the most accurate one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:08 PM

7. Global Warmers have never had a handle on the water cycle

The amazing thing about the water cycle is it is self-regulating. Areas of more heating on the globe result in areas of more cooling.

It is an aspect of global warming models that the modelers try to ignore. That is why their models have failed so miserably......except one......the Russian model. That is the one that coincides with reality the most. The rest have predicted outrageously inaccurate results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 05:18 AM

11. Someone who knows nothing about thermodynamics tries again.

You are correct however that when part of a system heats up, another has to cool down.
That doesn't mean a decrease in the energy of the system.
Earth is retaining thermal energy.

What happens to a system that can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives?

Simple question you've always ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:04 AM

17. Mr. "thermodynamics"

The one who doesn't know what heat index is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:12 AM

19. Oh, I know exactly what it is.

I understand how and why it is used, I understand the calculations as well.

I just made fun of you for phrasing a question wrong. You got all sad about it because nobody else wanted to play your little game. So I did and made you look bad. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:23 AM

20. If you know what heat index is

You would have answered my question correctly.

But you answered it wrong......twice

Your problem was you didn't understand the question.

Now, its time for you to insult me again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:24 AM

21. So when it's hot and humid, air conditioners remove less thermal energy from a room.

Is that what you are saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:28 AM

22. No

I'm not willing to go down another rabbit hole with somebody that does not understand basic thermodynamics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:32 AM

23. Well you said it affects the air conditioner.

If it still performs the same amount of work, how is it affected?

Like I said, it may affect your electric bill because it runs longer. More wear and tear, because it's running longer, shit like that. I've already said all those things will occur.
But if it really affected the air conditioner it would remove less thermal energy.

By your own admission , my answer was right.
But you can just keep believing you understand how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:35 AM

24. How many times do you need it explained to you?

You are a lost cause. I refuse to explain it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 11:39 AM

25. You never explained it the first time.

At least now you admit it doesn't affect it's ability to perform the work.

You don't understand latent energy and phase changes.
You confuse how the air feels due to the heat index with thermal energy.
It's OK. It's not like you claim to be an expert in air conditioning or anything.
Oh wait.. you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 02:05 PM

28. There are none so ignorant as those that refuse to learn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 03:34 PM

30. You're projecting again.

You refuse to learn anything.
Once in a while you actually do learn something because you actually look ir up instesd of believing you cant be wrong, but then you start pretending you knew it all along. Even though your posts sit there contradicting you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 04:22 PM

31. You are not stupid

just extremely hard headed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 05:20 AM

12. How do you know the Russian model is the only one that works?

Oh ya.
That loon from the video the other day that you claim nobody watched.

I never heard you make that claim.
So a loon that you agree with finds a model that works so you automatically believe it.
Models are OK after all, if a loon likes it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience