pkr

PkrBum wrote:Which 100 years?

Average annual production of CO2 by volcanoes * 100

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa reduced temperatures in the southern hemisphere for most of the decade with the airborne ash producing spectacular sunsets for many years.

So I suggest that Boards doesn't include the year 1883.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjGHwGkFIFw

  

Damaged Eagle wrote:The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa reduced temperatures in the southern hemisphere for most of the decade with the airborne ash producing spectacular sunsets for many years.

So I suggest that Boards doesn't include the year 1883.

Feel free to include 1883.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/

A refusal to acknowledge the simplest of facts which he alleges that I do not want to discuss the science or facts.......you cannot make up this stuff.  The denial of the science is stunning.  The denial of the facts is stunning.  PK and Chrissy's political positions however are entirely foreseeable in light of the same.  The anti science and anti government dogma has not quite yet blossomed to a book burning, and that is because Kindles do not burn well.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa reduced temperatures in the southern hemisphere for most of the decade with the airborne ash producing spectacular sunsets for many years.

So I suggest that Boards doesn't include the year 1883.

Feel free to include 1883.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/

Feel free to try to prove to me that CO2 in the levels you describe will have enough effect to cause what you are describing.

Oh that's right. You only want to look at the rising levels of CO2 without looking at the past levels of the same.

Solar radiation, the oceans, and atmospheric albedo, affect the overall temperature of the earth than the insignificant amount of CO2 that you are describing in your politically run science supported by the supposed 97% lackies that just want their grants as they fudge their findings to meet their faulty hypothesis.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:Feel free to try to prove to me that CO2 in the levels you describe will have enough effect to cause what you are describing.

Before I am able to do that, I'll first need you to clarify whatever it is that you think I'm describing. Use the quote feature.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Feel free to try to prove to me that CO2 in the levels you describe will have enough effect to cause what you are describing.

Before I am able to do that, I'll first need you to clarify whatever it is that you think I'm describing.  Use the quote feature.

So now you don't know why you're against rising CO2 levels you just are because the supposed 97% scientific consensus which had the authors peer review their own work says you should be.

******CHUCKLE******

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA3S9HX1_To

  

Did someone fart?

(exits elevator)

boards of FL wrote:Did someone fart?  

(exits elevator)

No! No! The subject is the rising CO2 levels you're so worried about and it's causing global warming in your self-peer reviewed papers. This isn't about your wanting to eliminate methane gas by reducing livestock production because you prefer tofu.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:No! No! The subject is the rising CO2 levels you're so worried about and it's causing global warming in your self-peer reviewed papers. This isn't about your wanting to eliminate methane gas by reducing livestock production because you prefer tofu.

Uh...ok?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:No! No! The subject is the rising CO2 levels you're so worried about and it's causing global warming in your self-peer reviewed papers. This isn't about your wanting to eliminate methane gas by reducing livestock production because you prefer tofu.

Uh...ok?

See. I knew you'd admit that you're just a sheeple who doesn't understand scientific method and therefore follows whatever political agenda is demanded of the grant driven political science where you think good science is where the author reviews his/her own work. You unquestioning loyalty to your political agenda driven science reminds me of another age where religion controlled the scientific method because no one expects...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI

 

Is the guy on your right Sal in the picture proved?

Damaged Eagle wrote:See. I knew you'd admit that you're just a sheeple who doesn't understand scientific method and therefore follows whatever political agenda is demanded of the grant driven political science where you think good science is where the author reviews his/her own work.

When did I do that? Use the quote feature.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:See. I knew you'd admit that you're just a sheeple who doesn't understand scientific method and therefore follows whatever political agenda is demanded of the grant driven political science where you think good science is where the author reviews his/her own work.

When did I do that?  Use the quote feature.

I did.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

  

So when you read this...

boards of FL wrote:Uh...ok?

...you think it means this?

Damaged Eagle wrote:See. I knew you'd admit that you're just a sheeple who doesn't understand scientific method and therefore follows whatever political agenda is demanded of the grant driven political science where you think good science is where the author reviews his/her own work.

I'll just leave this here for you.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

boards of FL wrote:So when you read this...

boards of FL wrote:Uh...ok?

...you think it means this?

Damaged Eagle wrote:See. I knew you'd admit that you're just a sheeple who doesn't understand scientific method and therefore follows whatever political agenda is demanded of the grant driven political science where you think good science is where the author reviews his/her own work.

I'll just leave this here for you.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

It looks like you agreed to me. Are you having problems keeping up? Perhaps you need...

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

...to help with your deficit.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

  

This post was made by Damaged Eagle who is currently on your ignore list. See the message

Just remember that  Damaged Eagle is a troll.  Nothing more...........

Mr Ichi wrote:This post was made by Damaged Eagle who is currently on your ignore list. See the message

Just remember that  Damaged Eagle is a troll.  Nothing more...........

Have you taken me off of ignore?

Want to resume our discussion about women in the service?

I believe we left off with you not answering my question on how you would handle it if your daughter defied you, joined up, and volunteered to be on the front lines.

Anyway...

I'm not the one following me around calling me names. But then you wouldn't understand that would you...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DAnu5Sq6k

  

This post was made by Damaged Eagle who is currently on your ignore list. See the message
This post was made by Damaged Eagle who is currently on your ignore list. See the message.

                                  

It's nice to know Mr Ichi hasn't changed.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg

  

They fear to hear anything that doesn't meet their petty world-view.

******ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuIkINDV0tg

 

De just can't take a hint.

Dreamsglore wrote:De just can't take a hint.

LOL Correct.....    

Dreamsglore wrote:De just can't take a hint.

Did your uniform fit?

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

  

See something... Say something.