bobgnote
Rookie
- Nov 24, 2008
- 1,258
- 38
Interestingly.............here is the take by the IPCC scientists on the suns effects.................
Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.
Sun's Affect on Climate FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists
The article never defines "convincing evidence". Accordingly, its an opinion.......but many easily led folks see "no convincing evidence" being reported by a scientist and they invariably believe it BECAUSE IT IS A SCIENTIST saying it.
Thats the whole BS of all this "science". Its as open to interpretation as political science for Christsakes...........in other words, none of this shit is provable.............as its always been.
Of course science fucked up. Were you born, in a hospital? Some doctor, who had to study biology missed a very important chance, to keep the fucktard population to a minimum.
What was said is "no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output." What do you suppose that means? Your shit-rants against warming and related phenomena are shit! The sun couldn't do ACC, all by itself! Fucktards were breeding, cutting trees, burning coal and oil and shit!
You convinced me, sucksassandballs. Science missed one, and like a little alien-phage, looking to get in some astronaut's face, that little problem is rolling around.