Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?It's not the least bit interesting.
Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?
There's a good boy.
How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?It's not the least bit interesting.
Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?
There's a good boy.
How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.
How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?It's not the least bit interesting.
Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?
There's a good boy.
How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.
Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability
Earth Magnetic Field
How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?It's not the least bit interesting.
Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?
There's a good boy.
How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.
P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.
How would Earth climate be affected if the Earth's magnetic filed was 30% weaker than 100 years ago, with rapid weakening happening in the last 50 years?
How is that proving a negative is asking for effects of a declining magnetic field, but I guess since this is an actual science question it is foreign to the AGW church members.
P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.
So in other words you have no real answer.
The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.
Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.
Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.
Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.
probably not
one thing is certain though
the more and longer cold records are set
the more rabid the believers get
--LOL
P'raps you're not such a good boy. The negative would be your claim that "NO" (see, that's a negative term) "AGW believers have an answer". Get it? If not, look up your old fifth grade teacher and ask her to repeat your English lessons. The logical point is that for you to honestly make that claim, you would have to have surveyed EVERY AGW believer in existence. That's the problem with pushing negatives.
So in other words you have no real answer.
The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.
Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.
Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.
It's not the least bit interesting.
Have you ever heard the line that you can't prove a negative? It's not true all the time, but it's a point to be considered. You ask a vague, ill-defined question, with an obvious agenda, and then, seven hours later, claim that a large group of people has "NO ANSWER". Well, I think you and I both know the question and your follow up are complete bullshit. But this is a free forum. Why don't you just skip the broad-based demonization and tell us your clever theory (the the clever theory about which you've read) concerning the Earth's climate and its magnetic field? Eh?
There's a good boy.
Interesting the AGW believers have no answer.
probably not
one thing is certain though
the more and longer cold records are set
the more rabid the believers get
--LOL
I can see you're trying to provide a more realistic comment, but you've just agreed that it's "probably" true that no "AGW believer" has an answer to Kosh's question. Doesn't help. And you know what I've noticed? No AGW denier had an answer either. Conclusion: no one cares about this point. It'll neither save nor doom the world.
So in other words you have no real answer.
The Word NO is not in my question, but I expected the AGW attacks as this does not fall into their programming.
Once again the AGW church fails and shows that propaganda trumps science fact.
Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.
One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.
Just goes to show that you have nothing.
This is the most fitting link I can find to help with your problem:
Argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you not understand that the workings of RHETORIC are widely known? Did you actually think you were doing something clever here? I haven't the faintest interest in debating your "science" because you haven't got any to start with and we've had very clear indications that you couldn't comprehend any I passed your way.
One can prove a decline in the magnetic field, one can prove a decline in temperature, one can prove a decline in population, etc. These are facts that can be backed by science and/or math.
Just goes to show that you have nothing.
This is the most fitting link I can find to help with your problem:
Argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My position - and the argument I have consistently made here - is that global warming is taking place, even now, and that the primary cause of that warming is a greenhouse effect using greenhouse gases emitted by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. THAT is the mainstream view. It is a view held by the VAST majority of climates scientists and scientists in general. YOUR view is held by something in the neighborhood of ONE in ONE-HUNDRED climate scientists (if that). Thousands of peer reviewed research studies support that view. Virtually NONE support your view. The majority of known names and pundits on your side of this argument are unqualified to speak to the topic. I use virtually NOTHING but PhDs because I have my pick of thousands of them.
If you have something of interest concerning the Earth's magnetic field and our climate, just put it out there and talk. Stop trying to use items like this to suggest that you or anyone you know is smarter than the world's scientists.
That effort fails long before you begin.