OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[Crick]

But that doesn't explain the FACTs supplied by experts:

Please explain...

No thanks.

 

[healthmyths]

No thanks.

Because you don't have an explanation nor does anyone else that I submit this to.

1) The world emissions of Co2 is 36.4 billion tons. fact: CO2 emissions
2) 3 Trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons fact: New Research: 1 Billion Hectares of Forest Could Save the Planet
Please answer: If 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons of the 36.4 billion tons emitted along with absorbing the 10.9 billion tons rotting leaves/wood
what is the problem?

Observation: Maybe there are three distinct questions here:
1) While we can measure the amount of Co2 emitted by rotting trees/leaves and fossil fuels is there a study of what the actual world wide
Earth's Fossil records reveal atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million, compared with 379 ppm in 2005.

Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!

The new convention is to refer to "global warming" (something many have told us to worry about) as "climate change" (meaning pretty much the same thing since it's supposed to be bad and caused by us anyway). The main difference appears to be that climate change is even worse, since [...]

www.forbes.com

2) Has the world's temperature increased due to more sunlight hours?
Just a figure skater rotates faster when they pull their arms in, when mass on Earth moves closer to its center, the planet will spin more quickly, and vice versa. This effect, the logical result of Newton’s laws dictating conservation of energy, leads to ongoing changes on Earth’s rotation rate today. As glaciers melt and sea levels rise, relatively more mass is flowing (in the form of meltwater) from near the poles to closer to Earth’s equator.
That’s slowing the Earth down and gradually lengthening our days.

Earth's Rotation Has Slowed Down Over Billions of Years

We have the moon's gravity to blame.

www.discovermagazine.com

(NOTE: this would mean more heat from the Sun warming the Earth.)

3) Has the world Temperature reading really increased 1.53 °F since 1880?
Read the below and put yourself in the position of the people that before weather stations had electronic recordings, humans had to endure -20° to 100+° to copy down a reading from a thermometer and then having their handwriting copied, recopied and recopied. Then you have that 12% of land mass was NOT included in the readings that required re-calculating.

 

[Crick]

Because you don't have an explanation nor does anyone else that I submit this to.

Hahahaaaa.... I suspect there may be other reasons for the lack of response.

1) The world emissions of Co2 is 36.4 billion tons. fact: CO2 emissions
2) 3 Trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons fact: New Research: 1 Billion Hectares of Forest Could Save the Planet
Please answer: If 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons of the 36.4 billion tons emitted along with absorbing the 10.9 billion tons rotting leaves/wood
what is the problem?

That you sound like a fruitcake? Just kidding. I found 640 trees per person and so from the world population I get 5.318 trillion trees. Healthy forests run 165-170 trees per acre. That gives me 31,750,000,000 acres. The area of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, is 2,400,000,000 acres. So all you need is to find an location slightly in excess of 13 times the area of all 50 states that can support a forest but that currently has none and plant the whole thing at 167.5 trees per acre. Of course, you'll need about 6 trillion healthy seedlings.. So, yeah, what IS the problem?

Observation: Maybe there are three distinct questions here:
1) While we can measure the amount of Co2 emitted by rotting trees/leaves and fossil fuels is there a study of what the actual world wide
Earth's Fossil records reveal atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million, compared with 379 ppm in 2005.

Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!

The new convention is to refer to "global warming" (something many have told us to worry about) as "climate change" (meaning pretty much the same thing since it's supposed to be bad and caused by us anyway). The main difference appears to be that climate change is even worse, since [...]

www.forbes.com

A more pertinent fact is that prior to the modern era, for the entire existence of homo sapiens on this planet, CO2 levels had never exceeded 300 ppm. Noting that CO2 *briefly* hit 7,000 ppm 600 million years ago is about as meaningful as noting the CO2 levels on Venus or Mars.

2) Has the world's temperature increased due to more sunlight hours?
Just a figure skater rotates faster when they pull their arms in, when mass on Earth moves closer to its center, the planet will spin more quickly, and vice versa. This effect, the logical result of Newton’s laws dictating conservation of energy, leads to ongoing changes on Earth’s rotation rate today. As glaciers melt and sea levels rise, relatively more mass is flowing (in the form of meltwater) from near the poles to closer to Earth’s equator.
That’s slowing the Earth down and gradually lengthening our days.

Earth's Rotation Has Slowed Down Over Billions of Years

We have the moon's gravity to blame.

www.discovermagazine.com

(NOTE: this would mean more heat from the Sun warming the Earth.)

NOTE: No it would not. A couple points. 1) You need to melt the poles before you get the slowing effect that you're suggesting is causing the warming that would melt the poles. 2) Slowing the Earth's rotation will not increase the Earth's temperature. For every extra millisecond of daylight, you'd get an extra millisecond of nighttime. The Sun's heating of the Earth is determined by the Earth's albedo and it's distance from the sun. Melting the poles will decrease our albedo and cause us to warm faster, but, as noted in #1, you first have to have the heat to melt the poles.

3) Has the world Temperature reading really increased 1.53 °F since 1880?
Read the below and put yourself in the position of the people that before weather stations had electronic recordings, humans had to endure -20° to 100+° to copy down a reading from a thermometer and then having their handwriting copied, recopied and recopied. Then you have that 12% of land mass was NOT included in the readings that required re-calculating.

Oh pleee-uzzz not this shite again.

So... do a little more thinking before setting fingers to keys, okay?

 

[healthmyths]

Hahahaaaa.... I suspect there may be other reasons for the lack of response.

That you sound like a fruitcake? Just kidding. I found 640 trees per person and so from the world population I get 5.318 trillion trees. Healthy forests run 165-170 trees per acre. That gives me 31,750,000,000 acres. The area of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, is 2,400,000,000 acres. So all you need is to find an location slightly in excess of 13 times the area of all 50 states that can support a forest but that currently has none and plant the whole thing at 167.5 trees per acre. Of course, you'll need about 6 trillion healthy seedlings.. So, yeah, what IS the problem?

A more pertinent fact is that prior to the modern era, for the entire existence of homo sapiens on this planet, CO2 levels had never exceeded 300 ppm. Noting that CO2 *briefly* hit 7,000 ppm 600 million years ago is about as meaningful as noting the CO2 levels on Venus or Mars.

NOTE: No it would not. A couple points. 1) You need to melt the poles before you get the slowing effect that you're suggesting is causing the warming that would melt the poles. 2) Slowing the Earth's rotation will not increase the Earth's temperature. For every extra millisecond of daylight, you'd get an extra millisecond of nighttime. The Sun's heating of the Earth is determined by the Earth's albedo and it's distance from the sun. Melting the poles will decrease our albedo and cause us to warm faster, but, as noted in #1, you first have to have the heat to melt the poles.

Oh pleee-uzzz not this shite again.

So... do a little more thinking before setting fingers to keys, okay?

YOU are such a liar! NOT one piece of proof. NOT one substantiation. ZERO.
FACTS: How Many Trees Are in the World? By Country, Type, Year (Updated 2022)
The most recent forest evaluations rely on satellite images to determine tree cover. Forests occupy 30% of the Earth’s total area and are home to over a billion trees, and the current world’s tree population is estimated at more than 3 trillion. A recent Yale University study found that for every person on the planet, there are around 422 trees.
FACT:According to the Arbor Day Foundation , in one year a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange.Jun 3, 2019

The Power of One Tree - The Very Air We Breathe

The second in a series of blogs honoring the United Nation’s 2015 International Day of Forests On Saturday, March 21, the U.S. Forest Service will celebrate the United Nation’s International Day of Forests. With such an important worldwide recognition of all forests do for us humans, the Forest...

www.usda.gov

SO dummy!!! how much is 3 trillion trees times 48 pounds? Answer: 144,000,000,000,000 lbs.
How many tons in 144,000,000,000,000 ? Divided by 2,000 lbs in one ton equals: 72,000,000,000 tons!
FACT: How much CO2 emitted in the world in one year? We have 34.81 billion tons of Co2 emitted per the experts:

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2023 | Statista

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.

www.statista.com

So DUMB f...k if 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons... and the world emits 34.81 billion TONS... AGAIN answer what is the problem???
You are too dumb to answer and what ever answer you give WILL NOT BE supported by any substantiation because you provide NONE!
DUMMY!

 

[healthmyths]

Hahahaaaa.... I suspect there may be other reasons for the lack of response.

That you sound like a fruitcake? Just kidding. I found 640 trees per person and so from the world population I get 5.318 trillion trees. Healthy forests run 165-170 trees per acre. That gives me 31,750,000,000 acres. The area of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, is 2,400,000,000 acres. So all you need is to find an location slightly in excess of 13 times the area of all 50 states that can support a forest but that currently has none and plant the whole thing at 167.5 trees per acre. Of course, you'll need about 6 trillion healthy seedlings.. So, yeah, what IS the problem?

A more pertinent fact is that prior to the modern era, for the entire existence of homo sapiens on this planet, CO2 levels had never exceeded 300 ppm. Noting that CO2 *briefly* hit 7,000 ppm 600 million years ago is about as meaningful as noting the CO2 levels on Venus or Mars.

NOTE: No it would not. A couple points. 1) You need to melt the poles before you get the slowing effect that you're suggesting is causing the warming that would melt the poles. 2) Slowing the Earth's rotation will not increase the Earth's temperature. For every extra millisecond of daylight, you'd get an extra millisecond of nighttime. The Sun's heating of the Earth is determined by the Earth's albedo and it's distance from the sun. Melting the poles will decrease our albedo and cause us to warm faster, but, as noted in #1, you first have to have the heat to melt the poles.

Oh pleee-uzzz not this shite again.

So... do a little more thinking before setting fingers to keys, okay?

We know, based on the fossil record, that days were just 18 hours long 1.4 billion years ago, and half an hour shorter than they are today 70 million years ago. Evidence suggests that we're gaining 1.8 milliseconds a century.

Earth's Rotation Is Slowing Down, And It Could Be Why We Have Oxygen For Life

Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth's rotation has been gradually slowing down, and its days gotten progressively longer as a result.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[Concerned American]

The bed wetters got tired of having to change the narrative from "global cooling" to "global warming" every few decades so they came up with climate change.
That encompasses anything- hot/cold, wet/dry, calm/storm- they all can fit under that umbrella to fool the sheeple with nonsense hysteria about the weather.

The climate has always & will always change. Going Chicken Little over it is for the masked morons.
Most of the US is under record breaking drought conditions so where's all this water going?

Normal people call all of that "weather"

 

[Crick]

We know, based on the fossil record, that days were just 18 hours long 1.4 billion years ago, and half an hour shorter than they are today 70 million years ago. Evidence suggests that we're gaining 1.8 milliseconds a century.

Earth's Rotation Is Slowing Down, And It Could Be Why We Have Oxygen For Life

Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth's rotation has been gradually slowing down, and its days gotten progressively longer as a result.

www.sciencealert.com

It has been known for a very great long while that the Earth's rotation is being slowed by the moon's slowly increasing orbital radius. What I am laughing at is your suggestion that the slowing rotation - longer days - could be the cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years. The number of things wrong - OBVIOUSLY wrong - with that idea are numerous. If you'd like me to go through a few of them, just double down on your idea in a true Trumpian fashion.

 

[healthmyths]

It has been known for a very great long while that the Earth's rotation is being slowed by the moon's slowly increasing orbital radius. What I am laughing at is your suggestion that the slowing rotation - longer days - could be the cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years. The number of things wrong - OBVIOUSLY wrong - with that idea are numerous. If you'd like me to go through a few of them, just double down on your idea in a true Trumpian fashion.

All your own observations. No proof.
What exactly are your credentials in celestial mechanics? Or do you even have a college degree as your ignorance of scholastic requirements to provide substantiation is definitely obvious!

 

[Crick]

All your own observations. No proof.
What exactly are your credentials in celestial mechanics? Or do you even have a college degree as your ignorance of scholastic requirements to provide substantiation is definitely obvious!

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Breakdown: Why Earth’s rotation is slowing down & its impacts

Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago (Neoproterozoic days), Earth’s rotation has been gradually slowing down. It’s a process that continues to this day, and estimates suggest that the length of a day currently increases by about 1.8 milliseconds every century. But why is the...

www.actionnews5.com

The ever-changing planet: Why is Earth suddenly slowing down?

Over the past few decades, Earth's rotation around its axis - which determines how long a day is - has been speeding up.

m.economictimes.com

Earth's Rotation Is Slowing Down, And It Could Be Why We Have Oxygen For Life

Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth's rotation has been gradually slowing down, and its days gotten progressively longer as a result.

www.sciencealert.com

Earth's rotation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Earth’s Days Have Been Mysteriously Increasing in Length – Scientists Don’t Know Why

Precise astronomical observations, combined with atomic clocks, have revealed that the length of a day is suddenly getting longer. Scientists don’t know why. This has critical impacts not just on our timekeeping, but also on things like GPS and other precision technologies that govern our modern

scitechdaily.com

Is the earth's rotation slowing down?

Ask the experts your physics and astronomy questions, read answer archive, and more.

www.physlink.com

Did it not occur to you before going into such a hissy fit to take a quick look and see?

And I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.

 

[healthmyths]

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Breakdown: Why Earth’s rotation is slowing down & its impacts

Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago (Neoproterozoic days), Earth’s rotation has been gradually slowing down. It’s a process that continues to this day, and estimates suggest that the length of a day currently increases by about 1.8 milliseconds every century. But why is the...

www.actionnews5.com

The ever-changing planet: Why is Earth suddenly slowing down?

Over the past few decades, Earth's rotation around its axis - which determines how long a day is - has been speeding up.

m.economictimes.com

Earth's Rotation Is Slowing Down, And It Could Be Why We Have Oxygen For Life

Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth's rotation has been gradually slowing down, and its days gotten progressively longer as a result.

www.sciencealert.com

Earth's rotation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Earth’s Days Have Been Mysteriously Increasing in Length – Scientists Don’t Know Why

Precise astronomical observations, combined with atomic clocks, have revealed that the length of a day is suddenly getting longer. Scientists don’t know why. This has critical impacts not just on our timekeeping, but also on things like GPS and other precision technologies that govern our modern

scitechdaily.com

Is the earth's rotation slowing down?

Ask the experts your physics and astronomy questions, read answer archive, and more.

www.physlink.com

Did it not occur to you before going into such a hissy fit to take a quick look and see?

And I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.

So how complicated is it to provide those links at the beginning?
Wow... you know how to build oil drilling platforms!
So what then gives your expertise in weather, in CO2 emissions, etc.? ZERO!
I'm actually surprised with a BSc you don't understand why it is important to substantiate comments because without the links, you
are just a simple unqualified opinion maker which is fine but it shows your lack of scholarship and to me that's a drawback in anything you make a comment on. Now if it comes to building oil drilling platforms that minimize leaking I respect that! Good for you!

What is Ocean Engineering: Education, Colleges, Jobs And Salary​

If defined in detail, it would be mentioned as a branch of technological studies that deals with the design and operations of artificial systems in the ocean and other marine bodies for solving complex engineering problems.

What is Ocean Engineering: Education, Colleges, Jobs And Salary

Ocean engineering is a field of study that deals with man-made offshore marine structures and ocean study. Read inside to find out more on ocean engineering.

www.marineinsight.com

 

[Crick]

So how complicated is it to provide those links at the beginning?

The problem is an apparently large difference between what you and I believe to be common knowledge

Wow... you know how to build oil drilling platforms!

I worked on one in the North Sea for my first job out of school but it didn't last too long. I spent most of my professional career testing submarine and surface ship sonars (and other sensors and weapons systems)

So what then gives your expertise in weather, in CO2 emissions, etc.? ZERO!

Primarily, the Assessment Reports of the IPCC. You?

I'm actually surprised with a BSc you don't understand why it is important to substantiate comments because without the links, you
are just a simple unqualified opinion maker which is fine but it shows your lack of scholarship and to me that's a drawback in anything you make a comment on.

If I tell you that school buses are typically yellow, do you wonder if I'm correct and wish I'd linked to a reference? I have been posting here for a few years now and there are very few new conversations. I am probably making inaccurate assumptions about what you have and have not already seen here

Now if it comes to building oil drilling platforms that minimize leaking I respect that! Good for you!

There are two primary employers of people with OE degrees: the oil industry and the Navy (or navies). I finished my degree after a six year stint as a submarine sonar tech. I tried oil after school and might have stayed (the money was VERY good) but I had girlfriend troubles that brought me back to the states where I was approached to take a submarine job in the Bahamas. That was just too much fun to pass up so I took it and ended up staying there for my entire career.

What is Ocean Engineering: Education, Colleges, Jobs And Salary​

If defined in detail, it would be mentioned as a branch of technological studies that deals with the design and operations of artificial systems in the ocean and other marine bodies for solving complex engineering problems.

What is Ocean Engineering: Education, Colleges, Jobs And Salary

Ocean engineering is a field of study that deals with man-made offshore marine structures and ocean study. Read inside to find out more on ocean engineering.

www.marineinsight.com

It was a good degree. It's not offered at too many schools.

 

[healthmyths]

The problem is an apparently large difference between what you and I believe to be common knowledge

I worked on one in the North Sea for my first job out of school but it didn't last too long. I spent most of my professional career testing submarine and surface ship sonars (and other sensors and weapons systems)

Primarily, the Assessment Reports of the IPCC. You?

If I tell you that school buses are typically yellow, do you wonder if I'm correct and wish I'd linked to a reference? I have been posting here for a few years now and there are very few new conversations. I am probably making inaccurate assumptions about what you have and have not already seen here

There are two primary employers of people with OE degrees: the oil industry and the Navy (or navies). I finished my degree after a six year stint as a submarine sonar tech. I tried oil after school and might have stayed (the money was VERY good) but I had girlfriend troubles that brought me back to the states where I was approached to take a submarine job in the Bahamas. That was just too much fun to pass up so I took it and ended up staying there for my entire career.

It was a good degree. It's not offered at too many schools.

I appreciate your comments especially describing your work experiences very interesting.
I agree, most of us know buses are yellow and just like the sun comes up and goes down we all know. For sure.
But you may have known what you wrote:
"by the Earth's albedo"

But the vast amount of people DO NOT know what the "Earth's albedo" is. And this assumption that most people knew what it is an example of how uninformed you are. For example, I'm not so pompous as to believe you know what the word "eleemosynary" means
without looking it up. Therefore I won't use that word in conversation unless I explained what it meant. Nor would I presume you can define "Cognitive dissonance" a term frequently used in my college training.
Since you described your academic credentials, I can understand your assumption that all of us believe your unsupported comments.

 

[Crick]

I appreciate your comments especially describing your work experiences very interesting.
I agree, most of us know buses are yellow and just like the sun comes up and goes down we all know. For sure.
But you may have known what you wrote:
"by the Earth's albedo"

But the vast amount of people DO NOT know what the "Earth's albedo" is. And this assumption that most people knew what it is an example of how uninformed you are. For example, I'm not so pompous as to believe you know what the word "eleemosynary" means
without looking it up. Therefore I won't use that word in conversation unless I explained what it meant. Nor would I presume you can define "Cognitive dissonance" a term frequently used in my college training.
Since you described your academic credentials, I can understand your assumption that all of us believe your unsupported comments.

Okay. But I don't believe I was being pompous.

 

[healthmyths]

Okay. But I don't believe I was being pompous.

You are right... that was not correct. You were though assuming most of us knew terms that you knew.
For example...you wrote: "The Earth is an oblate spheroid".
An oblate spheroid is the body of revolution formed when an ellipse with minor axis dimension (a) and major axis dimension (b) is rotated about its minor axis.

Oblate Spheroids - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Why is the Earth called an oblate spheroid?
Earth is an oblate spheroid. This means it is spherical in shape, but not perfectly round. It is slightly bulged at the equator and is flattened at the poles.https://byjus.com/question-answer/w...mplete-spheroidoblate-spheroidperfect-sphere/

What is the shape of Earth? - Byju's​

The point is that most of us (including me! I had to look it up!) didn't know that the Earth is defined as an "oblate spheroid". Now I knew that the rotation of the Earth had been slowing down but the term "oblate spheroid" wasn't used in the links I read.
So while you are not pompous and I'm sorry that I incorrectly stated that, you may want to consider the reader's level.
The average American is considered to have a readability level equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old).Mar 22, 2017

What is readability and why should content editors care about it?

centerforplainlanguage.org

So that maybe the issue that triggered the term pompous which was incorrect. You just assumed most of us were at your reading level! Remember the Gettysburg Address had a (10th grade reading level) is included as well as two special adapted versions for younger students.

Gettysburg Address Reluctant Reader ELL Adaptation Lower Readability Score

Perfect for President's day 2016! The great Gettysburg Address speech by Abraham Lincoln is adapted for lower readability score. The original speech (10th grade reading level) is included as well as two special adapted versions for younger students, ELL learners, and students who struggle with...

www.teacherspayteachers.com

 

[Crick]

You are right... that was not correct. You were though assuming most of us knew terms that you knew.
For example...you wrote: "The Earth is an oblate spheroid".
An oblate spheroid is the body of revolution formed when an ellipse with minor axis dimension (a) and major axis dimension (b) is rotated about its minor axis.

Oblate Spheroids - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Why is the Earth called an oblate spheroid?
Earth is an oblate spheroid. This means it is spherical in shape, but not perfectly round. It is slightly bulged at the equator and is flattened at the poles.https://byjus.com/question-answer/w...mplete-spheroidoblate-spheroidperfect-sphere/

What is the shape of Earth? - Byju's​

The point is that most of us (including me! I had to look it up!) didn't know that the Earth is defined as an "oblate spheroid". Now I knew that the rotation of the Earth had been slowing down but the term "oblate spheroid" wasn't used in the links I read.
So while you are not pompous and I'm sorry that I incorrectly stated that, you may want to consider the reader's level.
The average American is considered to have a readability level equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old).Mar 22, 2017

What is readability and why should content editors care about it?

centerforplainlanguage.org

So that maybe the issue that triggered the term pompous which was incorrect. You just assumed most of us were at your reading level! Remember the Gettysburg Address had a (10th grade reading level) is included as well as two special adapted versions for younger students.

Gettysburg Address Reluctant Reader ELL Adaptation Lower Readability Score

Perfect for President's day 2016! The great Gettysburg Address speech by Abraham Lincoln is adapted for lower readability score. The original speech (10th grade reading level) is included as well as two special adapted versions for younger students, ELL learners, and students who struggle with...

www.teacherspayteachers.com

Considering the hostility of our initial conversations, I am more than a little impressed that you care to have such an amicable conversation with me. I offer my own apologies for derogatory over reactions on my part in earlier posts. I have so many hostile conversants here it's been far too easy to make faulty assumptions as to what response is actually called for in any given conversation. Mea culpa.

 

[ding]

I have so many hostile conversants here it's been far too easy to make faulty assumptions as to what response is actually called for in any given conversation.

Have you ever considered the common denominator is you? Because you seem to get upset when people don't accept your beliefs as gospel. And why would it matter to you how other people respond anyway? Are you saying that other people control your responses? That's a textbook example of an external locus of control. I bet you might be getting angry just reading this. If so, you should ask yourself why because I haven't said anything that was offensive or personal.

 

[Crick]

Have you ever considered the common denominator is you?

I considered it and rejected it.

Because you seem to get upset when people don't accept your beliefs as gospel.

I get upset with people who choose to be willfully ignorant.

And why would it matter to you how other people respond anyway?

I never said it did.

Are you saying that other people control your responses?

No.

That's a textbook example of an external locus of control.

Big woof.

I bet you might be getting angry just reading this.

God are you stupid.

If so, you should ask yourself why because I haven't said anything that was offensive or personal.

Just stupid.

 

[ding]

I considered it and rejected it.

I get upset with people who choose to be willfully ignorant.

I never said it did.

No.

Big woof.

God are you stupid.

Just stupid.

Textbook dunning effect

 

[ding]

I considered it and rejected it.

I get upset with people who choose to be willfully ignorant.

I never said it did.

No.

Big woof.

God are you stupid.

Just stupid.

The next time I teach you about the effects of bipolar glaciation and the different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation. You should parse each point like you did here instead of running away.

 

[Crick]

The next time I teach you about the effects of bipolar glaciation and the different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation. You should parse each point like you did here instead of running away.

You are a waste of whatever computer you're using. Why don't you donate it to some local school?