The El Nino he said would absolutely start in December last year… well, it didn’t start.

Another retard liar bites the dust!

You’re a retard
——————-

and You are a LIAR!!!

“It’s warmer during the day then it is during the night…
It’s warmer during the summer (sun relative closer) then it is during the winter (sun relative further away)…
It’s warmer on a sunny day then it is on a cloudy day…

It might be obvious the Sun is the single motor behind weather…”

It might be obvious to a retard, but anyone with a brain can tell it is far more complicated than that.

The Sun of course is a factor, but it is FAR from the “single motor”. The changes of the Sun are of such a small magnitude, that the total difference from maximum and minimum is less than 0.1%, no where near enough to be responsible for the warming seen.

—-

@TheTruthIsOutThere

You’re a retard.

—-

@WarLoPo

I’m not sure exactly what you are saying, because your post is rather confused.

Here is what I am saying in a nutshell:

There is no such thing as a “peer reviewed book”. What Dilley has done is SELECT four people (who he refuses to name) and asked THEM to review his book. That is no different to what you get on a fiction novel! I could find four people to say anything I want (even unpaid) about anything I want, and have the same credibility as Dilley.

Peer review is NOT about an author selecting a few people to review his work. It is about independent reviewers hired by a third party, a journal for example, to ensure that the quality of work is up to the standards required by that journal. Science, or Nature are only as trustworthy as the studies they allow to be printed, so they have a vested interest in ensuring those studies are factual and valid (note this is NOT the same as “true” – a study can be valid and still come to the wrong conclusions).

Secondly, the claims Dilley has made are NOT being supported. He tells you to read his book, but to do that you have to pay him. Thus, even if you then decide he is a lying bastard, it’s too late he already has your money.

What little information IS public does not support the claims of certainty that he has made. Even if he HAD found a correlation, he would still have to show why other factors have NOT had the effect they have been measured to have.

He would have to show that not only has rising CO2 not caused the warming, he would have to show WHY, when it is a physical fact proven by both experimentation and observation that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas. If CO2 WASN’T causing warming, then our understanding of PHYSICS would have to be wrong. You see, AGW is not just a concoction of computer models like the liars and deniers constantly claim, but is the result of centuries of work and understanding of fields such as particle physics and thermodynamics.

You can’t just throw all that work away without showing WHY, and it is highly doubtful that Dilley could have done that in 40 pages.

@Karmakaze
I see your argument now., i was ignorant, i totally didnt read the artical.
(his argument)
In the peer reviewed book “Global Warming—Global Cooling,’
(faulty data) the carbon dioxide levels, dont have much to do with either effect.
(sun spots on the moon rappedly going ape shit due to climt chage ne the solar cycles do)
(sun gets hot as hell)
(sun stops haveing spots)
we cool..
Natural Cause Found”, meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley utilizes nearly a half million years of data linking long term gravitational cycles of the moon explain the recent global warming, rises in carbon dioxide levels, and for 2200 global

sorry k. props…late night reading can be a bich sometims.

It might be obvious the Sun is the single motor behind weather…

“Outlaw government control over monetary policies and make the suggestion high treason, beyond immunity and punishable by death.”

Oh you genius! You do realise that the federal reserve is a PRIVATE BANK, right? That the government of the US has NO CONTROL over monetary policy? Don’t you listen to Alex Jones?