/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11093863
cause the correlation is more evident that way

>>11093886
>only one I can find is a bad archaeologist

More scientism dogma from you, why am i not surprised??? You realize there are certain scientific communities that have an incentive to not challenge the status quo? You don't see how the egyptologists that are intimately connected to their tourism industry might have something like that? I'm not saying that I know the sphinx is older but it's a good hypothesis and the established archaeologists wont even debate him on it.

Shoch worked as a climatologist and geologist on finding *shocked* quartz from massive geomagnetic storms and he showed how ancient cave paintings that had similar symbols were describing massive plasma discharges in the sky pic related.

>What's your point? Total solar irradiance does not account for the observed temperature change on Earth.

Then why is correlated and the other point was that if politicians and retarded little girls are screeching about climate change becuase it's such a threat then they should also be going fucking nuts about solar flares as we had a real near miss in 2012. And also asteroids while theyre at it. Global Warming is like number 3 or 4 on the natural disaster list.

And whether or not humans create something doesn't change how fucked up it would be or how preventable it is. For example it might be easier to redirect an asteroid rather than changing our whole fucking economy because some little retarded bitch is fucking throwing a tantrum on tv.

>No, you really didn't. Denialtard blogs and schizo youtube videos don't make a convincing argument.

Ad hominem. Climate cartel "scientists" don't make a good argument. I linked the paper where they said they changed the fucking estimates. Changing your models to suit your prediction IS SUSPICIOUS.

>As in, the old analysis still showed a significant warming trend.
It was "only" 0.3 degrees a century as i showed >>11093844