I don't quite know how to answer because I think that we are still not "on the same page" so far as the cycle I am talking about. Let me try a slightly different way here. I would be the first to agree that the 11 year cycle of solar activity has been thoroughly taken into consideration by climatologists. They are intelligent people but I think their viewpoint on the significance of the MILLIONS of MEGAWATTS of heat that is being added over the 30 year cycle that I speak of isn't being given the consideration it SHOULD be given because of the political view of climatologists who are allowing their acceptance and consideration of data that should be given more weight to be affected by their agenda. I think we could agree here that both sides are likely guilty of this to some extent. I definitely don't blame JUST the left for this. But they ARE one of the two biggest groups involved. In addition, there are more cycles involved in this than just the 30 year 3% cycle. There are in fact several more of differing lengths that go all the way out to 2000 years. The 30 year cycle simply happens to be the one whose effect is most easily seen because of its short length and the large amount of heat involved. My sources for the number and length of the cycles are the calculations of several different astrophysicists at several different institutions. I hope this has been helpful.
I will answer your argument because you are not political and/or outright insulting as are all the other commenters in this forum.
I respect you for your politeness and civility. I think you may have misunderstood my use of the term "cycle" or "cyclic". When I use this term in my post I am simply referring to periods of time and not to periods of change in the radiation or heat output of the Sun due to solar storms, coronal mass ejections, or sunspots. These have not been ignored, but have been taken into account. What I refer to is changes in irradiance resulting ONLY from movement of the sun and planets in relation to each other, and the fact that the center of mass of the whole system does NOT remain in the same place due to the movement of the sun around the point defined in my post as the 'barycenter'. I also refer to irradiance in the sense of the heat that the WHOLE portion of a planet which faces the sun receives. There are MANY cycles of change in irradiance for EACH planet, but the 30 year cycle which relates only to Earth involves a 3% change in irradiance over that 30 year period that amounts to 1.0305 x 10 to the 10th power MEGAWATTS of heat(or half the area of Earth in Square meters times 40 watts)and this is a HUGE amount of heat that is NOT accounted for by the climate change alarmists. I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Rickaroo I will not argue my political philosophy with you as it is apparent from your statements that you have the same knee jerk reaction full of preconceptions as to what anarchy is or is not that almost everyone has. It useless to argue with anyone who has already made up his mind and I don't do it.
You know allahsyoungerbrother, you seem to me to be sadder than
conservative is or ever has been. You spend all of your time composing poorly thought out insults rather than useful or coherent comments. Conservative certainly has some strong opinions, but certainly no stronger than some others who comment here. I believe homosexuality to be abnormal and immoral, but I limit my comments to that simple statement and I don't go out of my way to insult those who practice that lifestyle. It is not my place to judge them or to hate them. I don't believe they should be allowed to legally marry, but I would not deny them anything else. Does this opinion make you believe that I wish to have a
"religious North Korea"? Or that I am "sad" in some way?
There are 2 reasons why the Democrats will call you ignorant and stupid if you don’t believe their explanation and question it. 1) That’s just the way liberals argue, and 2)Not every science that has something to do with it is being used to argue the cause of climate change. Climatology, while a respectable science, is not the only science that helps explain climate change. Astrophysics, which deals in part with change in the motions of the sun and all the major planets is just as likely a candidate, but it is ignored. If it matters at ALL, it happens that I am neither a right-winger or a leftist. I am actually a rational anarchist who feels that the truth is more important by far than
politics. “Greenhouse” gasses have been in our atmosphere over the history of this planet as has been shown in ice core samples. And the figures we get from these that approximate temperature before direct measurement began don't always correlate with the amounts of these gasses at any particular time. If you look at astrophysics, you find that Newton's work doesn’t quite cover the motions of the sun or the planets as observed. The reason is that the center of the sun is NOT the center of mass of the solar system. A point known as the "barycenter" is the actual point that all the planets and moons orbit. The barycenter is the point between two objects where they balance each other. It is the center of mass where a moon orbits a planet or a planet orbits a star. Both bodies actually orbit around a point that lies outside the center of the larger body. The moon doesn’t orbit the exact center of the Earth. It actually orbits a point on a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon that’s about 1,710 km below Earth’s surface. The solar system also has a barycenter and, depending on the current locations and masses of all the planets, the barycenter of the solar system is either below the surface of the sun or more than twice the sun’s diameter outside it. So the sun does a wobble around it. If you’d like to see it, go to:
This results in cycles of changing irradiance of all the planets, including Earth, which has several cycles one of which is a 30 year cycle in which the heat the side facing the sun gets is changing by about 3% which doesn’t sound like a lot until you realize that’s about 40 watts per square meter. That comes out to a total of 1.0305 x 10 to the 10th power MEGAWATTS of heat;an amount which could not be added to the atmosphere by any human activity including what the GAIA worshippers add in hot air.
Richard W. Shultz
SO, this defrocked Jesuit says if you don’t believe in non-violence you’re not a Christian? How dare he tell me that without having seen me or said a word to me? He ignores certain facts about Jesus that make him sound like a phony pacifist hypocrite. We all know the law laid out in Matthew 5:44 which tells us to love our enemies and do good to them. However when a Canaanite woman approached Jesus begging for him to heal her daughter, he refused:(Matthew 15:21-28) (Paraphrased) - Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." It is only after she replies to the effect that “yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table.” that Jesus decides to heal her daughter, which you would expect would NOT be necessary if Jesus follows his own law to love your enemies. It appears he isn't all-loving after all, but only prefers "the lost sheep of Israel" (the Jews).
Then he says "OK since your faith is so great I’ll heal your daughter," because he realized that he was wrong. I don’t think the good ex-father realizes Jesus committed His share of violence too. Like making a whip out of the curtain cords of the Temple and whipping the money changers to chase them out, and destroying their tables and scattering their money all over the floor screaming at them that they had defiled His Father’s house. If that’s not violence then I don’t know what is. I have a problem with pacifists. Pacifism is a shifty doctrine that allows people to enjoy protection against violence that comes by virtue of membership in a society while being unwilling to defend this protection for everyone when the necessity arises. This is the worst form of hypocrisy. I suspect from his comments about Christians that what father Dear has not learned about Christians is that they have NOT turned away from Jesus or the Church. They have simply learned a lesson that, in his case, hasn't sunk in. They've learned that we don't live in Jesus’ time and, in this time, those who live by the sword get SHOT by those who don't. There are a LOT more people in the world today who are not Christian, and are willing to use violence to get what they want. And Christians who wish to survive have learned these people are not in the least bit impressed by Scripture, but only by force. Sad though it may be, it is reality, and it is time that Father Dear be exposed to a good dose of it before he continues his criticism of other Christians.
Richard W. Shultz
Schultz, what is your gat that shoots 5.7mm?
I will assume(although that tends to get me in trouble..:=))that
yours is a serious question which deserves a serious (and polite)
answer. The weapon is a Fabrique National Herstal 5.7mm
semi-automatic. It's a Belgian designed weapon, but FN has a factory in the U.S. that builds it for the US market. It's a controversial weapon, and the Brady Bunch(the anti-gunners, not the TV show)and other organizations tried to get the BATFE NOT to let this pistol be sold in the U.S. for a couple of reasons. 1) It has a 20 round mag and you get 3 of them so obviously you'll have more ammo(60rounds) than almost anyone else. 2) The ammo is very powerful and even the special civilian bullet that they sell has been known to penetrate a few of the cheaper level IIA Kevlar vests which is what they give to most cops, so you can see why they would be unhappy about it. and 3)The round has the highest muzzle velocity (1700 fps)that I have ever heard of in a handgun. In point of fact it was originally designed for a submachine gun(the P90) and it's a bottleneck cartridge which holds a crapload of propellant and the bullet is a spire pointed TMJ round. In spite of this, the gun has no more recoil than a .22LR. Think of it as a .223 on steroids. The reason I bought it is because it makes sense to me that if I need a gun to defend myself it means that, for whatever reason, the situation has gotten out of control and I need every advantage to come out of it alive. Statistically, people who win gunfights have a)a ton of ammo b)a very powerful gun that's still very controllable and c)a gun with a report so deafeningly loud that your opponent will be startled and demoralized. I have been to ranges where people jump when I fire my first round and then stare at me(outdoor ranges!)It's very powerful and scary gun. Unfortunately the ammo is somewhat scarce at the moment although that situation is improving now that people are not quite as afraid that Obama will try to confiscate their guns, it's becoming easier to get ammo because people are not hoarding it as much as they were. The panic buying has not quite stopped but it has slowed down, and as long as Obama doesn't open his mouth and utter the the words "executive order" and the words "guns, ammo, or 2nd amendment" in the same sentence everything will calm down again. If you would like details on the weapon there are a ton of forums on it on the web. I CAN give you price info though. If you're thinking of buying one, then outfit your wallet with a $1200.00 bill and don't expect any change back. I hope this has been helpful to you.
Who needs a semi automatic gun that fires about 6000 rounds per minute ... I mean just how heavy is a gun with 6000 bullets in it ... I mean really.
It's obvious you know nothing about guns. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic that fires 6000 rounds a minute, with a semi-
auto you get ONE round every time you pull the trigger, no more.
And no human could lift 6000 rounds of ANY ammo even .22 cal.
Jt6gR3hM you are just being silly as usual. For one thing Zimmerman is just what I called him, and he brought what happened on himself. And in the second place, I have carried a gun for 30 years just as I said, but I have NEVER pulled it on anyone, and the reason is I have not HAD to because I don't bully people.
Rickaroo maybe we will never see eye to eye on very many things but some of my views do parallel some of yours, and when they do I will say so. Some of my views are the opposite of your own, and when they are I will also say so. To be clear, I do not hate all liberals but extreme leftists do, and always will, give me the red ass. I don't consider you to be an extreme leftist because I can stomach at least your views on guns if nothing else. As to my post, I was reacting as I do when I read too many anti-gun, and anti-conservative posts. I lash out. I will probably continue to do that. I don't hate you, nor do I consider you to be an extremist. You may not have a similar opinion of me but I can't change that, nor would I even if I could.