abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that half a wikipedia page...You asked for sources, you got 23.
Thanks for that half a wikipedia page...You asked for sources, you got 23.
You know those things called "references" ??so now wikipedia is a good source. a couple of posts ago they weren't.
your trolling is beyond shitty.
so the journal articles wikipedia summarizes are good, thus wikipedia is no good.You know those things called "references" ??
They're generally links to journal articles.
Seriously tho, are all you lefties this retarded?
At least Padawanrapist can "talk the talk".
The references are not the article itself.so the journal articles wikipedia summarizes are good, thus wikipedia is no good.
got it.
makes perfect sense.
Lol, you are so fucking dumb it hurts.
He copy pasted half the page, I read the page.Lol, you are so fucking dumb it hurts.
I havent read any of the 23 sources he posted, have you?He copy pasted half the page, I read the page.
What am I missing here?
Did you read the page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Do you agree with it?
Pretenders gonna pretend.Do you really think I have been arguing about climate change online for months while traveling around the world and never stumbled across Milankovitch theory? That's why I said Heckler made a good point.
I already admitted that I lost this round by internet technicality rules. I'm not the one who posted half a wiki page.Pretenders gonna pretend.
You read a Wiki article and now think youre a "Science Guy" but you dont even know what a reference to a published journal article is.
Its hilarious.
Dude, I can admit my ignorance when Im ignorant on a subject.I already admitted that I lost this round by internet technicality rules.
So do you or do you not agree with Milankovitch theory?
you keep saying "23 references" but what you really mean is that part of a wikipedia page that NoDrama copy pasted, right?Dude, I can admit my ignorance when Im ignorant on a subject.
You cant even spot 23 references to scientific journal articles tho.
Ill give you a hint, if you could read the references you'd know they're actually written that way for a reason, it gives information of the publication it appeared in, who authored it, etc and most of the time in the case of a link to an online reference sometimes the date and time of retrieval is included.
Orbital theory has "overwhelming" support.you keep saying "23 references" but what you really mean is that part of a wikipedia page that NoDrama copy pasted, right?
Did you read the wiki page they came from though?
Dude he asked for links after you gave him references.Orbital theory has "overwhelming" support.
Which means nothing, but sounds like you don't want to be one of those "Weird" people that doesn't support it do you?
Ive already admitted Im ignorant on that subject.So you do, in fact agree with Milankovitch theory?
I'm with you, I was hoping for something better than half of a wikipedia page.Ive already admitted Im ignorant on that subject.
At least I know where to find the information should I want to instead of reading Wikipedia and thinking Im a "science guy".
Is there some reason we should not support it?So you do, in fact agree with Milankovitch theory?