hmmm

I'm saying there are certain...factions of people who will seize on any reason to villify western capitalism and unrepentantly decadent individuals in general.

The author is a former NASA scientist who makes a living as a science writer. What is hot to write about for science writers and easy to sell? I'll give you a hint: It starts with a "G" and rhymes with "Low-ball swarming".

Is this a Scientist, poo-pooing any questioning of Science?

Hasn't suspect data from NASA and shoddy methodology in re weather station siting and setup been at the heart of the issue as well?

I give this editorial as much credibility as I would a Catholic Priest, telling me there are no child molestors in the priesthood.

It's not "unscientific" to dismiss alternate theories out of hand if there's nothing to back them up.

And if that were true about all of the alternate climate theories, you might have had a point.

By the way, the sky is blue.

Now, if only your side could post some of those alternate theories published by legitimate scientists who weren't underwritten by the petroleum industry...but for some reason all you can do is play "I know you are, but what am I?"

Here are the references.

Svensmark, H. and N. Calder. 2007. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Icon Books Limited.
Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics. 48 (1): 1.19.
Svensmark, H. et al. 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 463 (2078): 385-396.

An abstract:

This at least acknowledges that climate change is real and that it's occurring, which puts it about a good portion of the "There's no such thing!" in this forum.

As I understand Svensmark's hypothesis, he considers cosmic rays to be an *indirect* cause of climate change. Does he acknowledge what the direct causes might be?

And, more to the point, does he - or do you, for that matter - take the stance that "There's nothing we can do about it except buy waterfront property in Nevada"?

Ask Ramen.

Interesting that that's the only part of the post you were capable of answering.

Another nail in the Man Made Climate Change coffin was driven today.


CERN publishes their Cosmic Ray/Cloud Formation research.
Global Warming Cultists Hardest Hit.

Again, Svensmark's hypothesis (and I'm betting sandbagger doesn't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory) is that cosmic radiation may be - may be - an indirect - indirect - contributor to climate change.

Does anyone know what he considers direct contributors? Bueller?

You mean this guy?

Seems like newly observed data might be altering his opinion. Imagine that.

This response shows you read an abstract and either didn't read the research or weren't able to comprehend it.

Don't let that deter your game playing though.

Actually, it seems as if this is a more thorough examination of his several hypotheses than the abstract Jamey posted. "Expanding on" =/= "changing.

Again, it's about language.

^Eh no.

Okay, I'll give you one more chance. If I say to you "I like chocolate ice cream," and then I add "I also like vanilla, strawberry, and butter pecan," are you going to say "Oh, so you don't like chocolate?"

Eh no. Let me put in terms you can understand. Hypothesis leads to experiment leads to new data leads to new hypothesis leads to experiment and so on. Can ya' follow that?

Perfectly. The question is, can you follow this:

See the words "four primary factors"? See if you can guess what they mean.

Okay, I see a theory... where's the evidence? Ice cores can apparently show what CO2 levels were in the past, what do they use to confirm the level of cosmic rays?

For me, the really funny and ironic part is that for all the people like garamet who are trying to paint everyone who disagrees with AGW like they don't believe in climate change at all are basically the people who are claiming that climate change doesn't happen unless humans are around to cause it. They completely ignore that we're coming out of the climate period known as the Little Ice Age and that there were a couple of warm period prior to the current one which were actually warmer than it is now. They instead seem to believe in the fantasy that everything should stay the same as they remember it being when they were younger, in what amounts to the blink of an eye as far as the planet is concerned.

Your strawman's on fire.

saw

2    [saw]
–verb simple past tense of see1 .

Although not doing that really.

Moron. I'd like you to find me one scientific paper that sets out man-made climate change AND gives the impression that it thinks the earth's climate should be static.

Go! Fetch boy!

And which scientists are being cursory?

Dick!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-cern-cloud-team-pieces-puzzle.html

And

​

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/Pres...downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

So nothing but ongoing scientific research at work. Night night.

Seroiously, what planet are you on? Do you really think that the people who are trained and experienced in collecting and analysing all this data haven't looked at that or do you think everyone is genuinely participating in some conspiracy to ignore some smoking gun that blows the theory of climate change out of the water?