AGW advocates, unable to answer the evidence, default to ad hominem.
Unable to answer the evidence? No. That's you.
You seem to be forgetting the 2 papers I linked to - that you just rejected out of hand without reading. You also must have missed the argument from Dr Leif Svalgaard who showed how Svensmark and Shaviv's latest paper used a cherry-picked time frame and curve fitting.
The GCR hypothesis as any sort of significant factor in climate change has been shown to be a fizzer. Your belief is based purely on faith and ideology, not science and evidence.
Go to Jack's favorite junkscience conspiracy blog and read the comments by lsvalgaard aka Dr Leif Svalgaard (Solar Physicist) on Svensmark & Shaviv's 2016 paper
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...ty-has-a-direct-impact-on-earths-cloud-cover/
The regular wattswussies don't like what he says.
I particularly liked these exchanges:
JohnKnight August 25, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Huh? Wouldn’t things “concerning GCR and clouds” be happening all the time? . . And wouldn’t small changes in total cover/mix of clouds, be essentially impossible to detect/measure at this point in time?
lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm
If they are, then we cannot honestly claim that those impossible to measure changes show that GCRs are the main driver of observed climate variation, can we?
JohnKnight August 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Of course not, Isvalgaard, but neither can we rightly speak of GCRs not being a significant component in climate variation . . can we?
lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Yes we can, because there is no real evidence for that. The past several solar cycles, the sun has become quieter and cosmic rays have increased, which should have cooled the climate. Instead it has warmed. So, no evidence of a significant GCR influence.
and this one:
lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:43 pm
the paper makes no such claim
So, let everybody here proclaim that this latest paper does not show a GCR/Climate link, since not even the authors claim that.
Salvatore Del Prete August 25, 2016 at 3:46 pm
The paper clearly show solar /climate links.
lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 4:10 pm
Not according to Svensmark
Yes. A vibrant intellectual forum.
LOL! Nope. A few sane rational people (Lief Svalgaard and Nick Stokes for example) occasionally wade in there amongst the muck to correct all the junk-science crap, but usually get lame insults thrown at them by the regular rabid angry conspiracy cranks. Watts then usually bans any sane posters for awhile to keep his click-bait crank nutters happy. The regulars really object to science and facts being posted there.
LOL! Nope. A few sane rational people (Lief Svalgaard and Nick Stokes for example) occasionally wade in there amongst the muck to correct all the junk-science crap, but usually get lame insults thrown at them by all the regular rabid angry conspiracy cranks. Watts then usually bans any sane posters for awhile to keep his click-bait crank nutters happy. The regulars really object to science and facts being posted there. I personally saw Nick Stokes, one of the most polite commenters you'd ever meet, get told by Watts to STFU. Watts then banned him for months.
You are a poster child for alternative facts.
Best of luck to ya, but those with self worth wrapped up in conspiracy blogs (it makes them special) are unlikely to ever see.
I don't post there. The crank addicts are too far gone in their crackpot anti-science conspiracies.
I don't post there. The crank addicts are too far gone in their crackpot anti-science conspiracies.
You are posting there. WUWT is a crackpot conspiracy blog. And just like Truthers, people feel like they're special for believing it. They're not gonna give up on being a special Snowflake just because others prove the blog is pathetic.
You do not understand that the supposed reason that AGW is tied to CO2, is that no other alternativeWall of text regurgitated. Big surprise. You realize that spamming copy/paste walls merely demonstrates your own lack of knowledge on the subject, right?
Wall of text regurgitated. Big surprise. You realize that spamming copy/paste walls merely demonstrates your own lack of knowledge on the subject, right?
I see you are dodging the substance of the discussion again.
You have no substance to present. You just spam copy/pastes stuff you're ignorant about. If you had any real knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't need to spam walls of text.
Enjoy spamming CT blogs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?