• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

longview said:
Part of the support for AGW has been that no viable alternative suspects exists, kind of a circumstantial
evidence, that nothing else fit the empirical data curves.
While I have not followed the theory, a Scientist named Henrik Svensmark has an alternative
theory about clouds and cosmic rays, which he says fits the empirical data as well.
Strong evidence that Svensmark's solar-cosmic ray theory of climate is correct - Principia Scientific International
From what I can tell Professor Kirkby has verified some of Svensmark's data.
Click to expand...

LOL. Nice denier blog.

Heres what it says after the writeup of the 'shocking' story.

Read more at THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Strong evidence of negative-feedback from clouds

Related Posts:
New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2
Flurry of solar flare-ups sets off Cosmic Plasma Explosion
New Evidence Back Climate Theory Link between Planets and Sun
Greenhouse Theory Computer Fail: Real Evidence Slays Carbon ‘Science’
Tags: climate, cloud theory, cosmic rays, svensmark
Click to expand...

Its just a giant denier blog circle jerk.
 
longview said:
So I am guessing you would not like that he has a paper on the subject in the Journal Europhysics News.
Cosmic rays, clouds and climate - DTU Orbit
Click to expand...

I'll just note the only reason you found the article was by trolling denier blogs.

Is this theory established? Is this theory widely held by the scientific community because of multiple lines of evidence?

Or is it a possible theory that may show something one day?
 
Goofs...

When you call blogs by respected scientists "deniers blogs," that;s your prerogative. However, shouldn't you instead, realize that the consensus is invalid, since respected scientists disagree?
 
Somerville said:
Funny that you would write these words because Kirkby doesn't agree: "At the present time we can not say whether cosmic rays affect the climate" Please note the source for the quote
Click to expand...

[h=1]Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory: two steps forward, one step back[/h] From CERN: CERN’s CLOUD experiment shines new light on climate change Geneva, 6 October 2013. In a paper published today in the journal Nature, the CLOUD experiment at CERN1 reports a major advance towards solving a long-standing enigma in climate science: how do aerosols – tiny solid or liquid particles suspended in the air –…

October 7, 2013 in Cosmic rays, Uncategorized.
 
Jack Hays said:
I did not claim Kirkby agreed about anything, and I'm quite well aware of his caution in characterizing his research. His work nonetheless is focused on the questions opened up by Svensmark.
Click to expand...

A common understanding of your words would seem to indicate that you believe Kirkby does agree with Svensmark hypothesis. If Kirkby doesn't "agree", how then does his work "support" Svensmark?
Jack Hays said:
Kirkby's research has tended to support the hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
A common understanding of your words would seem to indicate that you believe Kirkby does agree with Svensmark hypothesis. If Kirkby doesn't "agree", how then does his work "support" Svensmark?
Click to expand...

He hasn't said he disagrees, either, and he has devoted himself to a research focus that is fully "Svensmarkian."
 
Threegoofs said:
Sure, after I called you out.
Click to expand...
You did not like the one source, I showed you there were others.
You are too ready to criticize a source without looking at the content!
Please apply the same standard to your pro AGW blogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom