• 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!

New Svensmark Paper: Strong Solar Climate Influence

Quaestio said:
Where did I claim that aerosols don't affect precipitation? Nowhere. So you're just attacking your own strawman and didn't bother to even read any of the source papers in this thread.

Are you also admitting that you've never even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that the radiant energy of cosmic rays have no effect on precipitation, cloud formation, or the manners the aerosols modify such things?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you claiming that the radiant energy of cosmic rays have no effect on precipitation, cloud formation,
Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly the claim. Or a (very childish) strawman, not sure.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, that's certainly the claim. Or a strawman, not sure.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I don't follow it. I don't understand why people "deny" the cosmic ray angle.

Can you enlighten me?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Though I don't follow it, I don't understand why people "deny" the cosmic ray angle.

Can you enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Everyone accepts the affect of the sun on the Earth regarding climate. We all had elementary school natural science class. You can't wow us with that. You're slaying an absurdly simple strawman. It's kinda pathetic.

Denier crap belongs in CT. Seriously, WUWT can stand proud alongside inforwars. How's that for enlightenment?
 
Made me curious. Had to look it up:


Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.
​

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds

I'm not looking farther. Unless you show me evidence the interactions between aerosols, cosmic rays, and water are not variables of the same issue, I think I have shown you wrong.
 
ecofarm said:
Denier crap belongs in CT. Seriously, WUWT can stand proud alongside inforwars. How's that for enlightenment?
Click to expand...

It is those like you who are the deniers of science.

I don't read the WUWT blogs, or others. However, when someone links WUWT, it is well sourced, and I often read the source papers.

You are wrong to scoff at Watts.

I am not a denier. To say so after my posts all this time does discredit to you. Not me.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It is those like you who are the deniers of science.

I don't read the WUWT blogs, or others. However, when someone links WUWT, it is well sourced, and I often read the source papers.

You are wrong to scoff at Watts.

I am not a denier. To say so after my posts all this time does discredit to you. Not me.
Click to expand...

See, now you're not enlightened. Your just gonna go on reading selected sources with questionable interpretations from a blog and pretend that's an education. Not only is it an education, it trumps a consensus of science. It's the Truth. It belongs in CT.

No one can say I didn't try.
 
I'll say one thing for this CT. At least the governmental body behind the conspiracy is China and not the US. Let them be the bad guys for once.
 
ecofarm said:
See, now you're not enlightened. Your just gonna go on reading selected sources with questionable interpretations from a blog and pretend that's an education. Not only is it an education, it trumps a consensus of science. It's the Truth. It belongs in CT.

No one can say I didn't try.
Click to expand...
With your ignorance, you are jumping to conclusions. It is rare I go from blog sources. I read journals on a regular basis. I just don't try to keep up with the cosmic ray angle.
 
Lord of Planar said:
With your ignorance, you are jumping to conclusions. It is rare I go from blog sources. I read journals on a regular basis. I just don't try to keep up with the cosmic ray angle.
Click to expand...

I hope you'll post those journal articles for discussion after you've critiqued them for an OP. Slurping WUWT all the time is all I see. Best of luck.
 
ecofarm said:
I hope you'll post those journal articles for discussion after you've critiqued them for an OP. Slurping WUWT all the time is all I see. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

If you say so...
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you say so...
Click to expand...

One can post an abstract with critique and then later a paragraph or 2 in support of claims if questioned. That's fair use. But it must be the OP's claims. Not "debate vs my blog article".
 
ecofarm said:
One can post an abstract with critique and then later a paragraph or 2 in support of claims if questioned. That's fair use. But it must be the OP's claims. Not "debate vs my blog article".
Click to expand...

I don't think we are debating the same thing. I don't like blogs in general. There are those who criticize every time WUWT is posted. These same people link blogs all the time, and I am sensitive to the hypocrisy.

What did this mean?

ecofarm said:
See, now you're not enlightened. Your just gonna go on reading selected sources with questionable interpretations from a blog and pretend that's an education. Not only is it an education, it trumps a consensus of science. It's the Truth. It belongs in CT.
Click to expand...
Your assessment of me is completely wrong. I have access to several journals that I read. I don't need blogs. WUWT almost always has good sourced material to read, but it is a small part of the journals I read.

The warmer bloggers that the warmers here link, almost never link their sources, and are often spinning. Not backing up with source links is a good indication the blogger might have integrity.

Tell me with a straight face that hypocrisy is not in play!
 
Hypocrisy is not in play. CT blogs are CT blogs.
 
Lord of Planar said:
CT blog or not, they have real good sources linked.

Warmer blogs almost never do.
Click to expand...

Almost all climate blogs are "warmers". This one CT blog, among a tiny minority of denier blogs, is not a jewel of citation. Plenty of blogs cite plenty of articles without CT conclusions as headlines. Better yet, go directly to journals.
 
ecofarm said:
Almost all climate blogs are "warmers". This one CT blog, among a tiny minority of denier blogs, is not a jewel of citation. Plenty of blogs cite plenty of articles without CT conclusions as headlines. Better yet, go directly to journals.
Click to expand...

Why don't I ever see source paper links in the blogs posted by warmers here?

See what I mean about the hypocrisy?

You are a part of it, and blinded not to see it by your faith!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why don't I ever see source paper links in the blogs posted by warmers here?

See what I mean about the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

So-called warmers don't feel the need to prove anything. They might debate minutiae. So-called skeptics are almost always deniers. Same as the CT section.

You are a part of it, and blinded not to see it by your faith!
Click to expand...

Of course, I've an MSc in International Environmental Science. I'm indoctrinated. I didn't get a real education from blogs.
 
ecofarm said:
So-called warmers don't feel the need to prove anything. They might debate minutiae. So-called skeptics are almost always deniers. Same as the CT section.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Are you done wasting my time?
 
"We were very surprised that there was debris clearly spread across 1.5 million years," said Dr Wallner, a nuclear physicist in the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. "It suggests there were a series of supernovae, one after another.
"It's an interesting coincidence that they correspond with when the Earth cooled and moved from the Pliocene into the Pleistocene period."
Read more at: Supernovae showered Earth with radioactive debris

Supernovae showered Earth with radioactive debris - Phys.org

phys.org › Astronomy & Space › Astronomy


Home · Astronomy & Space · Astronomy · April 6, 2016 ..... Then there's the fact that Svensmarkmanipulated the data in several ways, including "adjusting" the ...
 
It's obvious that science deniers/climate truthers will believe what they need to believe, despite all the evidence against their faith-based position.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
It's obvious that science deniers/climate truthers will believe what they need to believe, despite all the evidence against their faith-based position.
Click to expand...

AGW advocates, unable to answer the evidence, default to ad hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom