Why is the climate changing. (Page 4) theHating: okay, i will accept your man is the climate census give me some time to prepare, im not dogmatic, just skeptical theHating: okay... sooooo... as always when the homework is a youtube video, i like to track down who produced it and funded it. now when you give me a video that is produced by a super private pac charity that refuses to disclose its sources of funding, already you have begun to lose me.. but, lets see what sven has to say, maybe it is a new cherry-picked narrative funded by billionaires that hasn't been debunked by someone else, since we both agree to base our arguments on 2nd hand info, this should be fun. theHating: note 1: not a minute into the video and the svenmarks agree their views go against the mainstream ....oi theHating: no, i cant do this anymore, seriously..... between flat earth and this, im not sure which is more misinformed theHating: okay, so i went back and re-read your original firehose of claims and i think it summarizes like: "the solar activity is responsible for climate change, not humans or co2" theHating: annnnnd source spam! Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in the first half of the 20th century.[27] not just mike, but basically anybody reviewing svensmark's alleged solar climate causation, no one could arrive at the same conclusion as svens.. also, i should note that svensmark appears to have always claimed the sun was the main cause of global temperature trends. peers, reviewing svensmark's work appear to arrive at the same conclusion that was determined at the end of 1985, during the Army's experiments with radiocom in space being dependent on the ionization rates of the atmosphere; the sun has an effect on climate, sure, but its cycles have little to do with human impact on climate. theHating: "As I sat shivering this morning because it was so cloudy, I couldn't help thinking that Svensmark might be right." i can't help but think you bought psuedo-science from the billionaires for free, with out paying any critical analysis. theHating: i started with google, found some links and articles, here is a good one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm this article directly addresses svensmark's claims and does a far greater justice to logic than i could possibly do, so i highly recommend you check it out, its not a very big article, depending on how you count theHating: final thoughts-- svensmark is not the authority on anthropogenic climate change, he is AN authority on solar rays and climate, but peers and climate panel agree that solar activity is not the only thing causal of climate, in fact having less to do with it than humans. then he perpetuates the "co2 doesnt cause global warming" myth. im sure if i applied this same process to all the articles you linked, i could find all the billionaire special interest groups behind the scripts of their hired scientists. kind of like creationist logic, now i just have to finda particular hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change that billionaires haven't given you a script to plagiarize. theHating: how about urbanization, concrete structures absorbing heat, i cant remember exactly what its called.. daisy effect, or something like that. hmmm, but maybe thats not enough, the landscape is always changing and absorbing and emitting, surely this has some plausibility, even if humans are the cause of the change in landscape.... hence anthropogenic.... theHating: i wonder if billionaires have found a scientist able to use his linguistics skills to detach humans from urbanization theHating: well, i will leave it at that. if you are certain you want to double down, we will see if you are more or less interested in spreading lies or genuinely correcting the record. needless to say, i think it's possible that we can leave our dogma or conclude it is justified considering the overwhelming complexity of the problem of AGW (Edited by theHating)  kittybobo34: Judging by the Glaciers, the planet is most definitely warming. Sea levels up, Reefs dying. what no one seems to mention is the release of methane hydrides, which are 100x more greenhouse gass than regular co2. kittybobo34: I feel that the next two generations will see the near extinction of mankind, if we don't do something soon. theHating: insurance companies say circumstances will dictate what they pay out on... pretty clear they dont intend on insuring against certain regions expected to be decimated imo kittybobo34: About time , on 20/20 they had a guy that rebuilt his house 22 times at a cost of 143million dollars, Of course he paid very little of that | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |