Put out the Sun. It causes Climate Change according to Scientists

[alaphiah]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

 

[konradv]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

Who ever said the the sun wasn't the dominant controller of climate change? Sun cycles are well known and somewhat predictable. AGW on the other hand is about the ADDITIONAL push towards warming caused by man-made emissions. No one is downplaying the power of the sun, but rather making people aware that we can't keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year* without it having an effect. You can argue the time course, but the ability of CO2 to trap energy is scientifically well known. Statistiically 50% of that energy would be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.

*- Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

 

[yidnar]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

Who ever said the the sun wasn't the dominant controller of climate change? Sun cycles are well known and somewhat predictable. AGW on the other hand is about the ADDITIONAL push towards warming caused by man-made emissions. No one is downplaying the power of the sun, but rather making people aware that we can't keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year* without it having an effect. You can argue the time course, but the ability of CO2 to trap energy is scientifically well known. Statistiically 50% of that energy would be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.

*- Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

we are headed for another ice age dumb ass!! if homosexuality caused global warming libbs wouldn't be trying to ban faggots !!they need the homo votes!!

 

[konradv]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

Who ever said the the sun wasn't the dominant controller of climate change? Sun cycles are well known and somewhat predictable. AGW on the other hand is about the ADDITIONAL push towards warming caused by man-made emissions. No one is downplaying the power of the sun, but rather making people aware that we can't keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year* without it having an effect. You can argue the time course, but the ability of CO2 to trap energy is scientifically well known. Statistiically 50% of that energy would be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.

*- Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

we are headed for another ice age dumb ass!! if homosexuality caused global warming libbs wouldn't be trying to ban faggots !!they need the homo votes!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Not enough information in the 1st layer of press. You have to dig to even find a description of the experiment.. But it will no doubt become more obvious -- IF -- it's significance is that great..

But just as an example for those kool-aid drinkers who live on GW "consensus".....

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | FP Comment | Financial Post

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

Consensus?? No -- MANUFACTURED consensus.. More like the selection of the staff for the Spanish Inquisition.. Separation of science and state is a BETTER idea...

 

[konradv]

Who ever said the the sun wasn't the dominant controller of climate change? Sun cycles are well known and somewhat predictable. AGW on the other hand is about the ADDITIONAL push towards warming caused by man-made emissions. No one is downplaying the power of the sun, but rather making people aware that we can't keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year* without it having an effect. You can argue the time course, but the ability of CO2 to trap energy is scientifically well known. Statistiically 50% of that energy would be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.

*- Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

we are headed for another ice age dumb ass!! if homosexuality caused global warming libbs wouldn't be trying to ban faggots !!they need the homo votes!!

 

[natepro]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

Ah yes. If you're "politically correct," THEN it's climate change. I guess we'll just ignore that the term was first used in 1975 as a replacement for the far more clunky "inadvertent climate modification."

And let's ignore the fact that Al Gore is not a scientist, and as far as I know has never claimed to be, but instead a former politician that made a movie. We'll also ignore the face that climate change has been around, for scientists, before Gore was even elected to Congress. Calling it "his climate hoax" is about like calling the Tour De France "Lance Armstrong's Race" for no other reason except he's the most famous person associated with it.

we are headed for another ice age dumb ass!! if homosexuality caused global warming libbs wouldn't be trying to ban faggots !!they need the homo votes!![/QUOTE]Bravo. It's not often you see someone deny established science, make a really bizarre subject change, AND denigrate an entire group of people in so few words. Truly, well done.

Not enough information in the 1st layer of press. You have to dig to even find a description of the experiment.. But it will no doubt become more obvious -- IF -- it's significance is that great..

But just as an example for those kool-aid drinkers who live on GW "consensus".....

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | FP Comment | Financial Post

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

Consensus?? No -- MANUFACTURED consensus.. More like the selection of the staff for the Spanish Inquisition.. Separation of science and state is a BETTER idea...

First, would it truly be shocking to you that organizations would want to avoid the "highly political arena of the climate change debate" given the absurdity you can see in just a handful of posts in this one thread? This is one of many problems with the ridiculous over-politicizing of everydamnthing in this country. Scientists are afraid to talk about science because of the politicizing of it. Way to go, 'Merica.

Second, it's kind of funny to me that your "proof" of a "manufactured consensus" is a hypothesis proposed by two people. Well, consider me convinced!

And third, it's kind of funny that all of this is from one op-ed piece in the Financial Times, written by a guy that penned other level-headed climate change pieces such as "It’s official – climate alarmists know less and can’t count too well," and the apparently prophetic "Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate." Ironically, in the last one he even mentions the experiment that let him write this newest one:

Except, according to a study published last month in the respected Geophysical Research Letters, a team of UK and Danish scientists have just taken a giant step toward doing it. By firing a particle beam into a small pressure chamber filled with the gases present in the atmosphere where clouds are formed, the scientists produced tiny aerosol clusters, just as their theory predicted. The clusters they produced – 3 nm in width – aren’t conclusive proof, though. To act as seeds for clouds, they need to get the clusters to grow to at least 100 nm, and for that the experiment would need to be done in a larger pressure chamber.

That experiment is now being done, by CERN, one of the world’s largest research organizations.

Apparently, "aren't conclusive proof" is the same as "strong evidence" to our fearless climate change denier.

But hey, why rely on an op-ed piece for any of this information? Why not, instead, look to the published abstract, and see video from one of the people actually involved in the project, talking about what they do and their results? I know, it's a crazy idea, but it seems like it's worth a try.

 

[westwall]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

Who ever said the the sun wasn't the dominant controller of climate change? Sun cycles are well known and somewhat predictable. AGW on the other hand is about the ADDITIONAL push towards warming caused by man-made emissions. No one is downplaying the power of the sun, but rather making people aware that we can't keep emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year* without it having an effect. You can argue the time course, but the ability of CO2 to trap energy is scientifically well known. Statistiically 50% of that energy would be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.

*- Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH you guys!

 

[westwall]

I find it highly ironic that the organization that actually invented the internet is taking away Al Gore’s second invention, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or for you that are politically correct, Climate Change. Will Gore have to concede the Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscar and the Emmy he won at the height of his global warming hoax? We all know that Gore isn’t very good at conceding.

However, In a recent development CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research has published new findings, which point to the sun, not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. (see article) Read more... Creating Orwellian Worldview

Ah yes. If you're "politically correct," THEN it's climate change. I guess we'll just ignore that the term was first used in 1975 as a replacement for the far more clunky "inadvertent climate modification."

And let's ignore the fact that Al Gore is not a scientist, and as far as I know has never claimed to be, but instead a former politician that made a movie. We'll also ignore the face that climate change has been around, for scientists, before Gore was even elected to Congress. Calling it "his climate hoax" is about like calling the Tour De France "Lance Armstrong's Race" for no other reason except he's the most famous person associated with it.

we are headed for another ice age dumb ass!! if homosexuality caused global warming libbs wouldn't be trying to ban faggots !!they need the homo votes!!

Bravo. It's not often you see someone deny established science, make a really bizarre subject change, AND denigrate an entire group of people in so few words. Truly, well done.

Not enough information in the 1st layer of press. You have to dig to even find a description of the experiment.. But it will no doubt become more obvious -- IF -- it's significance is that great..

But just as an example for those kool-aid drinkers who live on GW "consensus".....

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | FP Comment | Financial Post

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

Consensus?? No -- MANUFACTURED consensus.. More like the selection of the staff for the Spanish Inquisition.. Separation of science and state is a BETTER idea...

First, would it truly be shocking to you that organizations would want to avoid the "highly political arena of the climate change debate" given the absurdity you can see in just a handful of posts in this one thread? This is one of many problems with the ridiculous over-politicizing of everydamnthing in this country. Scientists are afraid to talk about science because of the politicizing of it. Way to go, 'Merica.

Second, it's kind of funny to me that your "proof" of a "manufactured consensus" is a hypothesis proposed by two people. Well, consider me convinced!

And third, it's kind of funny that all of this is from one op-ed piece in the Financial Times, written by a guy that penned other level-headed climate change pieces such as "It’s official – climate alarmists know less and can’t count too well," and the apparently prophetic "Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate." Ironically, in the last one he even mentions the experiment that let him write this newest one:

Except, according to a study published last month in the respected Geophysical Research Letters, a team of UK and Danish scientists have just taken a giant step toward doing it. By firing a particle beam into a small pressure chamber filled with the gases present in the atmosphere where clouds are formed, the scientists produced tiny aerosol clusters, just as their theory predicted. The clusters they produced – 3 nm in width – aren’t conclusive proof, though. To act as seeds for clouds, they need to get the clusters to grow to at least 100 nm, and for that the experiment would need to be done in a larger pressure chamber.

That experiment is now being done, by CERN, one of the world’s largest research organizations.

Apparently, "aren't conclusive proof" is the same as "strong evidence" to our fearless climate change denier.

But hey, why rely on an op-ed piece for any of this information? Why not, instead, look to the published abstract, and see video from one of the people actually involved in the project, talking about what they do and their results? I know, it's a crazy idea, but it seems like it's worth a try.[/QUOTE]






Take a gander at the CLIMATEGATE emails, you know the ones that have caused the collapse of the AGW cult, then get back to us after you've read them.

 

[natepro]

Take a gander at the CLIMATEGATE emails, you know the ones that have caused the collapse of the AGW cult, then get back to us after you've read them.

You mean the ones where the panel investigating it said:

We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.

and

There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.

?

Or did you mean from back around April, when another panel of six scientists said:

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

Or maybe you were talking about the investigation by Pennsylvania State University, which said:

… the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

Or is there another ClimateGate that I just haven't heard about?

 

[rightwinger]

You stupid idiot...you can't put out the sun

No wonder republicans suck at science

 

[flacaltenn]

NatePro:

First, would it truly be shocking to you that organizations would want to avoid the "highly political arena of the climate change debate" given the absurdity you can see in just a handful of posts in this one thread? This is one of many problems with the ridiculous over-politicizing of everydamnthing in this country. Scientists are afraid to talk about science because of the politicizing of it. Way to go, 'Merica.

I guaran-damn-tee-ya if the results were favorable to the AGW Inquisition -- this early phase Press Release would be part of the Gospel by noon. And EVERY press source would be singing the praises.

So don't tell me they suddenly want to be discrete and shy..

Second, it's kind of funny to me that your "proof" of a "manufactured consensus" is a hypothesis proposed by two people. Well, consider me convinced!

Well of course not fool. I've posted 3 times today about DIFFERENT groups of qualified scientists who have been shunned, dis-invited, and ridiculed for not heeling the AGW line. How many do you want? Let's start with a fresh list I posted today..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4073732-post96.html

That should establish "a trendline" in your mind.

And third, it's kind of funny that all of this is from one op-ed piece in the Financial Times, written by a guy that penned other level-headed climate change pieces such as "It’s official – climate alarmists know less and can’t count too well," and the apparently prophetic "Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate." Ironically, in the last one he even mentions the experiment that let him write this newest one:

Yeah -- Well I started out my initial post by declaring "that there's not enough information in this first round of press" (or something to that effect) -- So my conscience is clear.. And maybe you're the one leaping to conclusions about what it means.. The only interesting part of this to me was the normal muzzling and politicizing of the process.

EDITED HERE TO ADD:

I looked back at the article I linked and didn't find your quote about "needing a larger chamber" and that" would be done at CERN."

THIS IS the work being done at CERN --- and if you look at the "censored" graph -- IT DOES shows particle sizes larger than 3nm. In fact more 20 times that size.. So you are using a MUCH earlier article talking about EARLY research.. Not the current press release.. So your entire "ding" of the author is pretty bogus..

Thanks for the challenge.. Maybe next time..

 

[Dude111]

When i first heard about this i thought the same as i do now: TOTALLY STUPID!!!!

We wouldnt be able to survive w/o the sun,AS IT IS IT WAS FREEZING COLD HERE last winter (And its supposed to repeat this year )

 

[natepro]

NatePro:

First, would it truly be shocking to you that organizations would want to avoid the "highly political arena of the climate change debate" given the absurdity you can see in just a handful of posts in this one thread? This is one of many problems with the ridiculous over-politicizing of everydamnthing in this country. Scientists are afraid to talk about science because of the politicizing of it. Way to go, 'Merica.

I guaran-damn-tee-ya if the results were favorable to the AGW Inquisition -- this early phase Press Release would be part of the Gospel by noon. And EVERY press source would be singing the praises.

So don't tell me they suddenly want to be discrete and shy..

Second, it's kind of funny to me that your "proof" of a "manufactured consensus" is a hypothesis proposed by two people. Well, consider me convinced!

Well of course not fool. I've posted 3 times today about DIFFERENT groups of qualified scientists who have been shunned, dis-invited, and ridiculed for not heeling the AGW line. How many do you want? Let's start with a fresh list I posted today..



That should establish "a trendline" in your mind.

And third, it's kind of funny that all of this is from one op-ed piece in the Financial Times, written by a guy that penned other level-headed climate change pieces such as "It’s official – climate alarmists know less and can’t count too well," and the apparently prophetic "Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate." Ironically, in the last one he even mentions the experiment that let him write this newest one:

Yeah -- Well I started out my initial post by declaring "that there's not enough information in this first round of press" (or something to that effect) -- So my conscience is clear.. And maybe you're the one leaping to conclusions about what it means.. The only interesting part of this to me was the normal muzzling and politicizing of the process.

Thanks for the challenge.. Maybe next time..

This is like conspiracy theory type thinking. The only motives are nefarious, the only actions evil.

The press release was from CERN, not the IPCC. I don't recall CERN generally being involved in much with climate change before this, but given that the CLOUD experiment used particle beams, which is pretty much exactly what they do, it made sense that they'd be the ones doing this. You can "guaran-damn-tee" me whatever you want, but unless you have some track record of CERN putting out press releases like you claim they otherwise would, I'm not going to put all my hopes and dreams on that guarantee. At no point did I say they wanted to be discreet and shy, but that's a nice straw man you've put up.

Name calling is always a sign of a solid argument. Well done.

So let's see.. we have a list of seven scientists. Of those, I don't see a single one that has been, as you claim, "silenced." But maybe you think everyone that wants to should be able to add to the IPCC report, who knows. Most of them resigned, which of course is like claiming you were fired from a job you quit, and the rest don't seem to say whether they quit or simply weren't asked back. It is kind of funny that someone volunteering to be lead author again and not being picked is the same as being silenced, although zero reason is given for why he was not picked. Probably safe to assume it was for some nefarious reason though, right?

I guess you'll have to explain to me how they've done such a great job at finding "more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors," and getting all of them to walk in the same lock-step you seem to envision. Maybe a super-secret brainwashing technology? Hm.

You said you "have to dig to even find a description of the experiment," which is weird since I was able to find it in about four seconds. The PhysOrg site has a video with a description of it, along with one of the people running the experiment talking about their results. It even has the full abstract. Discreet and shy indeed.

 

[natepro]

EDITED HERE TO ADD:

I looked back at the article I linked and didn't find your quote about "needing a larger chamber" and that" would be done at CERN."

THIS IS the work being done at CERN --- and if you look at the "censored" graph -- IT DOES shows particle sizes larger than 3nm. In fact more 20 times that size.. So you are using a MUCH earlier article talking about EARLY research.. Not the current press release.. So your entire "ding" of the author is pretty bogus..

You probably didn't find that quote because I didn't say that. Which, you know, would make sense.

I never said it wasn't the work being done at CERN. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

The whole point about the author was that he is obviously not an unbiased source who is simply interpreting data. I thought that much was obvious.

 

[Douger]

Maybe the Nazi's should introduce some spf 30 to their chem-trail programs.

 

[flacaltenn]

EDITED HERE TO ADD:

I looked back at the article I linked and didn't find your quote about "needing a larger chamber" and that" would be done at CERN."

THIS IS the work being done at CERN --- and if you look at the "censored" graph -- IT DOES shows particle sizes larger than 3nm. In fact more 20 times that size.. So you are using a MUCH earlier article talking about EARLY research.. Not the current press release.. So your entire "ding" of the author is pretty bogus..

You probably didn't find that quote because I didn't say that. Which, you know, would make sense.

I never said it wasn't the work being done at CERN. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

The whole point about the author was that he is obviously not an unbiased source who is simply interpreting data. I thought that much was obvious.

Let's review (and see where the comprehension problem really is...

You said...

And third, it's kind of funny that all of this is from one op-ed piece in the Financial Times, written by a guy that penned other level-headed climate change pieces such as "It’s official – climate alarmists know less and can’t count too well," and the apparently prophetic "Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate." Ironically, in the last one he even mentions the experiment that let him write this newest one:


Quote:
Except, according to a study published last month in the respected Geophysical Research Letters, a team of UK and Danish scientists have just taken a giant step toward doing it. By firing a particle beam into a small pressure chamber filled with the gases present in the atmosphere where clouds are formed, the scientists produced tiny aerosol clusters, just as their theory predicted. The clusters they produced – 3 nm in width – aren’t conclusive proof, though. To act as seeds for clouds, they need to get the clusters to grow to at least 100 nm, and for that the experiment would need to be done in a larger pressure chamber.

That experiment is now being done, by CERN, one of the world’s largest research organizations.
Apparently, "aren't conclusive proof" is the same as "strong evidence" to our fearless climate change denier.

But hey, why rely on an op-ed piece for any of this information? Why not, instead, look to the published abstract, and see video from one of the people actually involved in the project, talking about what they do and their results? I know, it's a crazy idea, but it seems like it's worth a try.

[/QUOTE]

When you belittled the author saying that "Apparently 'aren't conclusive proof' is the same thing as 'strong evidence' to our fearless climate change denier" -- I got the distinct impression that you didn't understand he was referring to the EARLIER pre-CERN experiments on this topic. But what part of an earlier smaller scale experiment not being conclusive proof -- has any bearing on the interpretation of the CURRENT report?? He was honestly appraising the preliminary results that we not performed on a big enough scale. Due credit to him for reserving judgement before the CERN experiment became available.

And where did you get that quote anyway? wasn't in my link...

Seems like a completely jerky cheap shot to discredit him doesn't it?

The whole point about the author was that he is obviously not an unbiased source who is simply interpreting data. I thought that much was obvious

REALLY? Not according to a reading of the author's comments.

 

[flacaltenn]

natepro:

The unlinked quote you used is dated June 2, 2011 and can be found here:

Lawrence Solomon: Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate | Energy Probe

CLEARLY refers to earlier work "not being conclusive".. Certainly his concerns DON'T apply to the preliminary work at CERN since MUCH larger particles were generated.

 

[natepro]

EDITED HERE TO ADD:

I looked back at the article I linked and didn't find your quote about "needing a larger chamber" and that" would be done at CERN."

THIS IS the work being done at CERN --- and if you look at the "censored" graph -- IT DOES shows particle sizes larger than 3nm. In fact more 20 times that size.. So you are using a MUCH earlier article talking about EARLY research.. Not the current press release.. So your entire "ding" of the author is pretty bogus..

You probably didn't find that quote because I didn't say that. Which, you know, would make sense.

I never said it wasn't the work being done at CERN. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

The whole point about the author was that he is obviously not an unbiased source who is simply interpreting data. I thought that much was obvious.

Let's review (and see where the comprehension problem really is...

You said...

And third, it's kind of funny that all of this is from one op-ed piece in the Financial Times, written by a guy that penned other level-headed climate change pieces such as "It’s official – climate alarmists know less and can’t count too well," and the apparently prophetic "Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate." Ironically, in the last one he even mentions the experiment that let him write this newest one:


Quote:
Except, according to a study published last month in the respected Geophysical Research Letters, a team of UK and Danish scientists have just taken a giant step toward doing it. By firing a particle beam into a small pressure chamber filled with the gases present in the atmosphere where clouds are formed, the scientists produced tiny aerosol clusters, just as their theory predicted. The clusters they produced – 3 nm in width – aren’t conclusive proof, though. To act as seeds for clouds, they need to get the clusters to grow to at least 100 nm, and for that the experiment would need to be done in a larger pressure chamber.

That experiment is now being done, by CERN, one of the world’s largest research organizations.
Apparently, "aren't conclusive proof" is the same as "strong evidence" to our fearless climate change denier.

But hey, why rely on an op-ed piece for any of this information? Why not, instead, look to the published abstract, and see video from one of the people actually involved in the project, talking about what they do and their results? I know, it's a crazy idea, but it seems like it's worth a try.

When you belittled the author saying that "Apparently 'aren't conclusive proof' is the same thing as 'strong evidence' to our fearless climate change denier" -- I got the distinct impression that you didn't understand he was referring to the EARLIER pre-CERN experiments on this topic. But what part of an earlier smaller scale experiment not being conclusive proof -- has any bearing on the interpretation of the CURRENT report?? He was honestly appraising the preliminary results that we not performed on a big enough scale. Due credit to him for reserving judgement before the CERN experiment became available.

And where did you get that quote anyway? wasn't in my link...

Seems like a completely jerky cheap shot to discredit him doesn't it?

The whole point about the author was that he is obviously not an unbiased source who is simply interpreting data. I thought that much was obvious

REALLY? Not according to a reading of the author's comments.[/QUOTE]

natepro:

The unlinked quote you used is dated June 2, 2011 and can be found here:

Lawrence Solomon: Strong evidence that the Sun controls climate | Energy Probe

CLEARLY refers to earlier work "not being conclusive".. Certainly his concerns DON'T apply to the preliminary work at CERN since MUCH larger particles were generated.

I can't give you any links (and thus the "unlinked quote") until I have 15 posts here, which is why you'll notice every link has been edited out of every post I've quoted as well. I'd imagine it's some kind of anti-spam thing. The reason you were able to find the link (which, again, has been edited out of this quote too) is because I gave you the full article link, which was not an accident. It was simply the best I could do for right now.

I was obviously referring to the pre-CERN experiments, thus my quoting the article where he talks about them. He was not "honestly appraising" the results, he was calling them "strong evidence." I didn't make up the op-ed title, I'm simply quoting it.

And again, the point, as I made clear in what you've now quoted twice, was to show that this is not someone coming to the table without an agenda, or someone that takes an evidence-based approach to the discussion. One experiment is not "strong evidence." Anyone that would think so is clearly new to science. Even the CLOUD researchers at CERN aren't drawing major conclusions from their experiment, instead saying that it opens the door to more research. Strangely, they didn't call it "strong evidence that the sun controls climate." I wonder why.

Virtually all the anti-climate change noise created by this CLOUD experiment has come from this one op-ed piece. Not from Nature where the study is being published, not from other science sites like PhysOrg, but from The Financial Post, a finance and not science publication. It's not from the conclusions the people who ran the experiment came to, but instead someone else's interpretations of their conclusions that this whole conversation is based in. Which is why I pointed to other articles he's written, and other quotes from those articles, to show that he has no interest in pointing to any evidence that might contradict what he's already decided he believes. It was no cheap shot, it was simply his own words.

 

[flacaltenn]

Frustrating forum rules -- but the training wheels will come off soon..

The principle place "strong evidence" appeared was in the TITLE of the earlier article.. What was in the body was clearly objective and included honest appraisals of future work needed.

It IS too early to draw conclusions. That was my 1st line in this thread. But I think that discovering a completely new angle on the variability of heating mechanisms from cosmic rays IS an example of why the "science is not settled". We are still learning much.. In fact, much of what we KNOW about the detailed nature of solar radiation has ONLY been seen since we've had sattellites up in orbit. That's only about 20 years of observance without having the atmosphere we're trying to figure out -- "in the way" of solar measurements..