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

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by alaphiah, Aug 31, 2011.

  1. alaphiah
    Offline

    alaphiah Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +25
    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
     
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    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?
     
  3. yidnar
    Offline

    yidnar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,215
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings:
    +931
    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!!
     
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    :link:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. flacaltenn
    Online

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,189
    Thanks Received:
    4,677
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,448
    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

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

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    :eusa_whistle:
     
  7. natepro
    Offline

    natepro Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.

    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:

    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.
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,043
    Thanks Received:
    7,989
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,805







    UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH you guys!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
     
  9. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,043
    Thanks Received:
    7,989
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,805
    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.

    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:

    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.
     
  10. natepro
    Offline

    natepro Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Ratings:
    +1
    You mean the ones where the panel investigating it said:

    and

    ?

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

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

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

Share This Page