Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And apparently using cherry picked datasets to ignore natural factors and the effect urbanization has on skewing the temperature datasets.We have tens of thousands of PhD scientists looking back at the last 150 years and blaming humanity for global warming. They're not idiots. That term is reserved for those who like to pretend everything is just hunky dory, like you.
You crack me up with your character assaults. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the unraveling.Download "The Physical Science Basis" from www.ipcc.ch. Do a search for terms like "solar irradiance", "warming", "forcing factors" and other relevant terms and then tell us that you honestly come away with the opinion that the IPCC's examination of the issues briefly addressed in your reference article were treated lightly, dismissively or with an eye to a specific outcome or finding. The examination of global temperature records, both instrumental and proxy go orders of magnitude further in depth and scope than do your authors. Their scope of the IPCC's examination of forcing factors makes your reference article look like the work of a lazy 9th grader.
The full author's list from your reference piece has a number of noteworthy names: Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Valery M. Fedorov and David R. Legates. I haven't bothered looking up any of the other dozen authors listed, but Soon and Baliunas are well known from having both published multiple papers that were absolutely shredded by mainstream climate scientists and some actually withdrawn by their publishers. Soon in particular, is infamous for taking oil industry money to publish articles denying the role of CO2 in global warming. Fedorov is a sociologist and bureaucrat. Legates is a professor of geography and is, of course, famous for his truly pathetic attempt to refute the consensus supporting the IPCC's conclusions in published climate research.
There are more than a few technical and logical failings when attempting to credit TSI with a significant role in global warming, to wit:
1) There is very close to ZERO correlation between TSI trends and temperature trends over the past 150 years.
2) The magnitude of the most generous estimate of TSI increase is grossly inadequate to have caused any but a trivial portion of the observed warming.
But I do appreciate your efforts to use better sources. It was a wash, but you did make the effort.
I see you don't have any data to dispute them.That you should pin your hopes on the likes of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas doesn't surprise me in the least. What else have you got? There aren't a lot of actual scientists putting out anything anywhere near the nonsense you're spewing. You quite obviously don't understand the references you're using. You see a few keywords and think "this must be the one". Your fixation on polar glaciation potential was the perfect demonstration.
What exactly was the refutation? Can you explain it in a simple sentence or two?I gave you a link that overwhelmingly refutes them. www.ipcc.ch. You haven't even looked at it, have you.
Can you state it in two paragraphs like this?God you're a fucking idiot. As I have repeatedly suggested, go find the Summary for Policy Makers in AR6. That is the briefest and least technical summation of the latest report. Stop looking for some fool to spoon feed you what you should have learned ten years ago. READ THE GODDAMNED REPORT
Concensus is not part of the scientific methodThink about it....if you can. You deniers will not believe environmental scientist. You won't believe infectious disease doctors. Rather...you believe a serial liar. But more than that. You send your money to the serial liar. You really need a shot of reality
I'm afraid of wasting my time looking for something that isn't there. Can you not state it?Are you afraid to read it because it will refute the lies you've been holding so close to your chest or because you suspect you won't be able to understand it?
Or have you already tried and found that, yes, you cannot understand it?
It is when the thing you are looking for isn't in there.Reading is never a waste of time for any of us.