Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
How interesting...so it all boils down to "consensus view" science....the "new" science of the elitist left.
Originally posted by: shira
It's been said many times before: You can ALWAYS find qualified scientists in a given field that disagree with a strong consensus view in that field. So merely creating a list of qualified scientists who disagree means nothing. NOTHING.
Unless of course the consensus view is proven wrong...how many times has that happened? A million?
Originally posted by: shira
And those dissenting scientists write peer-reviewed, dissenting papers, some of which get published. Again, the existence of published, peer-reviewed, dissenting papers means nothing. NOTHING.
I remember when the "believers" here demanded that the "heathen" provide peer-reviewed papers that contested MMGW as the primary driver of the current warming trend. Now that it's become clear to the "believers" that there's actually many peer-reviewed papers out there that are not in goose-step with the consensus viewpoint (and more are coming every day)...you have the audacity to say that scientific papers that conflict with your viewpoint mean NOTHING. I hope I misunderstood your comment because I can't fathom how anyone could wallow in such arrogant and willful ignorance.
Why is it so difficult for the ignorant masses to let science run its course? Why do the "believers" demonize those who may disagree with the current consensus view.
Dissenting viewpoints must be reigned in and those responsible must be silenced and removed from our midst ! Let the witch hunts begin !!!
Your post is the epitome of horseshit herd mentality....can you say "moo"?
First of all you never hear when the consensus is proven right, because well... it remains the consensus. You only hear when it's proven wrong. The consensus among scientists is that Alex Chiu's
magnetic immortality rings don't actually make you immortal. One notable person disagrees. But since the consensus has been wrong before, I guess we can't possibly know!
Oh, and I'm still waiting for some peer reviewed papers from you guys. My argument was that if you're going to make points that they should be backed up by scientific evidence... something that global warming deniers frequently forget to bring with them. He is not arguing that the papers mean nothing, he's just saying that from a policy perspective if you have 30 papers that say one thing, and 1 paper that says the opposite, a prudent man would go with the 30 papers. If you can show a plausible reason why they should not, then by all means present it.
I won't hold my breath.
Dude...I gave you links to peer review papers months ago:
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (2006) - N. Scafetta and B. J. West.
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years - Solanki, Usokin, Kromer, Shussler, and Beer (2004)
Cosmic rays will create clouds at CERN
"Recent satellite data have revealed a surprising correlation between galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity and the fraction of the Earth covered by clouds. If this correlation were to be established by a causal mechanism, it could provide a crucial step in understanding the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and climate variability. The Earth's climate seems to be remarkably sensitive to solar activity, but variations of the Sun's electromagnetic radiation appear to be too small to account for the observed climate variability. However, since the GCR intensity is strongly modulated by the solar wind, a GCR-cloud link may provide a sufficient amplifying mechanism. Moreover if this connection were to be confirmed, it could have profound consequences for our understanding of the solar contributions to the current global warming. The CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) project proposes to test experimentally the existence a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, and to understand the microphysical mechanism. CLOUD plans to perform detailed laboratory measurements in a particle beam at CERN, where all the parameters can be precisely controlled and measured. The beam will pass through an expansion cloud chamber and a reactor chamber where the atmosphere is to be duplicated by moist air charged with selected aerosols and trace condensable vapours. An array of external detectors and mass spectrometers is used to analyse the physical and chemical characteristics of the aerosols and trace gases during beam exposure. Where beam effects are found, the experiment will seek to evaluate their significance in the atmosphere by incorporating them into aerosol and cloud models."
Jeff Kanipe describes an experiment that will be performed at CERN in Switzerland and that will fully start in 2010. The experiment will study the formation of clouds in a C.T.R. Wilson's cloud chamber as a function of the intensity of (artificial) cosmic rays sent from the synchrotron into the cloud chamber at different levels of humidity.
What is the purpose of this toy? There seems to be a disagreement between many astrophysicists, nuclear physicists and related scientists on one side and most climate scientists on the other side. The astrophysicists tend to believe that the Solar and galactic cosmic rays are important to determine the cloud formation and therefore the climate on the Earth. The climate scientists usually believe that the main driver of the climate is something completely different.
CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) have a chance to resolve this question.
Many arguments have appeared in literature that indicate that the cosmic rays matter. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen of Denmark have argued in 1997 that the cloudiness between 1987 and 1990 declined by 3 percent or so, just like the number of cosmic rays reaching the Earth; the original driver of the cosmic rays intensity were the fluctuating sunspots. This argument has been extended to longer periods of time.
Also, Nir Shaviv, who has a blog, and Ján Veizer - a Slovak-Canadian emeritus professor - have argued that the ice ages in the last millions of years may have been correlated with the motion of the Solar system through the galactic arms which caused variations in the cosmic ray flux. The general mechanism is always the same: higher amount of cosmic rays is supposed to create a higher amount of clouds which should cool the Earth."
Summary of CERN CLOUD (Cosmics LeavingOUtdo or Droplets) Experiment
"In 1997 Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1] announced a surprisingdisco very that global cloud cover correlates closely with the galactic cosmic ray intensity, which varies with the sunspot cycle. Although clouds retain some of the Earth?s warmth, for most types of cloud this is more than compensated by an increased reflective loss of the Sun?s radiation back into space. So more clouds in general mean a cooler climate?and fewer clouds mean global warming. The Earth is partly shielded from cosmic rays by the magnetic disturbances carried by the solar wind. When the solar wind is strong, at the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle, fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth. The observed variation of cloud cover was only a few per cent over the course of a sunspot cycle. Although this
may appear to be quite small, the possible long-term consequences on the global radiation energy budget are not.
Beyond its semi-periodic 11-year cycle, the Sun displays unexplained behaviour on longer timescales. In particular, the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries have more than doubled duringthe last century [2]. The extra shieldinghas reduced the intensity of cosmic rays reachingthe Earth?s atmosphere by about 15%, globally averaged. This reduction of cosmic rays over the last century is independently indicated by the light radioisotope record in the Greenland ice cores. If the link between cosmic rays and clouds is confirmed it implies global cloud cover has decreased during the last century. Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil
fuels.
These observations suggest that solar variability may be linked to climate variability by a chain that involves the solar wind, cosmic rays and clouds."
Eskimospy, the MMGW "believers" are sorely mistaken in their belief that the "science is settled". It's not settled...and that's the truth of the matter if you have the stomach for it. Let's let science run its course before we all start running amok...in a couple more years we should actually KNOW a little more about the huge solar variability correlation.
Facebook
Twitter