In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
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.”
why yes I am. Science and math to 4th year level at university with a BE. This gave me enough tools to think things out and the vital thing to know the scientific process, which the AGW collective have hauled over.
You are not even smart enough to know you have been lied to because you don’t have the mind tools. Go back your leftist reading list.
116, Bobbo,
It happens from time to time. 🙂
125, Bobbo,
So in other words, you’re not interested in the truth. You are taking a “religious” stance on the matter.
Logical fallacy based off of appeal to authority. AGW is a theory. It has not been proven with empirical evidence.
This theory is based off of correlation and assumptions. There is no application of the scientific method.
These qualified scientists cherry pick data that supports their conclusions while ignoring data that flies in the face of their theory. Or instruct its members to not rush to conclusion when empirical data contradicts their theory.
They’re not applying science. They’re applying personal politics. The fact that it took more than 10 years to conduct this experiment rings of politics and not science.
Real science isn’t a popularity contest. Dissenting theories and opinions are at the heart of real science. When dissenters get ostracized is it because they’re simply heretics of the flavor of the day religion that you embrace dogmatically? Or is it because they’re not applying real science?
127, Bobbo,
Again another logical fallacy by appealing to authority. Those OPINIONS are not based off of applying the scientific method.
Guyver–late to the party, but always welcomed.
Science like everything else IS a popularity contest based on Authority: the consensus of qualified scientists is that germ theory is valid. You can still find other scientists who will say it is humors. Which you going to believe and trust your life to?
Same with every other area of science. Or, as I hope you “really” mean: what level of consensus do you need before we all IN FACT consider a subject closed?
You won’t be able to define that without having AGW included.
I’ll check back to see if you do anything except play another word game or simply repeat yourself.
Bus I ain’t holding my breath.
130, Bobbo,
Your original and overall persistent stance on the topic is and has been based largely on a few logical fallacies (and not science as you would have others believe).
Appeal to authority (qualified scientists), appeal to popularity (consensus), appeal to belief (dogma).
Nowhere do you include the scientific method or empirical evidence (as though qualified “scientists” don’t get bothered by such inconveniences).
When other qualified scientists can repeat experiments and reach the same empirical evidence while accounting for ALL facts. When causality is actually established and not basing one’s conclusion off of correlation. These are BASIC scientific principles.
When the consensus is not based off of cherry picking facts that agree with their hypothesis / theory while ignoring other facts that conflict with their hypothesis / theory. Do you even realize that computer simulations are not experiments. They’re an exercise how your assumptions play out.
True science ignores political posturing and least of all it’s not a popularity contest. The fact that you seem to think it is demonstrates either intellectual dishonesty or lack of knowledge for something as basic as the scientific method.
No word games needed. Your understanding of what you think is science makes me think you’re a victim of the public education system.
Oh Guyver–you are perilously close to becoming too tedious to respond to.
We all appeal to authority. I do. You do. I appeal to the authority of the IPCC–a group of qualified scientists. You appeal to singular outlying experts of one type or another who disagree. No difference there.
We’ve gone around this maypole 5-6 times now. There is no “proof” AGW as there is no “test” that can be run. There is no second planet earth to run as control.
Even the ability to predict the exact temperature and rainfall and ocean level on Jan 1, 2050 where ever you say would not be proof of AGW–only that the models worked to predict those certain variables.
Yes–understanding the scientific method, and our own personal limitations, AND how to rationally respond to same is what this subject offers us. You fail.
How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind? You have a little bit more to learn.
Yea, verily.