"Sorry but are you honestly suggesting that scientists are stupid enough to forget to factor in something as glaringly obvious as the sun?" Post #15 in this thread.
I see. So, before they worked out that the seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth's axis, people should have considered them individual unique events and not part of a cycle?? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: the pre-scientific mind interpreted the seasons as being caused by the intercession of various gods -- who had to be propitiated with (sometimes human) sacrifices. You are essentially advocating that in the case of climate, we should abandon scientific reasoning in favor of propitiation of the CO2 gods. And Lo! The climate cult conveniently has some sacrificial victims lined up all ready for the altar...
It most certainly is. Garbage. The first thing science does when investigating a cyclical phenomenon is assume the cycle has the same causes over multiple oscillations, not assume the most recent cycle is unique. Unless you know something about the physics of radiative heat transfer. Another was identified centuries ago: the sun.
Hi for the last time on this thread, bringiton. I prefer to remain in the realm of science and will avoid entering the dreary vale of sophistry. Regards, stay sage 'n well.
Science you have yet to post in your own thread and you completely IGNORED posts #2 and 3, 9-11 by Jack. Why not YOU answer your own question with some published science research that YOU say is vitally important, You have been given replies to question now why not reciprocate? You write: LOL, you haven't produced any in the thread! Some of us have contributed to the thread much more than you have.
That's the "I'll be found right in the future" gambit. Kind of like Al Gore predicting the end of the world in 2010. The other old familiar ploys that the AGW gang spits out on threads like these include-- "I already told u so I don't have to tell u" "the science in on OUR side so we don't have to look at the science" "I'm right because you're a pawn of the oil companies" Somehow I still think we can do better than that.
The difference: I keep being proved right by actual physical events, while Gore keeps being proved wrong. The point at which the proofs that I am right are considered conclusive may be a matter of opinion, but at some point only the most committed loonies will be able to deny it.
"Consensus" climate science is drawing the wrong conclusions because they are focused on the wrong phenomena. Measurements Show Cloud Effects Are Real, Far Stronger Than Effects Of “Greenhouse Gases” By P Gosselin on 27. January 2023 Share this... Clouds, not greenhouse gases, are the decisive drivers of our weather, our energy status and hence also our climate. The need to get away from the over-simplistic idea of CO2 being the control knob Demystifying “greenhouse gas” claims – Part 3 By Fred F. Mueller In Part 1 we looked at the deplorable tendency of climate doomsayers to reduce the factual complexity and variability of parameters influencing our climate and declaring CO2 to be the only major control knob dictating climate development and other factors wilfully suppressed 1). In part 2, it was shown that the reality of radiation energy transfers in the atmosphere depends mainly on clouds, who can act as decisive inhibitors preventing sunlight from reaching the surface and/or as massive sources of infrared energy radiation down to earth. Today in Part 3, we investigate some interesting professional meteorological findings backing the results of logical conclusions that can be verified by anybody using pricy DIY instrumentation and common sense in combination with some information available on the internet. This proof of concept underscores the idea that clouds, not greenhouse gases are the decisive drivers of our weather, our energy status and hence also our climate. . . .
--and that folds back into the second bullet point where they say that they don't have to look at your "actual physical events" because "the science" is on their side. A rather tidy logic system.
Speaking of cycles . . . Sea Level Rise: Hockey Stick or Roller Coaster? Guest Blogger …apparent sea level acceleration may have oscillated about a mean of zero and an amplitude of roughly 0.4 mm/yr/yr. . . .
Possibly because there is only so much stupid you can tolerate Lols! But every so often I bow out so the denialists start feeding off each other - massively entertaining
He didn't follow through on his first post ignored relevant replies ignored several science papers, but he was completely civil unlike you......