Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooli

it was done with computer models..put in bad info and get bad info back..mean while in the real world it isn't going to happen...NEXT...

 

Again the thought process ^^ is bewildering ... and befuddling ?? Why valuable time would be wasted on this ^^ when you could be investigating the papers showing the climate sensitivity of CO2 from real world data.

 

Awesome .. so you admit that the journalism in the op is bad. And you don't actually disagree with anything I have written. You just disagree with your strawmen you have erected. We have now confirmed what I wrote before:

 

Again you are wasting valuable time which could be used productively.

 

I think we are wasting valuable time too by attempting to have a rational discussion with a person whos every post become more irrational

 

We all must have missed your post where you said how rational and accurate those other articles are. Want to have a rational discussion? I'm game. Let's discuss why you feel that this is a good article ...

- Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooli​

... but these are bad ...

- US to be CRIPPLED by decades long MEGADROUGHTS
- SHOCK WARNING: Earth to reach ‘DEVASTATING’ temperature by 2050
- Warning over SUPER TYPHOONS which could cause mass devastation and wipe out MILLIONS
- Greenland’s melting ice could expose US Cold War base and release radiation
- Earth DOOMED by climate change which could burn us alive, warns Stephen Hawking
- HOTTEST YEAR EVER: Nasa scientists find Britain set for record-breaking weather
- CLIMATE CHANGE OUTRAGE: Claims wildfire caused by global warming BLASTED as 'not credible'
- Arctic ice melting at a faster rate than lawmakers can pass laws to protect it​

They are all the same author, from the same website, but my guess is that you would agree that the last 8 are bad. But for some mysterious, unfathomable, reason, you think that the first one was good. So good in fact that you made it the very title of your op.

Let me be absolutely clear here. I don't disagree with any of the underlying science behind the articles. What I think is bad is how scientific reporting is done. This author and his site is one of the worst imaginable. So I will ask you the same thing I asked Anything For Money (AFM) ... Why would you not also decry this type of reporting? The appearance you give is that it is ok to report poorly as long as it supports a view that you agree with. I will stand up and say how poor the reporting is in ALL these articles. Will you?

 

How can we take anyone who comes up with "Anything For Money" seriously ??

 

I will stand up and say how poor the reporting is in ALL these articles. Will you? (My money would be on 'no')

 

There you go again - confusing an opinion piece for actual reporting and ignoring the actual work of Dr. Valentina Zharkova plus the efforts to suppress it. Who cares about the other articles ??

 

No one should ... just like no one should care about the original article. Wouldn't you agree?

 

The article in the OP lead to the work by Dr. Zharkova and the efforts by AGW alarmists to suppress it. That seems a worthwhile outcome, no ??

 

No. At best it could be said that it is a very unlikely and totally accidental outcome. This would be like saying that a news paper that gave the wrong sports scores was actually doing you a favor because it encouraged you to investigate them for yourself and get the full story.

This is leaving aside the fact that the exact same could be said of the other 8 stories I linked you. Do you think those other 8 stories are therefore good because they lead you to other work?

BTW - I have been meaning to ask you, what's up with the double question marks? Does that mean that you really, really want an answer to the question? If I started doing that would that help with getting a response to a question from you? Because this pattern of "I answer your question while you ignore mine" does not really give any credence to your assertions about a 'discussion'.

 

The article referred to the work of Dr. Zharkova's work on magnetic waves and solar activity. It's straight forward to do some homework.

I have no interest in the other articles you've spent your time finding.

Emphasis - also an indication that I don't expect an answer to be forthcoming as was the case on the climate sensitivity of CO2 based on the last ~ 70 years of data.

 

Got it .. No answers forthcoming. No reasonable discussion. No reasoned arguments. Just more blather and failed assertions. More logical fallacies and conspiracy theories.

Is there an 'A' team that the people paying you can send in or are we stuck with you? Cuz beating you down is fun and all but I would really like to have some actual discussions on some of these things.

Oh ... and I totally called it here:

Keep fighting those strawmen though

 

Geez man - take a walk around the block or something. Maybe that will help your thought process. Process more O2 and emit more CO2. It works wonders.

 

Will you will have something intelligent to add when he is back?

 

Ohhh - hurtful words those. ^^

 

It's called deflecting, he refuses to talk about the real science content and wants to change the subject to journalism

 

Name calling and personal attacks are also well used alarmist tactics .. along with this guy ->

 

That post is quite hilarious given you created this thread with a link to a tabloid well known for bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If you actually wanted to discuss real science you would have created a thread discussing the research and maybe even linking to the study. Not posting a trash tabloid well known for failing regularly no matter the subject.

You guys are quite rich... Do you really think people can't read the OP and then see this comment and laugh their ass off?
Not to mention of course the exchanges between Befuddled Alien and you guys.

Hilarious.

Keep delivering those epic fails. I enjoy it daily.

 

I rest my case ^^

The string of "data free" alarmist postings and the inability to summarize their beliefs in the form of a single figure of merit (the climate sensitivity of CO2) continues.

 

Rest your case? Is that why you are spamming every AGW thread with your posts devoid of sources and studies to peer reviewed science?
It's pretty funny you think that works after post number 1500 devoid of any actual sources to actual scientists.

At least the tabloids can be debunked because you can follow their sources. Something it seems you have learned and therefore avoid.
Because the moment you actually try to substantiate your claims with sources you will be crushed.

 

Google is your friend. But it requires initiative and the integrity to challenge your beliefs.

 

Every extinction event occurred after sea levels have risen significantly and then dropped significantly then it would produce an ice age. We have not gotten to the rise in sea levels yet so right now the chances of an ice age is nil.

 

More deflecting and personal attacks from someone desperately trying to avoid the subject at hand, hilarious.