No, you do. That's why you and the other deniers are trying to say the global community are incompetents and liars. I am only forced to point at the scoreboard to remind you that your silly, anti-intellectual efforts have not moved the ball one single yard. And you see that i am exactly right and that the score is eleventy zillion to zero, and it makes you gwumpy.
False. It is not the global community and you know it. The non-existent one in your mind...? An anti-intellectual would be someone who claims there is no room for debate, that the science is settled, that any dissent is dishonest, even treasonous. I.e., your "team." I see that you are pushing nothing burgers. To pathetic to even bother refuting.
Your ignorance is remarkable. Professor Henrik Svensmark, Danish Technical University Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman, Racah Center for Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IBM Einstein Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study
Of course, it is the entire, global scientific community across every field of science that has come to the overwhelming consensus, which is endorsed by every notable science society, university research division, and scientific journal on the planet. The consensus sits in the high 90s, right where the consensus sits, for example, on evolution, or the age of the planet, or on quantum mechanical theory. This is as high as this number gets. The dissenters are producing no research. They are publishing no papers. They are getting paid by liars to lie, and they are funding their retirements with the clicks of gullible american fools. They are discredited charlatans that have less than no credibility remaining in any serious, educated company, much less among scientists. But the know-nothing denier frauds would have us believe the entire global scientific community across every field of science -- whom the denier frauds cite, when they think it suits them to do so -- are all incompetents and liars and are engaged in a universal, vast conspiracy to trick Cletus and his cousin-wife from Armpit, Alabama into signing up for the New World Order. And -- this is where it gets hilarious -- that denier frauds with zero education or experience in any relevant have used google and youtube "research" to outsmart the scientists of the world in their own, respective fields. Again, we would all just be laughing at these frauds and their obviously ridiculous efforts and claims, if not for the very real and serious consequence of them hamstringing the most powerful country in the world's ability to join in the global effort to combat climate change.
They have combined for exactly zero published research that undermines the broad consensus. Zero. So you can get that nonsense out of here right now.
Did I mention the two of them have produced exactly ZERO published, peer-reviewed research that undermines the consensus? Just in case: The two of them have produced exactly ZERO published, peer-reviewed research that undermines the consensus
This is just a small sample. Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 THE OCEANS AS A CALORIMETER A few months ago, I had a paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Since its repercussions are particularly interesting for the general public, I decided to write about it. Nir J. Shaviv (200; Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989. Local Copy. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ... www.nature.com › nature communications › articles Dec 19, 2017 — Article; Open Access; Published: 19 December 2017 ... steel reaction chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig. 6. by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 50 · Related articles Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
Stochastic effects in H2SO4-H2O cluster growth Köhn, C., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In : Aerosol Science and Technology. 54, 9, p. 1007-1018 Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: a numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols Svensmark, J., Shaviv, N. J., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In : Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 7, 9, 22 p., e2020EA001142. A 3D particle Monte Carlo approach to studying nucleation Köhn, C., Bødker Enghoff, M. & Svensmark, H., 2018, In : Journal of Computational Physics. 363, p. 30-38 Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review Experimental study of H2SO4 aerosol nucleation at high ionization levels Tomicic, M., Bødker Enghoff, M. & Svensmark, H., 2018, In : Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 18, 8, p. 5921-5930 Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review I can go on if you wish.
Those dont even touch the consensus. Lets state it clearly: "The rapid warming we have seen since the industrial age is almost certainly caused almost completely by human actions." It is very well supported. No, those articles did not touch it.
“No wonder, then, that in the early stages of the development of any science different men confronting the same range of phenomena, but not usually all the same range of phenomena, describe and interpret them in different ways. What is surprising, and perhaps also unique in its degree to the fields we call science, is that such initial divergences should ever largely disappear. For they do disappear to a very considerable extent and then apparently once and for all. Furthermore, their disappearance is usually caused by the triumph of one of the pre-paradigm schools, which, because of its own characteristic beliefs and preconceptions, emphasized only some special part of the two sizable and inchoate pool of information,” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
The Shaviv-Ziskin paper assigns roughly half of 20th century warming to the sun, leaving the other half for human activity. You would know that if you had read it. I'll leave to read the others so you don't again proclaim without knowledge.
False. That is the mischaracterization of a blogger, then repeated by a nonscientist on a message board.
No. That is the characterization of the paper's author, repeated verbatim. My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion ". . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. . . . Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776. . . . "
Ah, okay, thank you. But to that I say: So? Much science contradicts his conclusions. Like, all of it, apparently. You know solar science contributes already, right?
It is the view of Shaviv and Svensmark that the solar influence on climate is woefully underestimated. It's well explained here. Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
That is a bald falsehood. BWAHAHHAAHAAAA!!! You are the one spewing absurd, disingenuous and outrageous nonsense, and I will thank you to remember it. You clearly know nothing whatever of the peer-reviewed climate research, have never actually read a peer-reviewed paper in a climate science journal, and your reliably false claims about the content of peer-reviewed climate research papers are accordingly easily refuted. So YOU need to get YOUR baldly false and despicably disingenuous nonsense out of here RIGHT NOW. Do I make myself clear? Do you need to see your disgraceful filth refuted in words of one syllable?
BWAHAHHAHHAHAAHAAAA!!!! What a gracious concession of utter, ignominious, and disgraceful defeat. Nothing you can possibly say even matters any more. You have by your own words disgraced yourself so utterly, conclusively, and irretrievably that no one with any self-respect will ever pay the slightest attention to your ridiculous and reliably false pronouncements ever again. Right. You say "So?" because you have no facts on your side, no logic or arguments, just bald, bigoted science denial. But none of it good science. No, you apparently don't know how to do anything but make $#!+ up and pretend to be touting science when you have no training in science and no actual knowledge of climate science, atmospheric physics, or statistical methods. I know you deny all science and falsely claim that hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda is science.
Because the actual consensus is very, very different from what you claim it is. No it isn't. It's just absurd nonscience that you have made up out of whole cloth, with no basis in empirical fact. Because no one would want to touch such a steaming pile of horse manure.
The Replication Crisis Growing awareness of the replication crisis has rocked the fields of medicine and psychology, in particular, where famous experiments and influential findings have been cast into doubt. But these issues affect researchers in a wide range of disciplines–from economics to particle physics to climate science–and addressing them requires an interdisciplinary approach.
This certainly is an improvement that science is making today. From what I read the largest problems scientists have found have been in the softer sciences of psychology and sociology and in studies where ethical limits concerning human subjects exist. Not an excuse, obviously. To much of this had to do with "p-hacking", changing hypotheses midstream and other stuff that are pretty obviously problematic.
There is agreement across the vast majority of all the climate related sciences that you are just plain wrong about this. And, that is true the world over by at least as wide a margin as exists in science done at all levels in the USA. Yes, you can find a few outliers if you search. Science depends on outliers to make rigorous attempts to falsify conclusions. But, the existence of that effort doesn't come within a country mile of refuting the central premise you claim to be false.
