Keiran

Wikki IS generally ok, but both you and I know its limitations? Your link to Lawrence Solomon’s ‘sour grapes’ op-ed was unfortunate … can’t you see the grudge match he is engaging in?

Sheesh, even you can infiltrate Wikki with cosmic ray stuff and to be quite frank, the editors would do a good job of filtering you out – but they may not!

That is why I go to the primary sources, which bit do you not understand?

This is what is taught to impressionable people, beginning in high school.

You are giving me the impression you just don’t like citations from sources that refute your claims. Ergo, if 99 out of 100 sources disagree with your reasoning, you would claim it’s all a conspiracy and denounce the whole exercise as propaganda.

I am not debating peak oil with you Keiran. Plerdsus raised it in his post and I responded. Do you have a problem with that?

This next statement of yours really exemplifies your lack of understanding of how science works.

“It is not a theory at all because there has been shown NO conclusive proof other than an attempt to make something of a correlation between minuscule human CO2 emissions and the fact that we have had a warming period within normal historical evidence.”

Look at Nir Shaviv, your cosmic ray guru. He does NOT have to PROVE his hypothesis. It is for others to critique it. If his hypothesis stands up to peer reviewed critique, it becomes more robust and may one day become theory. He has NOT been able to do that, but he should keep trying. Do you understand?

Again, following your logic (which I am beginning to doubt you have been blessed with) – you want 100% absolute certainty before you will act on anything. If that is how you expect society to work, then nothing will ever get done and we may as well still be living in the dark ages!

If you have difficulty with this concept, go and talk to the big insurance companies and businesses around the planet.

Keiran:
- Ranting lunatic and layman
- Cites nothing or an op-ed if at all.

Wikipedia:
- 156 citations
- Huge variety of sources

Keiran writes:

>Oh my goodness Hamster. Are you saying you
>haven't heard of the solar wind, or coronal
>holes or coronal mass ejections or M and X
>class flares or propagation or background
>x-ray flux or electron fluence etc, etc.
>Perhaps I should direct you to some appropriate
>material to read up on but that may be too easy.

Huh? When did I say I hadn't heard of these things?

You never mentioned them before, either.

>Yes you say ... "aa index, but that is a
>measure of the earth’s geomagnetic stability"
>is correct and our earth has a strong internal
>magnetic field. However, does it occur to you
>that the solar wind is able to modify this field,
>creating a cavity called the magnetosphere?
>What do you think this cavity does to the surface
>of the earth? Do you know that it is filled with
>plasma much of which originates from sunnyboy?
>Would this influence climate, perhaps?

Where is credible scientific evidence that this means we are headed for an ice age?

But I am not a climatologist. I just wonder though why the global warming skeptics keep making up data?

>When you say "Besides, study after study by climatologists
>shows no link between sunspots (which are much cooler than
>surrounding ares) and climate.", well all i can say is keep
>looking but don't overlook the full solar/cosmic picture.
>Incidentally, what is your understanding of the cause of
>the Maunder Minimum?

What exactly am I overlooking? You are the one making claims using false solar data. Then when challenged, you merely toss out a mess of terms.

I don't know what caused the Maunder Minimum, and neither do you.

Keiran “Q&A, we have this comment .... you say "Wikki is ‘generally’ ok for an overview (especially for beginners)".

I say this is an appalling outlook if you are genuinely concerned about honest science and the education of impressionable people.”

But Q&A is not interested in honest science or any genuine concerns, only in maintaining what he sees as his own “eminence” and right to talk down to ordinary folk, whilst awaiting elevation to an “emeritus” status (in other words, he defends his wannabe status by dismissing everyone else and their right to hold and express a view).

Regarding AGW “an hypothesis based expediently on but twenty years of the late 20th century warming.”

Agree I have made previous comparisons to the “science” of economics, a 200 years history and still no global model or consensus on the influences of differing variables on the process, compared to a 20 years of climate change study and even fewer sampling and measuring systems available for modeling and yet we have folk telling us we are going to hell in a hand-basket unless we stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

i am not a scientist but I do not have to be to be able to reason probability or to predict consequences.
In the life of the planet it is pure hubris to presume global warming has so significantly changed in the past couple of decades purely due to human activity and any claims made that it has must be considered in regard to the reward motive available to the prophet of such.

Scientists have been known to be wrong in the past, even acclaimed ones like William McBride, exposed for scientific fraud on a massive scale. Other scientists brought us the anthopological revelations of piltdown man.

I am an accountant, I an trained to follow the money trail....

Col, I have obviously offended you.

I am sorry.

Can we move on?

This is all funny stuff from Hamster.

Hamster, says he is "completely unfamiliar with" my expression of the sun's other essential solar pulses. When i list them he then replies with "Huh? When did I say I hadn't heard of these things? You never mentioned them before, either."

He then thinks i said "we are headed for an ice age" and i "keep making up data". Other nonsense like "I don't know what caused the Maunder Minimum, and neither do you."only confirms my earlier statement of "well all i can say is keep looking but don't overlook the full solar/cosmic picture."

Hamster, the heavy burden of proof is on AGWers who would seek to deny that heat variations in the sun's output and the electro-magnetic energy fluctuations, would have a far greater effect on the climate than any tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of natural atmospheric gas. To my way of thinking this is blindingly obvious and it is bluddy obvious how AGWers go about this task. They only have an hypothesis based expediently on but twenty years of the late 20th century warming where we have some doubt about the accuracy of the data. Trying to apply that to climatic behaviour that has had its own cyclic changes, unaffected by humanity, for eons certainly calls for some real anthropogenic grandeur because who needs integrity when you want to be the weathermaker?