The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If Crowder knew anything about Global Climate Change research,he'd already know that natural variability of solar irradiance does not force climate change in magnitudes sufficient to compensate for anthropogenic carbon emissions.
This sort of thing was sorted out in 1995.
Eigil Friis-Christensen & Knud
There won't be any global cooling.

I have you are right about global cooling.
Irradiance isn't the only thing put off by the sun.
Solar wind speed, density, charge vary hugely.
So of course the church of global warming focuses on the one part of the sun that only changes by 1%.
I like how the believers assume we have not learned anything new about the sun since 1995.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I have you are right about global cooling.
Irradiance isn't the only thing put off by the sun.
Solar wind speed, density, charge vary hugely.
So of course the church of global warming focuses on the one part of the sun that only changes by 1%.
I like how the believers assume we have not learned anything new about the sun since 1995.

Only shortwave solar irradiance is associated with the greenhouse effect.It comes in past the greenhouse gases,strikes the Earth, is converted to long-wave infrared radiation,which cannot get past the greenhouse gases,holding the heat energy in the atmosphere,raising the temp..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar wind and any anything associated with it, has never been corroborated as a forcing mechanism for global warming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate 'scientists' don't assume anything.Scientists are skeptics.They do use hypotheses,which can then be tested to establish whether or not there is a causal link in the area of study.If different scientists reproduce the experiment elsewhere,and come up with the same results,it begins to take on credibility as probable explanation for the observed phenomena.
If you read their work it will become immediately obvious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1995,there's no reason to look for anything other than greenhouse gases as the forcing mechanisms for global warming.
'Towards the Detection and Attribution of an Anthropogenic Effect on Climate,' by B.D.Santer et al.,PCMDI Report No.21,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, obsoleted the need for any other explanation for climate change.
Re.SCIENCE,Volume 268,16 June,1995,pp 1568
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what the 'church of global warming' is.
'Believers' have been defined as those who subscribe to the science.Since scientists do not assume,it follows by default,that the believers don't assume anything as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists do know very little about the sun's corona,and have recently launched the Parker Solar Probe, which will bring an instrument suite within 4-million miles of the Sun.
But again,whatever they learn there will have nothing to do with climate change.

[redpoint5]

Crowder ranges from funny, entertaining, and right, to obnoxious, disrespectful, and wrong. I suppose we all operate in that way at times, but he's certainly louder in the process. I don't listen much to him, because like Saturday Night Live, it's very hit and miss.

Prager is great. I'm beginning to listen to more of his content. I'm sure I'll disagree from time to time, but at least he talks rationally and clearly.

I will violently oppose the erosion of freedom of speech, right along with Jordan Peterson. An army is needed to compel my speech, and at best they can merely silence it, at great expense.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Nine posts in eleven minutes? I'm starting to worry. I can add this comment before the edit tag times in.



Probably respectable, but there is a problem with bogus papers passing peer review in lesser journals (See the video below (first half)), as well as the Replicability Problem.



Thanks for your perspective. All I got was 'obvious point is obvious'. Here's your reward: I'll name my own social-anarchism eutopia for you — under Creative Commons CC0 so you can use it, just don't claim it: Fremania.



For me it's simply — the hippys were right.


Here's a video that Youtube wanted me to see: Greenpeace Founder Debunks Climate Change! (Dr. Patrick Moore Uncut) | Louder With Crowder

Seems ontopic.

I could only stomach 8-minutes of it before I was convinced that the gentleman had hit his Donald Rumsfeld moment.
He doesn't know what he doesn't know.
He has a perspicacity coefficient of zero,and he himself is cherry-picking point after point,completely out of context with the spirit of original communications.
Is he a Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine? A Doctor of Podiatry? Landscape architecture? Proctology?
He's not a climate scientist.
They may want to rush him to a hyperbaric chamber and get the nitrogen out of his bloodstream so he can think straight.I think he's been down too long.

[freebeard]

Oaky, I admit it was a sociological experiment. I posted one video by Styxhexenhammer and one by Steven Crowder.

One was dog-piled and one was ignored. I have my result. Thank you.
_________

Only shortwave solar irradiance is associated with the greenhouse effect....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar wind and any anything associated with it, has never been corroborated as a forcing mechanism for global warming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate 'scientists' don't assume anything....
If you read their work it will become immediately obvious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1995,there's no reason to look for anything other than greenhouse gases as the forcing mechanisms for global warming....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what the 'church of global warming' is....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists do know very little about the sun's corona....
But again,whatever they learn there will have nothing to do with climate change.

Maybe you have the bends? If you limit your thinking to 1995, you miss what has been reported since 2009. we've learned a lot from GOES16 in the last year.

For one, we know that Sunspot and Earthspots share a common mechanism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nabl7itMZiQ

________

The hurricane in the Philipines is 10x Florence (and headed straight for a reactor in China). I hope Niky is Okay.

[oil pan 4]

Not solar wind, more like the lack there of. But you are right about it not having anything to do with global warming.

And we are going to start learning a whole lot more about the sun, in an up close and personal kind of way.

Scientists make lots of assumptions. Normally they test and peer review these assumptions, unless it has anything to do with global warming, then they just skip the testing and peer review part.

[All Darc]

New busting, about the suposed water from air :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVsqIjAeeXw

I imagine what the buster would say about this other proposal, even more nonsense :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL3Ps86N2nM

Ted-X... suporting a hoax ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o68leKAf-Gk

[Xist]

Aerohead, you get a hyperbaric chamber!
Mr. freebeard, you get a hyperbaric chamber!
Oil Pan, you get a hyperbaric chamber!
RedPoint, you get a hyperbaric chamber!
Everybody gets a hyperbaric chamber!

[All Darc]

Trump's Solar Wall busted :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p0c22gHb8E

[gone-ot]

Southern "fried" southerners?

Originally Posted by All Darc

Trump's Solar Wall busted :