Resignation over flawed paper "debunking" man-made global warming

Yes it started as opinion piece, unfortunately barfo not ALL OF IT is opinion genius.

Lol at barfo trying to deflect from the REPORTING in the story.

Yeah buddy, this is what happened at the experiment.

REPORTING the opinions of CERN's Kirkby and Svensmark.

 

Dude you are completely unaware of what these two scientists have been saying in OTHER articles. Which I have extensively read on other occasions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

Brutal remarks.

Not really, CERN just proved objectively that the IPCC's consensus doesn't take into account a pretty major factor. And the IPCC supports me anyway, so no need to preach. Also the appeals to authority are not helping. Medical journals are often wrong and that is the world we live in. Not all concepts are equal in science.

My solution is to stop focusing on petty Bullshit that should be ignored, when there are superior problems. Do not kill off the 1 billion people living on 1 dollar a day. Wow what a crazy and frightening proposition. Listen to the UN's human development index on this specific matter.

Indeed, the UN is overall not objective sorry to break that to you. AGW is extremely leftist agenda and has been for a while, environmentalists are very left.

Also Denny believes in AGW, you are simply not paying attention to what he says.

 

What's the judicial system have to do with this topic? We're talking about primary research, not expert witnesses (who, you are correct, are basically paid to have an agenda.) Research scientists and the peer reviewed publication process are at issue in this thread.

The "science infiltrating politics" quote from Denny is what I was focusing on in my response. It's simply not the way the vast, vast, vast majority of research scientists are wired. While there certainly are some big egos in science, any researcher knows that rock solid work (not political agendas) is the only way to maintain the reputation required to keep the grants and/or industrial funding rolling in. Any kind of falsification or misleading statements and their reputation and legacy are tarnished. Those things can happen, but it's pretty rare and not at all pervasive like it was implied.

 

Show your work, man. Convince me. All you need is a link to some article where the scientists from the CLOUD research explicitly says their results establish a connection between cosmic-rays, clouds and climate. If you read it offline, just tell me the source. I'll look into it, I promise.

The gag order you linked to just shows how politicized this issue is, it doesn't prove your point one way or the other.

Are you an expert on climate science? Have you spent decades studying the issue? There are people a lot smarter than you and I who have dedicated their life to studying climate. That's why I "appeal to authority". BTW, do you realize you're doing it was well?

I don't know where you get this idea that stopping climate change will kill 1 billion people. (not that I think we can just flip a switch and stop it) I think rapid climate change would absolutely kill those people and countless plants and animals. It would devastate world economies.

Strange, you cite the UN as a source to support your argument and the very next sentence you say the UN is not to be trusted. Which is it?

I never said he didn't.

 

I haven't kept up with this thread, but I see Huevon is still saying he doesn't like an appeal to authority, while he keeps citing CERN and Denny as his main sources. I earlier pointed out his hypocrisy, but I guess he just doesn't get it.

Here's something new. Since the American Right won't conform to what the world wants, more radical backup plans to fight climate change are being designed. These won't require cooperation from the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/earth/04climate.html

 

The article brings up a question I've asked before. If the world warms considerably (>3°) should we do anything about it? Would a warmer world be better for humanity?

I think it's prudent to at least research solutions to a climate that is inhospitable to humans. They are considering both long term solutions (carbon dioxide removal technologies) and so called "quick fix" solutions (seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles, etc...).

 

How are they NOT related? You get more grants from KIEOs for being lefty on this subject. It is a fact, you are simply ignoring that.

I'm talking about the preeminent scientists in the world being bought, not your second cousin.

Well the University of East Anglia disagrees.

Also Al Gore won a nobel peace prize, as did Barack Obama for doing nothing. So yeah these people are very left-wing, as are most environmental groups.

 

Bluefrog look up what "3%" means.

4.8 million > 125,000

Sure, I have plenty more articles from these guys, but I made my point already.

You got caught in a lie just now, these guys are supporting ME. They support my rhetoric not yours. You got cocky dude and assumed these guys were pro-AGW. I've prepared a pipeline of stuff from these guys in case you want to insist on arguing about CERN.

Yes I am an expert, I read this for fun and a great quantity of it. Lol at you trying to defend PHds as automatic experts or superior people.

That's not how life really works. Professors are often wrong, sorry to break it to you.

Well this represents your lack of cognitive flow I suppose.

Cap and trade makes products more expensive and difficult to acquire. Take a look at what embargos do to poor countries. Embargos are very similar to genocide whether you meant to kill poor people or not.

Honestly you are presenting a very poor argument, and now you have no case. I am more aware of foreign policy than you it seems. You seem like you mean well, but your solutions are very creepy and a joke. Fuck Cap and trade and people that want to sacrifice the poor.

Well read the sentence more carefully, "on this specific matter".

Dude you are a radical alarmist, I've already made you admit it. Thanks but no thanks.

 

...here is a solution, plant more plants!

 

OK, time to put up or shut up. I propose a sig-bet.

Show me a source where the scientists from the CERN CLOUD experiment say that their research proves a cosmic-ray/cloud/climate connection and I will change my signature to what ever you want for the rest of the month.

If you can't produce such a source by Friday (12:00 PM 10/21/2011) then you must change your signature to that of my choosing for the rest of the month.

I'll let you pick anyone you want as the judge. You can even choose your main man, Denny.

Deal?

 

bingo, the earths air filters are being removed to never return

 

good luck

 

Total transparency!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/...blished-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/

 

clear cut a dense, lush jungle, with enormous 1000+ year old trees.... and replace that with a row of seedlings that you also plan on cutting down....

you can also remake oil, just bury millions of dead poor people in the ground, problem solved!