This story must be bogus since we all know that the science is in and every known scientist agrees that man’s activities causes global warming. Nobody has ever disagreed with this. Nobody, ever. Besides, the fix is in.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.”




  1. MikeN says:

    Well you surprised me for a bit with that link and other searches. But if you read the links and think about it, what I said stands. You are conflating two things.

  2. cgp says:

    booboo on #109

    trending up during the last century Nope. Again I refer you to Prof Courtillot’s graphs.

    He is a dissenter who cannot publish in AGW peer group, nor can he foster students to carry on his work. A truly damning testimony to AGW fraud.

    Look and listen to what he points out in the graphs.

    No trends just regional climates, europe with the ‘M’ signal and n america with the recent spike. He acknowledges that recent temperatures in the second graph in highest in last 50 years, but not so for europe. The aim point in these graphs is no correlating trend with human CO2 emissions. He points out the bad fitting three-institution sourced temperature figures used in AR4.

  3. cgp says:

    And as always the three-institute stooges never have made
    known how they derived their AR4 graphs. As they said in the
    CRU email trawl they reinvented the way science peer group publishing was done to pull off their agenda.

  4. cgp says:

    And the very first graph Prof Courtillot shows is a full temperature scatter plot which is completely black to the average temperature plot derived from it.

    As an atmospheric physicist he points out this has no meaning.

    So all along we have been debating trends in unreality.

  5. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    cgp–I posted above that I have decided to become dogmatic on the issue of AGW. Just as I was right off the bat about conspiracy theories on 911. BushtheRetard did not have explosives put in WTC and have dupes fly airplanes into the correct locations. Silly to think so AND I don’t need to read “new” evidence that such a plot really did happen.

    Same with AGW. The IPCC panel of qualified experts has reached this opinion with a body of evidence that has grown and been verified and can be seen with our own eyes and common sense for at least 50 years.

    I’m not interested in a single expert coming forth saying all the other experts are wrong.

    MY MIND IS MADE UP: JUST AS EVERYONE ELSE’S SHOULD BE: AGW is the consensus of qualified scientists.

    Scientists and Experts who have other theories should continue to file their report but until the consensus changes, I’m going with the best science available==not the outlier opinion.

    Could AGW be untrue? Sure. By picking apart some isolated element of the theory??–no. By presenting a different theory that explains all the observations/predictions better.

    Dogma is comforting. I can feel its appeal.

  6. cgp says:

    bobbo,

    deliberately setting out to be dogmatic must mean your mindset is that of the non-truth-to-anything existentialists perverts of reality, or you simply do not have the reasoning mind means to work things out for yourself.

    I’ve offered in the past many ways and means which you have ignored without successful counterpoint- (in which case I’d concede. I debate to think things out, point to elsewhere).

    Prof Courtillot could indeed be a liar, all those graphs a fraud. So why do I believe him? I don’t. I just take his word till someone else comes along to disprove him. Its the scientific process, which has been rehauled by the AGW peer group collective.

    Why is it that people like you believe these guys? I mean people like you always disbelieved the scientists when they pushed progress. Now we have a peer group push a halt to progress, and now you all believe them.

    Boy is leftism a mental disease or what!!!! The other mental illness gripping 40 per cent of european pop is the never-ending supply of other peoples money, which is about to stop. All those austerity protest marchers will stop dead and gap astounded at the event.

  7. bobbo, your father's ideas are not Pop Culture says:

    cgp–are you qualified to form opinion regarding global warming? ie: do you know enough to do other than take other peoples word for it?

    I don’t.

    Therefore, I take the opinion of the consensus of qualified scientists.

    You can ride whatever bright new unicorn comes along.

  8. cgp says:

    why yes I am. Science and math to 4th year level at university with a BE. This gave me enough tools to think things out and the vital thing to know the scientific process, which the AGW collective have hauled over.

    You are not even smart enough to know you have been lied to because you don’t have the mind tools. Go back your leftist reading list.

  9. Guyver says:

    116, Bobbo,

    Hey Guyver–you caught your mistake in 4 minutes without coffee. Well done sir!

    It happens from time to time. :)

    125, Bobbo,

    I posted above that I have decided to become dogmatic on the issue of AGW.

    So in other words, you’re not interested in the truth. You are taking a “religious” stance on the matter.

    AGW is the consensus of qualified scientists.

    Logical fallacy based off of appeal to authority. AGW is a theory. It has not been proven with empirical evidence.

    This theory is based off of correlation and assumptions. There is no application of the scientific method.

    These qualified scientists cherry pick data that supports their conclusions while ignoring data that flies in the face of their theory. Or instruct its members to not rush to conclusion when empirical data contradicts their theory.

    They’re not applying science. They’re applying personal politics. The fact that it took more than 10 years to conduct this experiment rings of politics and not science.

    Scientists and Experts who have other theories should continue to file their report but until the consensus changes, I’m going with the best science available==not the outlier opinion.

    Real science isn’t a popularity contest. Dissenting theories and opinions are at the heart of real science. When dissenters get ostracized is it because they’re simply heretics of the flavor of the day religion that you embrace dogmatically? Or is it because they’re not applying real science?

    127, Bobbo,

    Therefore, I take the opinion of the consensus of qualified scientists.

    Again another logical fallacy by appealing to authority. Those OPINIONS are not based off of applying the scientific method.

  10. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver–late to the party, but always welcomed.

    Science like everything else IS a popularity contest based on Authority: the consensus of qualified scientists is that germ theory is valid. You can still find other scientists who will say it is humors. Which you going to believe and trust your life to?

    Same with every other area of science. Or, as I hope you “really” mean: what level of consensus do you need before we all IN FACT consider a subject closed?

    You won’t be able to define that without having AGW included.

    I’ll check back to see if you do anything except play another word game or simply repeat yourself.

    Bus I ain’t holding my breath.

  11. Guyver says:

    130, Bobbo,

    Science like everything else IS a popularity contest based on Authority:

    Your original and overall persistent stance on the topic is and has been based largely on a few logical fallacies (and not science as you would have others believe).

    Appeal to authority (qualified scientists), appeal to popularity (consensus), appeal to belief (dogma).

    Nowhere do you include the scientific method or empirical evidence (as though qualified “scientists” don’t get bothered by such inconveniences).

    what level of consensus do you need before we all IN FACT consider a subject closed?

    When other qualified scientists can repeat experiments and reach the same empirical evidence while accounting for ALL facts. When causality is actually established and not basing one’s conclusion off of correlation. These are BASIC scientific principles.

    When the consensus is not based off of cherry picking facts that agree with their hypothesis / theory while ignoring other facts that conflict with their hypothesis / theory. Do you even realize that computer simulations are not experiments. They’re an exercise how your assumptions play out.

    True science ignores political posturing and least of all it’s not a popularity contest. The fact that you seem to think it is demonstrates either intellectual dishonesty or lack of knowledge for something as basic as the scientific method.

    I’ll check back to see if you do anything except play another word game or simply repeat yourself.

    No word games needed. Your understanding of what you think is science makes me think you’re a victim of the public education system.

  12. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Oh Guyver–you are perilously close to becoming too tedious to respond to.

    We all appeal to authority. I do. You do. I appeal to the authority of the IPCC–a group of qualified scientists. You appeal to singular outlying experts of one type or another who disagree. No difference there.

    We’ve gone around this maypole 5-6 times now. There is no “proof” AGW as there is no “test” that can be run. There is no second planet earth to run as control.

    Even the ability to predict the exact temperature and rainfall and ocean level on Jan 1, 2050 where ever you say would not be proof of AGW–only that the models worked to predict those certain variables.

    Yes–understanding the scientific method, and our own personal limitations, AND how to rationally respond to same is what this subject offers us. You fail.

    How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind? You have a little bit more to learn.

    Yea, verily.