- 24 Jul 2022 21:02
#15240065
That "evidence" consists of contriving fallacious and disingenuous rationalizations for ignoring and dismissing the evidence: the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years coincided with the lowest sustained solar activity, while the "current" -- i.e., 20th century -- warming coincided with the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years.
See? They have to pretend TSI is the only possible way the sun could affect the earth's surface temperature, ignoring and dismissing spectral changes, magnetic effects, and every other possible way the sun could affect the earth's surface temperature.
These are claims, assertions and conclusions, not evidence.
No doubt. The same could be said of neoclassical economics. That doesn't make either of them right.
We have plenty of things to worry about. But the anti-CO2 hysteria mongers are all wrong because CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels isn't one of them.
MadMonk wrote:NASA - The Causes of Climate Change
While the Sun has played a role in past climate changes, the evidence shows the current warming cannot be explained by the Sun.
That "evidence" consists of contriving fallacious and disingenuous rationalizations for ignoring and dismissing the evidence: the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years coincided with the lowest sustained solar activity, while the "current" -- i.e., 20th century -- warming coincided with the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years.
Evidence Shows That Current Global Warming Cannot Be Explained by Solar Irradiance
See? They have to pretend TSI is the only possible way the sun could affect the earth's surface temperature, ignoring and dismissing spectral changes, magnetic effects, and every other possible way the sun could affect the earth's surface temperature.
European Commission - Causes of climate change
These are claims, assertions and conclusions, not evidence.
I'm certainly not an expert in the field and it is always wise to question sources, their methodology and agendas, but I can quote reputable sources saying the exact opposite of your conclusions all day.
No doubt. The same could be said of neoclassical economics. That doesn't make either of them right.
They are all wrong and we have nothing to worry about is what you are saying? @Truth To Power
We have plenty of things to worry about. But the anti-CO2 hysteria mongers are all wrong because CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels isn't one of them.