I'm not the first. "Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share." —Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
Sure. He was only a Nobel Laureate. You're in denial. And btw: “We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.” ― Robert Wilensky
I have - and you have yet to prove any of this is “ignored”. Especially in light of the NASA data that is used by MET bureaus throughout the world. All you have to do is google “Solar influences climate” and you are swamped with results So, in what way are they “ignoring” solar influences? lols this is a hoot! https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Solar-Influences-on-Climate---Grantham-BP-5.pdf Astrology and weather prediction - is that what you are referring to?
Don’t care - the quote is bloody near older than me! Societies shift norms and mores alter so what he was describing THEN is not necessarily applicable today
Just google "Scafetta" at RealClimate.org to see the routine hostility. Here's a recent example of hostility to the idea of significant solar influence. More solar shenanigans* 7 MAR 2024 BY GAVIN 110 COMMENTS Going back a few months, I spent a bit of time pointing out the strategy and nonsense in the various Willie Soon and company's efforts to blame current warming on solar activity. I specifically pointed out their cultish devotion to a single solar activity reconstruction (HS93); with an update from , and their increasingly elaborate efforts to create temperature series that correlate to it. … Read Full Article
Interesting videos. No doubt that the sun, and conditions on the sun affect climate on Earth. Both videos point out the 11-year cycle. With the steady warming of the earth for almost 50 years now, it's obvious that there are other factors. Fact - Greenhouse gases trap heat. This was known as far back as the early 20th century - "The effect may be considerable in a few centuries." --- and here we are! -
No because a) the way we do science has shifted over the last fifty years AND he was talking about qualitative science rather than quantitative science
“Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
So?? You are cherry picking to try, unsuccessfully, to bolster the false narrative that somehow science is wrong
Of course everything can “sometimes” be wrong but what makes more sense here - that tens of thousands of scientists across the world in a multitude of different climate related disciplines somehow have managed to convince each other that AGW is real versus a few hundred, at most, mostly non scientists denying like crazy
Satire I assume. The next stage is the sun will become a red giant and destroy or severely bake the earth, but not for billions of years. If humans are still around when this happens, presumably we will have pretty amazing technology to deal with it in one way or another.
A great story, I first read it decades ago in an anthology that Isaac Asimov assembled. I was even delighted about 15 years ago when I caught an OTR broadcast of "X Minus One" that adapted it for radio.
That is actually an excerpt from a newspaper from New Zealand. However, it in itself is not original and is taken from an issue of Popular Mechanics printed that year. And it is true, but this is a great example of selective editing. Only reporting what you want others to see, and ignoring everything else that does not support your argument. Here is the original source article for consideration. https://books.google.com/books?id=T...PAhUa3YMKHfCZDLQQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false Where it discusses that the planet is warming, and has been doing so for thousands of years. And that it would continue to warm for thousands of years more, with occasional oscillations between warmer and colder periods. Until the trend reverses in several thousand more years until another ice age started. Pretty much the exact same thing I have been saying in every one of these types of threads. Of course, at that time they had no understanding of what actually caused ice ages, Plate Tectonics was still decades away, and over half a century from understanding how those caused the ice age cycles in the first place. But once again, this is why I warn people repeatedly about cherry picking sources, and even more so cherry picking from sources. Because you will get people like me that want to see what the source is, and refuse to simply accept a single paragraph removed from the actual context. Then looking into the source, and seeing that it talks about a hell of a lot more that was not included in the single paragraph claim presented.
