New Evidence For Strange Solar Activity In 1600s (Maunder Minimum)

The Maunder Minimum had major effect on the climate and has been a puzzle as to why and how it occurred

 

It is appalling and disgraceful that, like so many others, Anton felt compelled to abandon his respect for rational, objective scientific evidence and genuflect to anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda: "It's true that the Maunder Minimum corresponded with the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years... but remember, it has been determined with absolute certainty that there can be no causal link between solar activity and climate; no one is permitted to question that doctrine. And while it's true that the rapid increase in global temperature in the 20th century corresponded with the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years, it has been determined with absolute certainty that there can be no causal link between solar activity and climate; no one is permitted to question that doctrine. And while it's true that the high temperatures of 2023 corresponded with a dramatic and unexpected increase in solar activity, it has been determined with absolute certainty that there can be no causal link between solar activity and climate; no one is permitted to question that doctrine."

And you have the gall to accuse climate realists of being "science deniers."

Despicable.

 

no one has ever said that - both can be true, one doesn't cancel out the other

 

They may not have said it in so many words, but that is the import of what they do say.

 

nope, in fact people have discussed what if this global warming reduces the global next ice age

 

Realists. Not anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers.

 

who are they? people want to reduce the dependence on fossil-fuel, not 100% replace it

it's called energy diversity, which equals energy security

 

That is actually something Anton almost never does.

I have been watching him for many years, and he in most cases will simply report on some study and comment on what it says. And he rarely says if it is absolutely correct or not, simply commenting on the research itself and the possibilities.

And if you look back, he has actually gotten a lot of flack for some of the research he has commented on in the past, like "Gravity Batteries". He has actually stated he thinks it is a silly idea, but he was only reporting a research paper and their claims, not judging if the technology is at all practical or not.

However, I noticed also for a long time that the farther he strays from his core areas of space, the wilder his reporting can be.

 

So it's all the more disgraceful that he felt he had to do it for AGW nonscience.

 

There may be good reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. But CO2 overheating the earth is not one of them.

 

well then, both sides can agree for different reasons, works for me

 

The implications are quite different. For example, a country that is self-sufficient in fossil fuels has much less reason for concern than one that has to import them.

 

Just another victim of the "TSI tracks solar climate influence" fallacy.