Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

[quote=paladin17 post_id=6620 time=1646418007 user_id=29470]
Of course, one should judge whatever piece of info independent of where they've acquired it from. However, I'm simply stating that this isn't the case. This isn't how actual real world science works, for good or bad.
[/quote]

Neither is the propaganda & fear porn being pushed by the whole AGW/Schadenfreude crowd either, with their insistence that CO2 is a pollutant & not plant food, along with their constant attempts to hide the warmer - [i]much[/i] warmer - past

@paladin17 "This isn't how actual real world science works, for good or bad."

By "this" do you mean the paper linked by @beekeeper? What do you find deficient? I haven't read the entire paper, but I find the following significant:

[quote]When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favour of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.[/quote]

Do you mean the data sets they evaluated are not as good as those used by IPCC researchers? Does the standard model, with its black holes, etc., qualify as "real world science"? I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I'm just looking for some clarity about your last comment.

Of course, one should judge whatever piece of info independent of where they've acquired it from. However, I'm simply stating that this isn't the case. This isn't how actual real world science works, for good or bad.

@Paladin17 I second @neilwilkes question. What makes Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics "questionable"? And even if that journal hosted some "questionable" papers, shouldn't the paper @beekeeper referenced be judged on its own merits? The infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" was published in the paper “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium.” By Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999. Do you consider "Geophysical Research Letters" to be a "questionable" journal?

How many scientific papers published in the past few years are never questioned, much less subjected to replication attempts, yet are cited anyway? How many published papers fail replication, yet are cited more than papers that are replicated. "Science" has become a club for all the "right thinking" people; to question it leads to ostracism, as Halton Arp found out.

This report is one of many examples where scientific rigor is sacrificed to politics:
[url]http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/climategate/hide-the-decline.pdf[/url]

From the link below:
"Ten years before Climategate, Dr. Mann released a computer-generated graph purporting to show global temperatures over the previous 1500 years. His graph mysteriously made the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Maunder extreme cold years disappear – and planetary temperatures spike suddenly the last couple decades of twentieth century. The graph had the shape of a hockey stick, was published worldwide and became a centerpiece for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
[url]https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/climategate-ten-years-lat[/url]

The many unscientific ethical lapses by the CRU:
[url]https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-you-should-be-hot-and-bothered-about-climate-gate[/url]

Given the gate-keeping practiced in today's science, perhaps a "questionable" journal is the only venue for significant findings worthy of our attention.

[quote=paladin17 post_id=5639 time=1631372654 user_id=29470]
[quote=beekeeper post_id=5621 time=1630631615 user_id=6404]
Here is an interesting article from then other side :idea:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, the paper that the article links to is published in a very suspicious journal, so I would assume that whatever conclusions the author(s) make(s) would be ignored from the get-go.
[/quote]

Why?

I wan incline to think that any news is good news or bad news but the references are fairly credible!!

Wonder when or if this will be reported on MSM

[b][size=130] Big Chill For Climate Doom: Arctic Sea Ice Is Expanding
[/size][/b]
Current readings freeze countdown to planet's demise

[size=85]Added by Greg Albaugh on September 10, 2021.
Saved under Environment/Nature/Outdoors, International, Politics
Tags: Antarctic sea is well above average, Arctic Ocean, Art Moore, Global Cooling, ice extent has increased, point of no return, the greatest threat to global public health, WND [/size]

Less than 10 years remain before the oft-claimed “tipping point” for the planet, but sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is the highest it’s been in nine years, increasing more than 30% from last year, while the Antarctic’s level is well above normal.

That’s according to the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility’s High Latitude Processing Center, pointed out climate-change skeptic Tony Heller.

He noted the Arctic Ocean gained a record amount of sea ice during the first week of September.

“Most years the Arctic loses ice, but this year ice extent has increased” more than 77,000 square miles, he wrote on Twitter, adding the news likely would not be reported by CNN, BBC News or the New York Times.

Meanwhile, the sea melt this summer was the lowest in 15 years, and the expanse of Antarctic sea is well above average.

https://www.citizensjournal.us/big-chill-for-climate-doom-arctic-sea-ice-is-expanding/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=big-chill-for-climate-doom-arctic-sea-ice-is-expanding&fbclid=IwAR0W0_RM3LIOMpXuPT7eVR0e1Nv1hEz8JJKE8ShKE1LZiMrdoLNvR1Fz4xg

[quote=beekeeper post_id=5621 time=1630631615 user_id=6404]
Here is an interesting article from then other side :idea:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, the paper that the article links to is published in a very suspicious journal, so I would assume that whatever conclusions the author(s) make(s) would be ignored from the get-go.

found one

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming/

any chance of reading that article without having to offer up my email for relentless spamming afterwords?

Here is an interesting article from then other side :idea:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html?