![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challengi ... 50089.html?
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.beekeeper wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:13 am Here is an interesting article from then other side
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challengi ... 50089.html?
Why?paladin17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:04 pmUnfortunately, 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.beekeeper wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:13 am Here is an interesting article from then other side
https://www.theepochtimes.com/challengi ... 50089.html?
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.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.
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 - much warmer - past
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests