Summary of my interaction with AGW Advocates on the Wunderground Climate Change Blog

[Snowlover123]

Hi everyone,

Recently I have been interacting with AGW Advocates at the Weather Underground Climate Change Blog, and I liked them at first, but unfortunately it went downhill from there.

I posted the image with the peer reviewed papers that showed that the sun was the major cause of climate change.

These are ACTUAL replies to my post, each comment refers to one of the papers that I posted.

Your appeal to refuted papers is silly. Anyone can cite papers that are wrong. The scientific literature is full of them.

Oh, boy! Correlation...except that there's no known mechanism in that paper for generating clouds of any kind from GCRs. IOW, correlation isn't causation. GCRs have been eliminated by serious scientists from having any large-scale effect on climate. Again, you ferret in corners in search of unnecessary explanations.

Again, this paper was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that you keep citing it is laughable. Face it, Scafetta is a crank.

This paper is not representative of the published scientific literature. The range in most (perhaps all) other papers is 15% or less, and that is primarily contained in the early 20th century. There is little or no solar contribution since 1980.

The same clueless person about climate science then went to say this laughable statement about arctic amplification:

What possible effect can albedo change have in Arctic winter...when the sea ice returns. This winter, for example, Arctic sea ice extent was very near the mean. Therefore, there was no real albedo change. Yet winter warming continues despite a lack of albedo change and complete lack of heat from the Sun. I've said it once, and I'll say it again --Buh-bye Sun hypothesis. It's over.

In summary, these replies did not adress the science, and only expanded to show that their ideological beliefs trumped their ability to think objectively and rationally.

It was a disappointing interaction to say the very least, as the discussion turned into ad-hominem attacks against myself.

[Derek]

(05-02-2012 03:53 AM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  In summary, these replies did not adress the science, and only expanded to show that their ideological beliefs trumped their ability to think objectively and rationally.

Belief in pseudo science, as clearly illustrated as anyone should need.
Sadly, all too common these days.

Apparently some "justify" this because
science is supposedly like any institution these days, in that, it does what it has to to attract (politically biased usually) funding.
That ain't science, it is pseudo science for the politics / wants / needs of the funder.

[Sunsettommy]

(05-02-2012 03:53 AM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  Hi everyone,

Recently I have been interacting with AGW Advocates at the Weather Underground Climate Change Blog, and I liked them at first, but unfortunately it went downhill from there.

I posted the image with the peer reviewed papers that showed that the sun was the major cause of climate change.

These are ACTUAL replies to my post, each comment refers to one of the papers that I posted.

Your appeal to refuted papers is silly. Anyone can cite papers that are wrong. The scientific literature is full of them.

Oh, boy! Correlation...except that there's no known mechanism in that paper for generating clouds of any kind from GCRs. IOW, correlation isn't causation. GCRs have been eliminated by serious scientists from having any large-scale effect on climate. Again, you ferret in corners in search of unnecessary explanations.

Again, this paper was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that you keep citing it is laughable. Face it, Scafetta is a crank.

This paper is not representative of the published scientific literature. The range in most (perhaps all) other papers is 15% or less, and that is primarily contained in the early 20th century. There is little or no solar contribution since 1980.

The same clueless person about climate science then went to say this laughable statement about arctic amplification:

What possible effect can albedo change have in Arctic winter...when the sea ice returns. This winter, for example, Arctic sea ice extent was very near the mean. Therefore, there was no real albedo change. Yet winter warming continues despite a lack of albedo change and complete lack of heat from the Sun. I've said it once, and I'll say it again --Buh-bye Sun hypothesis. It's over.

In summary, these replies did not adress the science, and only expanded to show that their ideological beliefs trumped their ability to think objectively and rationally.

It was a disappointing interaction to say the very least, as the discussion turned into ad-hominem attacks against myself.

I notice that they leave out the warm north Atlantic waters as a possible cause and that shifting winds in some years can compact the ice during the summer months.

The ice in the winter is always about the mean average and that it is ALWAYS well below freezing during the winter.

They also seem to forget that the north polar regions have little to no sunlight for weeks.Thus of course albedo is not important in the dark of winter.

They are oblivious to how stupid they come across in full view of the public.