Exploding Stars Influence Climate Of Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evangel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Evangel

Guest
A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate. . . . results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.

Full Article on Space Daily
 
Analysis on JunkScience.com states:

“this new work is a severe blow to proponents of the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis and advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming who have worked so hard to deny solar influence on global climate.”

Full article on JuckScience.com
I suspect the JS article will get archived in short order, so you may have to dig around in the JS archives if you come upon this thread after a few days or weeks.
 
MikeWM said:
Ah, the website run by the guy who gets paid by Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris! Yes, I’ll give great credence to what he says :rolleyes:

Mike
Click to expand...
But will you give credence to what the Danish National Space Center says? They are not denying human involvement in global warming; they are merely adding yet another factor to the list of things that affect Earth’s climate.

One thing that bugs me in the global warming debate are the people who insist either “It’s all the fault of human civilization!” or “Human activity has nothing whatsoever to do with this!” Just like the weather, there are probably a bazillion factors that affect the earth’s climate.

BTW, why does corporate sponsorship automatically discount scientific research? Oh, right, just because it’s a corporation, it’s by definition evil. :rolleyes:
 
CelticSword said:
But will you give credence to what the Danish National Space Center says?
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea! I have no opinion on them either way!
They are not denying human involvement in global warming; they are merely adding yet another factor to the list of things that affect Earth’s climate.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt it. It’s never ‘spun’ that way though, is it? It’s always ‘oh, here is something that has some effect, all the climate change people must be wrong!’
One thing that bugs me in the global warming debate are the people who insist either “It’s all the fault of human civilization!” or “Human activity has nothing whatsoever to do with this!” Just like the weather, there are probably a bazillion factors that affect the earth’s climate.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And the discovery of one factor doesn’t discount the effects of others. Nevertheless, a significant part of the problem is being caused by humans.
BTW, why does corporate sponsorship automatically discount scientific research? Oh, right, just because it’s a corporation, it’s by definition evil. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
More that given the history I’ve seen of Philip Morris, I’d be hard-pressed to believe them if they said the sky was blue. And to a lesser degree, the same for Exxon Mobil. Not corporations in general, but some are much worse than others at manipulating the truth.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
Ah, the website run by the guy who gets paid by Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris! Yes, I’ll give great credence to what he says :rolleyes:

Mike
Click to expand...
Last time I looked, the New York Times accepted corporate contributions (advertisements). And political adverts, as well.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Last time I looked, the New York Times accepted corporate contributions (advertisements). And political adverts, as well.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur of the day that one. I don’t read the New York Times, and if I did, I’d be bearing that in mind.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
Non sequitur of the day that one. I don’t read the New York Times, and if I did, I’d be bearing that in mind.

Mike
Click to expand...
It speaks to organizations and their supporters who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Pot calling kettle black. And all that.
 
Al_Masetti said:
It speaks to organizations and their supporters who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Pot calling kettle black. And all that.
Click to expand...
Those passionately trying to tell us about climate change are mostly reputable scientists. Maybe a few have had scandals or problems in their past, but the vast majority are simply honest scientists.

Conversely, Philip Morris has a record of spin and lies going back at least 40 years. I find it very difficult to believe a word they say.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
Those passionately trying to tell us about climate change are mostly reputable scientists. Maybe a few have had scandals or problems in their past, but the vast majority are simply honest scientists.

Conversely, Philip Morris has a record of spin and lies going back at least 40 years. I find it very difficult to believe a word they say.

Mike
Click to expand...
Mike, the anthropogenic global warming predictions are ALL based on computer models that are constantly tweaked because of inconvenient problems with the data.

The worst of the models predict a one degree per CENTURY temperature change.

Any real world changes in excess of ONE DEGREE PER CENTURY are due to natural causes.

Instrumentation available cannot detect one one-hundredth of a degree per year. That’s 0,01 degree per year.

Reputable scientists are only interested in the truth. So, when a reputable scientist postulates a theory, he or she will try EVERYTHING to DISPROVE his or her own theory, so that the theory will be able to withstand all and any challenges.

Instead the so-called climate scientists are pulling stunts to PROTECT their theories. Such as refusing to provide the computer coding in the case of the “hockey stick” theory, which has been disproved.

Reputable scientists will do anything to cooperate with dissenters because reputable scientists want their results to be duplicated over and over by anyone interested in the topic.

That’s not happening. Instead, the dissenters are having THEIR motives challenged.

So, there is no way that the climate model people could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called reputable.

And bringing in Exxon Mobil or Philip Morris adds absolutely nothing to the science. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

Science is not about passion.

Science is about boringly performing test after test after test. To continue to prove or disprove a theory.

All the computer models come with disclaimers.

That ain’t science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top