Can I Call HCGW Deniers Idiots?

Same way one can attribute July's higher temperatures than June's to the higher angle of the sun, even though the sun's angle actually decreases from June to July. Until you address this, you have no argument.

July is the hottest month of the year even though the angle of the sun decreases monotonically through the month.

As long as you decree, without evidence, that TSI -- the only index of solar activity that is known not to vary enough to have any significant explanatory power in climate science -- is also the only permissible measure of the sun's influence on climate.

No, eleven-year averages are used specifically to remove the effect of the eleven-year solar activity cycle.

As long as no one is allowed to mention the fact that the sustained high level since the 1950s is a lot higher than the average level for hundreds of years before the 1950s....

As long as you assume, again without evidence, that global temperature always responds instantly to changes in the sun with no thermal inertia, and that there is no difference between the amount of solar energy the earth receives and the amount it absorbs.

 

Same way it was done in economics: follow the money.

 

Which they achieved by dint of explicitly excluding, dismissing and ignoring all measures of solar influence on global temperature other than TSI, the one index that they knew a priori did not vary enough to explain any significant solar influence on global temperature variation.

Because they used TSI, the only measure of solar influence on climate that they knew in advance could not possibly give a higher result.

Because Tung and Camp explicitly removed the possibility of any amplification mechanism by suppressing all empirical data on solar activity other than TSI, which they knew in advance could not possibly explain any substantial solar effect on global temperature because its range is too restricted.

I.e., they contrived their result by suppressing, erasing, deleting and removing all empirical data on solar activity other than the TSI data that they knew in advance did not vary enough to have any significant explanatory power.

And we know that paper is the Tung and Camp paper because they deliberately cooked their conclusion into their method.

Because unlike Tung and Camp, Shaviv did not deliberately exclude, erase, delete and suppress all data on solar variation other than the TSI data, which they knew in advance minimized the solar contribution to global temperature variation.

 

I.e., they cooked their conclusion into their methodology by deliberately and explicitly excluding all empirical data on solar variation other than the TSI data they knew in advance could not possibly have significant explanatory power in relation to global temperature.

 

Billions of people could be killed by a global cooling catastrophe triggered and worsened by trying to prevent global warming that was actually not going to happen.

That is meaningless gibberish.

No, that is nothing but absurd the-sky-is-falling nonsense with no basis in scientific fact.

No, you will only smash your own credibility.

No you won't. You will only show that thanks to a multi-millennium high in solar activity in the 20th century, the earth has naturally returned to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

Now all you have to do is show that:

1. This warming is beyond the limits of natural variation for the Holocene, which you haven't and never will.
2. This warming is primarily due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels, and not any combination of natural and other artificial factors whether cyclical, random, or trended, which you haven't and never will.
3. This warming has been or will be net harmful to humanity, which you haven't and never will.

 

A deniers ruse is to dismiss TSI when it doesn't suit their argument. For your enjoyment you'll find this issue addressed here by looking at other Sun aspects:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...is-solar-driven-not-the-result-of-agw.593373/

A deniers ruse, once cornered, is to flood the thread with propaganda to cover up the thread-fail, but you'll find further irrefutable arguments, papers and data within the mess that summarily dismisses non-agw theories that deniers propagate (actually there is only one theory really).

I admire your patience!

 

Or, the would-be refuter retreats after being himself refuted, and then just tosses snark from afar.

 

QUESTION : CO2 was 10x higher than today and it did not end the deep freeze ice age lasting millions of years. Why would it cause "global warming " now ? '
ANSWER : Political agenda .

~ CO2 did not cause warming then and it does not now .

 

No, that is absurd, fallacious, and disingenuous anti-scientific nonsense, like saying a psychologist's ruse is to dismiss the sun's position in the zodiac when it doesn't suit their argument.

Yes: a thread that not coincidentally demonstrates your claim above was false, groundless, and disingenuous, and that insistence on use of TSI as the only permissible index of the sun's influence on climate is dishonest and anti-scientific.

You misspelled, "A skeptic's logical method is to identify the relevant empirical evidence to clarify the issues."

You need to read that thread again; but this time, try to pay attention to what actually happened.

 

I'm not sure anybody denies the globe is warming. It had been for 25000 years.

 

It's been happening since the previous I've age and there were fluctuations in temperature long before people existed.

So not only would it happen it did. You're religion is ignoring that fact.

 

Ah, my dear old bait-and-switch comrade!

The moment you started rehashing old material and insisting we read Shaviv's book we knew you were done

 

Apparently you stopped following the discussion.
To the great loss of all of us, Shaviv has not written a book.

 

Nothing more to discuss. You bait and switched many times. Your efforts to prove the OP title (recent warming is caused by the sun) failed miserably from every angle, from every Sun measurement and regardless of attempts to reinvent the time period.

Oh, it was never published?

 

Your claim that "efforts to prove the OP title failed miserably" is contradicted by the record of the discussion.
To my knowledge, Shaviv has never written a book, much less attempted to publish one.

 

Why don’t we get Richard Lindzen’s opinion of the IPPC. My memory is he’s called the IPCC findings ‘hilarious incoherence.

 

Proof should be simple - do a literature search through Google scholar for peer reviewed published research

 

Oh! My!

Fo you not know what publishing research means?

 

Why Not? Add in Judith Curry some of the “Notorious 50” as well and throw them up against the thousands of scientists contributing to the IPCC.

 

Shaviv has published voluminous research in peer reviewed papers, but not a book.

 

Why?
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

So, is it your opinion that science is a matter of majority opinion?

 

And he has been critiqued for those papers and his “theories” have been shown not to hold up to scrutiny but I googled this guy - and here is his CV which has more padding than the Princess and the pea

http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/cv/cv.html#refer

1) He is not a climatologist but an astrophysicist
2) He has included in his list of “publications” unpublished PDFs and links to short commentaries
3) Not all his publications have had to do with climate change - in fact it is only a couple of publications
4) His climate change publications do not hold water - at all and have been soundly debunked ‘

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

I also cannot find anything he has had published in a peer reviewed paper on this topic in the last ten years

 

He has dozens of climate papers. Here are the most recent.

Sulphuric acid aerosols in low oxygen environments
Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, H., 2022, (Accepted/In press) In: Journal of Aerosol Science.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing
Svensmark, H., Svensmark, J., Enghoff, M. B. & Shaviv, N. J., 2021, In: Scientific Reports. 11, 13 p., 19668.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: a numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols
Svensmark, J., Shaviv, N. J., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 7, 9, 22 p., e2020EA001142.

Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

More here:

Nir J. Shaviv / Curriculum Vitae
http://old.phys.huji.ac.il › ~shaviv › cv › cv

2014-2015, Member, IBM Einstein Fellow, School of Natural Sciences, The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. 2012-, Full Professor, Racah Institute of ...

 

Would you go and take Ivermectin because a group of fringe dwelling idiots with MD after their names and a vested interest in billing you for the scripts said it was good for you whilst every other doctor with higher qualifications were saying that it was ineffective?

The “Notorious 50” are notorious BECAUSE they were caught with their hands in a very lucrative cookie jar - many make money as a paid consultants for the Heartland Institute or more direct funding from fossil fuel companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
Judith Curry became a climate change denialist after she started a business selling “hurricane predictions” to oil companies (good money for taro readings)
Then there is Willie Soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#2015:_Disclosure_violations