http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/new-study-sun-not-co2-causes-climate-change/
Now what are we going to do ? Tax the Sun ?????
Now what are we going to do ? Tax the Sun ?????
Sun not CO2 causes climate change
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
This is an old one, and a bit of a loser story.
Willie Soon, the lead author, submitted this paper but neglected to note that it was funded entirely by the Koch Bros and oil money through Exxon.
That got him in a mess of shit, since when you submit a peer assessed paper you are required to also note your funding, putting in major conflict of interest shit.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
On top of that, his work just isn't very good and makes basic mistakes.
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic
After his funding became public he was even dropped by Exxon, who are in deep shit of their own these days.
http://www.desmog.uk/2015/02/26/wil...s-attacks-funders-climate-denial-lack-courage
All in all, shoddy science, hidden funding and a 'scientist' whose career is now in deep shit.
If that's the best you've got....
Willie Soon, the lead author, submitted this paper but neglected to note that it was funded entirely by the Koch Bros and oil money through Exxon.
That got him in a mess of shit, since when you submit a peer assessed paper you are required to also note your funding, putting in major conflict of interest shit.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
On top of that, his work just isn't very good and makes basic mistakes.
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic
After his funding became public he was even dropped by Exxon, who are in deep shit of their own these days.
http://www.desmog.uk/2015/02/26/wil...s-attacks-funders-climate-denial-lack-courage
All in all, shoddy science, hidden funding and a 'scientist' whose career is now in deep shit.
If that's the best you've got....
You're quoting totally biased pro global warming sourced propaganda. Is that the best you got?
Oh, there's more then enough embarrassing crap on your pal Willie Soon.
NYT too 'biased' for you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
And the guardian, listed above?
Soon's work is crap.
Maybe it fools you, but not the rest of the world.
Soon's work was peer reviewed and its legit. Everything that has been said regarding his conflict of interest is total bogus. It's a political hit job to try and silence him and to divert attention away from the fact that his work slices and dices the AGW myth.
Hit job?
Soon described his paper to his funders as 'deliverables', not research.
(from the NYT article above)
Its not research if you are 'delivering' pre-determined findings.
And the work he does is shoddy, from the same article:
Another good page on how shoddy his work is, with links, is here:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
The fossil fuel industries lobbyists rely on suckers like you and your confirmation bias to keep shoddy old claims like this alive when its been exposed as shoddy for a long time.
The global warming thing is very political. Some climatologists and meteorologists claim that they can't get a job with public institutions (i.e. UK Met Office) without ascribing to the current dogma which is global warming due to man (a person who doubts the dogma is vilified by the brainwashed as a heretic). Even when on the job, their predictions are influenced by this dogma. Independent climatologists will say that the sun's periodic cycles have a much greater influence on global climate. There is a well known 11 year solar heating cycle, but there are other much longer periods, some extending into centuries.
Its not political at all.
The whole point of the peer assessed method is that anyone can write a paper and submit it. If the science holds up and it passes the peer review then they will consider publishing it. The process is based on the science, not politics. Its the same method in most fields and helps weed out the bullshit fairly well. If papers come up with radical new ideas they will still get considered if the science behind them is legit.
The IPCC, for example, is mandated only to research and assessment, not politics. It doesn't put out ads in papers, it doesn't pay for lobbyists or anything that the oil industry is free to do.
Its all about the science, as opposed to Willie Soon, who delivered papers with pre-determined findings based on really shoddy work.
if it is not political then why are global warming propagandists calling for jail for those why don't believe them?
http://www.independentsentinel.com/climate-alarmists-demand-jail-for-climate-deniers/
http://www.independentsentinel.com/climate-alarmists-demand-jail-for-climate-deniers/
Maybe you should do some research as to how the IPCC came to be. And if you still think it's not political then you a just a lost soul with no common sense to speak of. But many of us already know that.
Make no mistake about it, AGW is all about politics. They are bastardizing the scientific method. It's a deliberate corruption and these people should hang for it. They have so much blood on their hands it isn't funny.
