Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (Score 1) 735

by slashbart (#39927011) Attached to: Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards
So even if your figure of 97% is correct, the other 3% are politically motivated? Those 3 % (dozens or hundreds of scientists) are all paid by the oil industry? They are all status quo (Nir Shaviv with his zero-energy house)?
I'm a denier because I'm right wing? I'm not actually, I typically vote Dutch Animal Party, and have even voted SP.
I wish this ridiculous antagonism would stop, I really do...

Comment: Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (Score 1) 735

by slashbart (#39926849) Attached to: Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards
Going into the meat of the article: the article shows clearly that the suns changes as logged via cosmic ray modulation via the suns magnetic field in Be-10 isotopes have a profound effect on climate. No one really knows how this occurs, maybe it's Svensmarks hypothesis, or maybe something else (as suggested in the article).
All IPCC consensus science works with GCM's that assume the only relevant solar variability is in TSI, and since the changes in TSI over time are very small, the models have to include large (ca. 6) amplification factors to map a link from CO2 to average planetary temperature.
The article shows that other mechanisms are active, and make it likely that the current GCM's are off.

Comment: Re:Last I knew (Score 3) 735

by slashbart (#39926325) Attached to: Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards
Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Comment: Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (Score 1) 735

by slashbart (#39926273) Attached to: Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards
Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Comment: Re:Happens when you call people "deniers" (Score 2) 735

by slashbart (#39926193) Attached to: Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards
No it's bullshit. There are many ways in which people might not believe all or some of the claims on AGW. Believe it or not, there are even climate scientists (Dr. Bas van Geel for instance) who think the current scientific majority belief (IPCC) is wrong. That does not make him a "denier", it makes him a scientist with a dissenting point of view.
Are you really so thick that you do not understand that labelling someone a 'denier' makes the angry !? Call me a skeptic, call me a maverick, call me an obstinate old fart, I don't care, but don't compare me with people that deliberately deny one of the most gruesome slaughters of all time.
So if you don't understand that using this specific label is offensive, then you are either very ignorant, or just an asshole.

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!

Working...