David wrote:
> On Apr 6, 10:52�am, Eric Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...
> > David Chistainsen's post was an obvious troll, as he has demonstrated
> > a
> > lack of understanding of the science and posts comments from non-
> > scientific
> > sources, such as Milloy's site, Junkscience.com. �I replied in kind.
> >...
>
> Your language is intemperate for no good reason. I
> have no dog in your fight as you could have seen
> from my excerpt from Nigel Lawson's article.
>
> For the benefit of others and possibly yourself, I've
> probed deeper on the Svensmark effect.
>
> Your BBC link is not compelling if only because of
> Dr. Svenmark's objection midway in the article -
>
> "Limited effect
>
> Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.
>
> -----
>
> David Christainsen
--------------------------
David,
Of course Dr. Svenmark is "unimpressed", as the latest findings may
have shown his theory to be incorrect. I have not read the paper, so
I can't comment further, which is why I posted the link to the BBC
story. Since that story was in the popular media, it is likely to
have errors. That's why one absolutely must go to the appropriate
literature, which usually takes considerable effort to understand,
(as well as an appropriate educational background), before one can
seriously discuss the nuances of the reported research.
In addition to MT's comments, I suggest that your insertion of a long,
off topic comment in your preceding reply just shows that you are a
troll. Why throw in such a "red herring" into your post, except to
repeat the denialist line when you had the opportunity? Similarly,
referencing Avery (and thus Singer) does nothing to support Svenmark's
hypothesis either. For example, you just wrote:
"Cosmic rays are one mechanism among many that influence climate."
It's not proven that variations in cosmic rays resulting from changes
in solar activity actually influence climate, but the way in which
your comment is structured implies that cosmic rays DO have such an
impact. If the solar variations actually have a large impact,
shouldn't it be rather obvious in the historical data? So, tell us,
where is the clear imprint of that solar influence?
Perhaps you are not familiar with the denialist efforts to subvert the
scientific study of climate change. You came here from
sci.environment, which has been taken over by rather rabid posters,
many of whom aren't interested in the science, only in the politics.
This group was founded because it had become impossible to carry on a
rational discussion about the various issues on the sci.environment
forum. I agree with MT that we should keep our discussions on topic
and civil and have tried to temper my remarks, although perhaps not as
well as MT might wish.
E. S.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
