One astonishing thing about laymen’s debates about climate science is the bizarre pro-AGW arguments from educated and intelligent people (AGW = anthropogenic global warming). This is one of the things that gives me the “debating folks distributing religious tracts at the airport” feeling.
For example, here is a comment by Oldskeptic, one of the most consistently sharp commenters on this site. I have learned much from his comments, including that I was wrong about the degree of social mobility in the US (see this post). But when it comes to climate science we get comments like this (shown below). Weird stuff. A grade school lecture on basic science, that he apparently considers sufficient to dismiss the work of the many eminent scientists who disagree with AGW theory. First you see my reply; Oldskpetic’s comment follows.
(1) Does high school science suffice to dismiss the work of scientists skeptical of AGW?
A frequent rebuttal by laymen to skeptics’ concerns is to describe AGW as an obvious result of high school science facts. In this vein, Oldskeptic provides his “BASICS PHYSICS (very simplified)” rebuttal; another example in the comments on the FM site is here. There are others on the FM site, but not as clearly expressed.
The “basic science” rebuttals tell us little about climate science, as the debate is far more complex. Solar forcing, limitations of the data inputs. feedbacks (higher temperature, more evaporation, clouds, lower albedo) … there is a long list of complex factors involved. But that is not an important objection. They are IMO a low grade of propaganda, the equivalent of disproving the Theory of Relativity by looking at your child riding a bike. No changes in mass or relative size! Einstein was wrong! But that is an insignificant objection.
What’s valuable about this logic? Such comments tell us much about the thinking of the pro-AGW folks who write them. Oldskeptic concludes his “BASICS PHYSICS rebuttal with this wonderful line:
As the greatest engineer in history once said “ya canna defy the laws of physics”.
He appears to believe that the many scientists on the other side of the debate are unaware of high school science facts. For a current example of a someone questioning many aspects of AGW theory, consider the work of Prof Roger Pielke Sr — see this post, from which you can go to his website and review his papers. Who is Prof Pielke Sr? From Wikipedia:
Emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, he has served as Chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, as Chief Editor of Monthly Weather Review, … has served as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and as Editor of Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere.
I suspect the Professor remembers much of his basic science, although it appears Oldskeptic disagrees (yes, email him also!). Stay with me please, because it gets even better.
Oldskeptic’s comment responds to An important new article about climate change, 29 December 2008. This post gives an excerpt from a new paper: “Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium”, presented at the Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco (15 – 19 December 2008). Presented by Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus in the Deportment of Geology at Western Washington University. His resume includes 8 books, 150 journal publications, and a long list of offices and honors.
Perhaps Oldskeptic should email Dr. Easterbrook, explaining how Easterbrook does not remember his high school science lessons. Perhaps offer to give him some lessons.
Rather than attempt a rebuttal to Oldskeptic’s specific points, here is a brief summary of the skeptics’ concerns — written by two scientists with considerable experience with these issues, see “A Critical Examination of Climate Change.” One of them is Douglas Hoyt:
Douglas V. Hoyt is a solar physicist and climatologist who worked for more than thirty years as a research scientist in the field. He has worked at NOAA, NCAR, Sacramento Peak Observatory, the World Radiation Center, Research and Data Systems, and Raytheon where was a Senior Scientist. He has conducted research on issues related to climate change, changes in solar irradiance on all time scales, and the sun-climate connection.
His most recent publication is the book “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change”. He has published nearly 100 scientific papers on solar irradiance variations, the greenhouse effect, atmospheric transmission, aerosols, cloud cover, sunshine, radiative transfer, radiometers, solar activity, sunspot structure, sunspot decay rates, and the history of solar observations.
He has received no funding from any fossil fuel entity or government entity. His work is influenced only by the data and the study of the scientific literature.
Perhaps Oldskeptic should email Dr. Hoyt, informing Hoyt that he does not remember his high school science lessons. Perhaps offer to give him some lessons.
These scientists are not exceptions, but some of many scientists skeptical about some or all of AGW theory. For more names see The Senate Minority report is out: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”, 12 December 2008.
(2) The not-growing sea ice
Oldskeptic says “Moving to an El Nino plus a rising solar cycle (average length 11 years) and these arguments will disappear … as fast as the Arctic Ice.” This is bizarre (and as such characteristic) given the data from the National Snow Ice Data Center. Jeff Id’s analysis of sea ice data showed no increase of ice coverage during the past 30 years. See here for more information.
Also it concerns one of the most important aspects of not just this climate science debate, but a large fraction of disputes in science: they occur on the margins of our instruments’ resolution. Which, of course, is where we should expect both new insights and debate. This is so for most of the key climate science data, such as…
- Global temperature — vast areas recorded to a fraction of a degree (for the surface network, using instruments not intended for climate science use).
- Small percentage change the cryosphere (ice caps, sea ice), which the recent corrections show is not easy to measure.
- Mass and thickness of the continental glaciers.
- Tiny changes in sea level.
All of these not only are often at the edge of the instruments resolution (or beyond it, in the case of satellite-based sea level measurement), but require adjustments for many factors. It’s not just, as many pro-AGW laypeople suggest, like reading a temperature. Hence the debate.
Oldskeptic’s comment
Global cooling? With 2008 one of the 10 hottest years on record? In a low solar cycle and a major La Nina? We should be back to the 1960’s on that argument.
Nice thing about these arguments, I only have to wait a few years until we go back to record temps again. Moving to an El Nino plus a rising solar cycle (average length 11 years) and these arguments will disappear … as fast as the Arctic Ice.
From the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) (source) Re: Temperatures from 1880 to 2007, Solar Cycle, La Nina see: To quote a couple of paragraphs:
The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008, the left panel of Figure 1, shows that most of the world was warmer than in the period of climatology (1951-1980). Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of tropical temperatures, La Niña being the cool phase.
Figure 3 compares 2008 with the mean for the first seven years of this century. Except for the relatively cool Pacific Ocean, most of the world was unusually warm in 2008. The United States, however, was not exceptionally different than its long-term mean.
BASICS PHYSICS (very simplified) ALERT
The Earths heat balance depends on: Energy in from the Sun. How much is reflected back into space (mostly a function of its albedo). How much is re-radiated back into space.
Greenhouse gases (CO2, Methane, NO2, etc) trap excess heat. Basically: high frequency energy (light, etc) hits the earth and is re-radiated back at a different (infra red) frequency. GGs stop that re-radiation, heating the lower atmosphere. This means more energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere. More GG, then more energy (=heat) trapped. School physics.
The only way this cannot lead to greater heating of the earth is that (1) The sun’s output decreases, [2] the Earth albedo increases (more gets reflected away as light, etc). Both of these we measure carefully now. The albedo is not increasing (as ice melts then it actually decreases). No notable increase in high altitude clouds (note: low altitude clouds don’t help). Note that there is a secondary effect of high altitude particles (volcanic, pollution) as well that is less well measured, but these are usually very short term.
Now look at the chart of solar irradiance from the 1st link. A nice steady cycle, and since we know this is correlated to sun spot activity, which has been followed since the days of Galileo, we know the cycle quite well. It will go up again shortly, peaking in about 5 years. How does that translate into surface temperatures, how long does the greater energy trapped take to impact them, what areas are most affected? This is what climate models are for, combined with a lot of climate history research.
The Earth should be named Water. Water has a very high specific heat content. We also have a complex series of sea water flows all around the world (the Gulf Stream is but a part of a much larger system), with hot and cold water moving enormous amounts if energy (heat) all over the world. These flows are subject to local forces that can alter them, some with wide ranging impacts. The Southern Pacific El Lino/La Nina cycle actually impacts as far away as western and central US (it impacts Australia massively).
But more energy (heat) trapped means that local (even global) SURFACE temperature oscillations will still follow an overall upward trend line. Sure there are quite large movements year to year, but the trend is the important thing.
However there is no free lunch in this. Cooler water from deep sea coming up (lowering low atmospheric and hence surface temps), means hotter water going down. Mixing means that inexorably the deeper waters (close to 0C in many places) slowly heat up (bit like your house heats up faster than your swimming pool). This process is poorly understood and we really have no idea about the long term impacts. Will certain flows stay the same, speed up or slow down (with potentially massive good/bad local impacts)? Will all the methane trapped in deep ocean levels start rising (if that happens we are in real trouble) .. again we don’t really know.
What we do know is that the heat eventually returns to the surface again, one way or another. And then we move into a hotter surface temp period, the “peaks” above the trend line. I’ll bet that 2012 will be a record year, only broken by 2013/14 (2010 won’t be nice either).
A simple ‘thought model’; imagine being in an insulated room with some heaters. There is a large block of ice. Turn on some of the heaters. It gets hot closer to the heaters, but if you stay close to the block of ice (and in the right air circulating spot) you can still feel quite cool. But the ice block is melting. When the ice is completely gone, turn on all the heaters … enjoy.
As the greatest engineer in history once said “ya canna defy the laws of physics”.
For more information from the FM site
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:
- Posts about Science, Nature, and Geopolitics– this lists not only posts on the FM site, but also a wide range of other online sources.
- About Peak Oil and Energy – my articles
- About Peak oil and energy – studies and reports
Posts on the FM site about climate change:
- A look at the science and politics of global warming, 12 June 2008
- More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
- Update: is Solar Cycle 24 late (a cooling cycle, with famines, etc)?, 15 july 2008
- Solar Cycle 24 is still late, perhaps signalling cool weather ahead, 2 September 2008
- Update on solar cycle 24 – and a possible period of global cooling, 1 October 2008
- Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008 – More evidence of cooling.
- A reply to comments on FM site about Global Warming, 17 November 2008
- Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?, 22 November 2008
- Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!, 1 December 2008
- Mystery solved, providing an important insight about the global warming debate., 2 December 2008
- The definitive rebuttal to skepticism about global warming!, 10 December 2008
.
.
No doubt high school physics, poorly understood, is as far as modern climatology can develop the science. It remains for outsiders to move in and clean up the mess, after the real world demonstrates the falsity of climate model projections.
I’ve just been reading “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Arliey. He makes the point that we strongly “imprint” on the first suggestion that is presented to us, and use that first exposure as a point of comparison for other interactions with the topic in the future. I would argue that this is a problem for science and scientists in general. (not to mentions economists!) Especially when the data is noisy, the point of view one first encountered is likely to have undue influence on subsequently discovered facts and interpretive views. For me, the most interesting pundits and scientific observers are those that started out one way and then changed their mind.
The thing that i find about people that dispute the anthropogenic nature of climate change is that they all seem to be committed to maintaining the status quo of unbridled consumption. Since the overwhelming majority of climate scientists seem to think that climate change is in fact due from our consumption habits (e.g. meat, oil) then it seems prudently cautious to seek ways to restrict those outputs.
Grondeau makes a good point. We do imprint upon early mentors and exposures. Such imprinting follows the normal neural channeling of experience. Strong early experiences leave imprints which shape subsequent experiences.
If a still undecided scientist is tempted by grants and tenure he will likely choose a point of view that gives him the greatest advantage in the society of scientists. He will maintain that point of view as long as it is fashionable and serviceable.
Persons who change their minds after long struggle despite the current fashion of thought will be persons of greater heft than most of their fellows.
It’s sad that the guy with a fake name who writes this blog has decided to destroy his credibility with his ongoing crackpot gibberish denying global warming. Having revealed himself as a kook on the subject of global warming, it taints every other area of his discussion to the point where sensible people can no longer take his blog seriously.
Sad. The guy with the fake name who cranks out this blog had some sensible-seeming things to say about economics, military procurement, and related subjects. Having gone off the deep into kook territory with his fanatical AGW denial, he’s relinquished all claim he might ever have had to credibility, and he’s rapidly reducing his audience to nothing but like-minded AGW-denial kooks.
Eerily similar to what the Republican party is now doing, when you think about it. Bizarre, and tragic.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: (1) Yes, I am “destroying creditibility” in this post by citing all those scientists! And your rebuttal is to call me names (“kook”). How devastating.
(2) BTW — Fabius Maximus is not a “fake name”. The definition of “fake” from Wordnet, a lexical database developed by the Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton University:
It is a pseudonym, as there is no intent to decieve or mislead. Definition:
(3) Readers can see Mclaren’s style of reasoning in this post: “Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?“, 22 November 2008. Like Oldskeptic, he is obviously intellegent and well-educated, but (subjective evaluation follows) loses it when discussing climate science.
It’s a common phenomenon when discussing religion, or other deeply held matters of faith. I have done the same on this site when discussing my beliefs about America.
Must confess to feeling much the way mclaren does: the AGW-denial stuff is a real blot on an otherwise outstanding blog. (Call my views faith-based but as layman I think I will hedge my bets and take the findings of the IPCC over those of wattsupwiththat.blogspot or whatever it is. The consensus is not always right, of course, but in this case surely prudence, nay, the survival instinct suggests we should plump for it.)
Haven’t yet decided whether to just skip over AGW posts and read the rest or to de-bookmark altogether.
I have noticed before that the very intelligent often seem to have a particular topic on which they are inexpicably and uncharacteristically obtuse. Mencius Moldbug at Unqualified Reservations falls into this category.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: The fascinating thing about so many of the pro-AGW comments is that they show no — NO — sign of having actually read the post. For example this comment.
“findings of the IPCC over those of wattsupwiththat.blogspot or whatever it is”
How bizarre, at this post constisted of examples of eminent scientists questioning AGW theory. That was the point of this post.
As I have said so many times, this obtuseness gives this debate the “debating with religious fanatics” feel to it.
As Old Skeptic remarked, the physics of climate is straightforward. In any system, energy in equals energy out, else energy content (ultimately heat) changes. To go farther, eg to create a climate model, one begins making assumptions. Every assumption made introduces error into the model. Too many assumptions go unquestioned.
Climate infidels question assumptions of climate models. That is what scientists are supposed to do, but somehow this early incarnation of climate science has neglected that essential step. It has become a well funded political movement now. Uncomfortable and inconvenient questions are no longer asked inside the choir chambers.
Count me as one of the early “warmers” who has since found reason to step back and question.
I’m sure all of us who employ or serve humans ,are constantly running risk assessments in our minds ; or we should be . A risk assessment doesnt look at what is likely to happen , but what might be the worst case scenario .
Yeah , of course it’ll be great if the poor old Jews can buy a few farms in Palestine ;if the good little mujahadeen can get those pesky Russians out of Afgh ; the worlds weather can cope with us chucking smoke up ; we can split atoms and transform elements without disturbing the mass of the earth ; space junk will only hit the odd cow if it falls out of orbit ; we always do firecrackers in nightclubs on New Years Eve , great fun .
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I do not understand the point of this comment, but I agree that “risk assessments” are important. For more on this increasingly vital subject see “We are so vulnerable to so many things. What is the best response?“, 30 December 2008.
Most inaccurate statement: “the physics of climate is straightforward”
It is not. The number of vectors to consider outstrips our ability to identify them, let alone measure them.
Basically, (yes I and will do a few emails), the much maligned climate models were not the reason anthropomorphic warming has scared the c**p out of so many people.
Physics and climate history did. As we learned more about climate history, the more scared a lot of people have become. As we realised that our entire species has evolved and risen during quite slowly changing climate changes. And as we realised who delicate the systems are, and how subsceptable they are to rapid changes, when non-linear, chaotic, systems are pushed a bit to far ….
Napier in the 1890’s raised the GW issue, yes this science is pre general relativity, pre-quantum physics .. real old science.
Climate models are designed to work out, as best they can, the rate of warming, the local effects and possible future impacts. If energy is trapped in greater quantities .. what is the temperature impacts on Melbourne. What is the impacts on the Arctic, India, Europe, the Gulf Stream, etc, etc, etc.
Sea Level rises .. I talked recently to a young scientist who was joint reseacher on a paper in Nature that broke the FACT that average sea level rises are happening faster than the early model projections showed. That ‘sink’ that has been saving us, the oceans, is experiencing thermal expansion. Plus it is getting more acidic as well (absorbed CO2 in the oceans means greater acidity).
Now on this issue I am not a ‘doomster’, more an alerter. But we are running out of time. Being an Aussie we are all actutely sensitive to the climate, we boil, we freeze … the ‘canary in the mine’ climate wise .. and our climate has changed markedly …. for the worse.
It is going to be rough and we do have to extract the digit real soon. As I have said before, generating energy through non-fossil fuel resources is the smart thing to do (as FM has argued often) economically and for future generations (“thanks grandpa for us not having plastics .. and if I can develope a time machine to go back in time and kill you … I will”) …. and it avoids (except in the opinion of the fundalmentalist climate ‘skeptics’) a potential disaster area.
Remember that old term ‘win-win’?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies, about those terrifying rising sea levels. Sea level has been rising since the end of the little ice age, with few visible ill effects. The forecasts from major institutions expect a rise of roughly 20-30 cm (aprox one foot) though 2100, slightly faster than the long-term average. That is, sea levels are rising much slower than your fingernails grow. For more on this see the graphs here (you can click through to the actual data).
I is just as likely that our minor contribution to greenhouse gases mitigates temperature swings as exacerbates them. We don’t know. Promoters of anthropological global temperature effects theories paint pictures of wildly uptrending global temperatures (and will later scream “ice age”) all caused by man. In reality, we have added, at best, a minor bump to an already upward curve. However, it is also possible that we have shaved a little off the top of that curve.
The certainty of those who advance theories of AWG is ridiculous. We are nowhere near certain.
What is certain is that we are polluting our environment. Lead, mercury, and man-made carcinogens are a real threat particulary in the third world where clean drinking water is often not available and food inspection regimes are not feasable–because just finding food is tough enough. Yet, Al Gore and other “green” progressives focus on CO2 emissions. About the only chemical we produce that isn’t toxic. They are selling snake oil while real needs go unaddressed.
Burgess, climate models are not used to ‘prove’ global warming (basic physics and historical research does that), they are tools to try and work out:
(1) How quickly temperatures go up. By modelling the (known) positive/negative feedback mechanisms the attempt is to work how long we have (years, decades, centuries) we have if GG gases go to a certain level.
(2) Regional effects. Take for example the CSIRO model (one of the ones used by the IPCC). Now the CSIRO is an Australian model and they do model global impacts, but their (quite correct) emphasis is on Australian impacts, so they can advise Govts as to what to do.
(3) Warn about early warning signs, e.g. arctic ice melting, hurricane/cyclone, long term predictions, etc.
They are constantly evolving as well as new data becomes available and/or new positive/negative feedback mechanisms are discovered and/or worked out.
Back to the solar cycles:
————————-
Remember my comment before (summary): GG gases up then temps have to follow unless the [1]albedo increases and/or [2]solar energy drops.
Now I’ve gone through the articles and it is clear that:
– we can barely understand Earth’s climate systems* .. though we are getting better and have a handle on the basics.
– solar cycles? Baby steps so far.. The sun varies, by how much and over what times is still in the basic research and theoretical sphere. What we do know (only since the days of solar observation satellites) is that we can confim about an 11 year cycle, which has a correlation to sun spots .. sort of, because the data series is so short.
But I have 2 serious problems with the “solar irradiance is going down so we can all relax” argument because:
(1) It is a bet. We are betting on [2] happening … and for a long time. CO2, in particular, stays in the atmosphere for ages. The Earth’s carbon cycle takes about (roughly) a century to sequester a CO2 molecule, longer actually since some come back again and then gets sequestered again .. and so on. So it can take centuries before CO2 levels drop(there are other mechanisms as well for methane, NO2, etc).
I don’t bet (except against suckers who play me at poker .. but that is not a bet). I’m a pessimistic skeptic. You can bet all you want, just don’t involve me.
It (at this stage of knowledge) a bet on an ‘act of God’ to save us.
(2) The effect is quite small. At the rate we are going CO2 (etc) gasses impacts will dwarf any solar energy changes Heck, the NATURAL El Nino/La Nina cycle dwarfes any solar eneregy impacts on surface temps (though not the total energy balance of the Earth of course).
I should add the ‘sun goes down so we are all ok’ crowd IMPLICITLY agree that GG increases impact climate (otherwise they would not trot out it as yet another esxcuse to do nothing).
Final Comment:
I was taken to a nuclear power plant when I was 11 (my uncle worked there). It looked like an office block. It was clean (and cheap). Living in Glasgow you knew that coal was a filthy (killing) way of producing power. Plus at 11 I knew it would run out (I mean duh).
If anyone had said to me THEN (at 11 years of age) that we would still be burning coal to produce electricity in the 21st century, I would have looked at you and said ….. “you are a moron, no one could be that stupid”.
*Amazing how we can find so much money for ponzi schemes, ways of killing people, wasting money by ‘drones’, Aston Martins’ for people who rip off other people, But we spend so little on understanding the Earth we live on, “Spaceship Earth”. We depend entirely on dedicated, poorly paid scientists. Hmmm how many nuclear subs vs how many research subs.
My first law: never underestimate human stupidity. Plus I am adding a new addition to that: “humans greatest aspiration is to be stupid”. Sort of reverse evolution.
Fabius Maximus note: As you can see from the opening line, this comment is nonsense. It gets worse from there. Needless to say, not a shred of evidence is offered for any of it.
.
Firstly, it is in the public record that AGW is the invention of the plutocratic elite who surreptitiously control all aspects of human society from behind the scenes. Even the most rudimentary examination of the facts associated with elitist control will convince the most ardent doubter.
AGW is the ruse by which the elite are attempting to impose a carbon tax which is to be levied upon all of humanity, the ultimate objective being the inevitable reduction of the world’s population. After all, the world is the elitists’ oyster and the rest of us they consider nothing more than menacing botulin!
Secondly, the prevailing notion of solar physics is totally out of whack and by comparison, Herschel’s postulations are a fresh breeze of reason!!
Briefly, I propose that the sun, similar to that of the failed star Jupiter, has a large planetary core surrounded by a vast sea consisting primarily of liquid hydrogen; metallic at the point it impinges upon the core. Above the liquid hydrogen abyssal is an atmosphere of predominately hydrogen gas, the whole of which is enshrouded by a relatively thin, photospheric sheath of roiling hydrogen plasma sustained by an incomprehensibly massive flow of electrons from the galaxy and beyond. An analogy for the photosphere would be a Coleman lantern filament, only instead of being sustained by ignited kerosene vapor, the plasma photosphere is sustained by an influx of galactic and intergalactic electrons.
I further propose that sunspots are the result of volcanic eruptions on the sun’s planetary core that volatilize the liquid hydrogen impinging upon the surface. The newly volatilized hydrogen gas boils to the surface of the hydrogen sea and into the atmosphere above which then causes an over-pressurization of the encapsulating balloon-like photospheric sheath, thus creating the breach thereupon we call a sunspot.
The Wilson depression surrounding a sunspot quite obviously is caused by the pressure of the escaping hydrogen gas into the chromosphere.
There is also the high possibility of superconduction taking place where the metallic hydrogen is in contact with the solar planetary core.
Imagine solar physicists spending their entire careers on the contrived fantasy that nuclear fusion at the sun’s core is the motive force behind its brilliance! Not very bright at all!!
Maximus Fabius: Bear in mind the current theory of the solar mechanism is precisley that….THEORY!!!
And speaking of the nuclear fusion core theory of the sun, ask yourself why it is the theory relies upon the suspension of well know laws of physics and is supported entirely by tortured logic, and special laws that exist nowhere else in the palpable universe!!
“…that which the generality of mankind most hate-the necessity of revising their convictions. Theories do not alter facts and that the universe remains unaffected even though texts crumble.” Thomas Huxley
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Does anyone dispute that it is just theory? That does not mean than any act of imagination about these things is worth reading. Worse, your opening paragraphs were totally unsupported rhetoric. This is the wrong site if you expect a warm reception for such comments.
My dear Fabius, open discourse and imagination are the currency of progress and understanding. I hope you would not take exception to the words of Albert Einstein when he said, “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” Anyone who investigates who REALLY controls this planet (science included) will not come up closed minded. That a small band of rich and powerful control this world is a matter of public record that most choose to deny because they simply can’t handle the truth and furthermore, would do nothing about it anyway!
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Bejamin Disraeli
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Whatever. I doubt that Einstein investigated every crackpot idea on the planet. In any case, I suggest you take your theories about the Sun to a website with folks capable of expert analysis of them. They are off-topic here. This site reviews expert reports about climate, as useful intel affecting geopolitics.