Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 16, 2018

Scientists have found a way to rapidly create the mineral magnesite in a lab both inexpensively and potentially at scale. This could be coupled with carbon sequestration, a process in which carbon is injected and stored underground, typically in depleted oil and gas fields. Reducing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be both a result of reducing input as well as increasing output of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.-FTA

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

This sounds promising.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Who's going to pay for it now that Dear Leader has proclaimed that CO2 is good for the environment?

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2018-08-16 07:23 AM | Reply

It must be 7......... All the plants live on it.

#2 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 10:54 AM | Reply

Hey Snoops, www.scientificamerican.com

"Rising CO2's effect on crops could also harm human health. "We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious," notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. "[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc -- and grains [also] lose protein." Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century -- around 550 parts per million -- could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers."

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-08-16 02:23 PM | Reply

However 7, they have no proof of that claim. Have they grown crops exposed to high levels? None of this 'man caused' global warming has any proof that it is man caused and high levels of c02 will kill us all. If you believe the study done on the ice cores, c02 levels have been higher in the past.

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 03:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Run for your life........... the sky is falling.

According to Grub Street, the impact of climate change will affect all of the ingredients that make up a Bloody Mary. The report depicts a world without wine, avocados, coffee, bananas, and chocolate, and attributes their potential demise to a warming planet.

"The entire global food system is a nightmare on the horizon," said Ed Carr, director of Clark University's international development, community, and environment department

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 03:21 PM | Reply

"the impact of climate change will affect all of the ingredients that make up a Bloody Mary. The report depicts a world without wine, avocados, coffee, bananas, and chocolate"

What the hell kind of Bloody Mary are they making?

#6 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-16 03:25 PM | Reply

"the impact of climate change will affect all of the ingredients that make up a Bloody Mary. The report depicts a world without wine, avocados, coffee, bananas, and chocolate"
What the hell kind of Bloody Mary are they making?
#6 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2018-08-16 03:25 PM

I think he meant a Red Wedding.

The water distribution is perhaps the only factor that can immediately kill.

Can we somehow learn to seed clouds and disperse storms like they did in the 50's? Or did NASA destroy that technology too and can re-create it.

#7 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-08-16 03:59 PM | Reply

Cannot recreate it. As in, the telemetry data has been lost. The blueprints are lost. The modules, computers and essentially the entire programs are magically disappeared. What does NASA have to do with the HAARP and chemtrail program? Scientific interpretation and energy systems suppression. I mean, rockets? They have offended me since I can remember watching one belch it's filthy stain to the "amazement" of the elder peoples. They are just wasteful. Allegedly HAARP changes the energetic potential of space to inflate and overload to discharge where? This could be powering whatever allows fire tornados, hurricane maelstrom and flash freezing, geologic electric discharges as well as atmospheric, nausea, fainting, may cause blindness and obscene language. Consult your physician to ensure maximum sterilization.

#8 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-08-16 04:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

However 7, they have no proof of that claim. Have they grown crops exposed to high levels? None of this 'man caused' global warming has any proof that it is man caused and high levels of c02 will kill us all. If you believe the study done on the ice cores, c02 levels have been higher in the past.
#4 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-08-16 03:12 PM | FLAG:

Run for your life........... the sky is falling.
According to Grub Street, the impact of climate change will affect all of the ingredients that make up a Bloody Mary. The report depicts a world without wine, avocados, coffee, bananas, and chocolate, and attributes their potential demise to a warming planet.
"The entire global food system is a nightmare on the horizon," said Ed Carr, director of Clark University's international development, community, and environment department
#5 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Must be hard going through life that stupid. I mean, the evidence has been confirmed again and again by science. There is no debate in science. It's been pointed out here repeatedly with multiple sources and studies.

It your own fault if you are too stupid to read it.

Just leave. Your posts are useless.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-16 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

I guess I'm admitting that they must already understand the United States Military Industrial Complex Inc. are either inciting or directly manipulating the systems of weather and climate by this time. Are we really experiencing weather warfare by enemy nations, the aluminum and barium chemtrail forming a reflective layer - meaning all of these weapons bouncing wattage are contributing collectively. But in reality it appears to be a unified global effort, specifically over populated areas. Is this terraforming or weaponization? Do enemy nations destroy crops or does Wall Street? Who profits from Katrina?

Whom is providing them any assurance this is not going to escape control and destroy the ecosphere? Is this an alien agenda? Seriously, Monsanto seems hell-bent on creating crops to survive this procedure. Some corporations are expecting to survive.

#10 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-08-16 04:21 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

There is no actual scientific opposition to the fact that Humans are the cause of Climate Change.

www.skepticalscience.com
www.ucsusa.org

Studies into whether there is scientific agreement on Humans causing Climate Change:

Oreskes 2004: 100% consensus
Doran 2009: 97% consensus
Anderegg 2010: 97% consensus
Cook 2003: 97% consensus
Verheggen 2014: 91% consensus
Stenhouse 2014: 93% consensus
Carlton: 97% consensus

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-16 04:22 PM | Reply

How we know it's Humans:
www.edf.org

The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:
Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-16 04:22 PM | Reply

Magnesite forests replacing the Amazon.. how ironic.

#13 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-08-16 04:24 PM | Reply

It your own fault if you are too stupid to read it.

Just leave. Your posts are useless.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant

Look in a mirror syc.

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 05:45 PM | Reply

#11 | Posted by Sycophant

consensus proves nothing. Are you a lemming? Do you know where the clif is?

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 05:47 PM | Reply

There is no debate in science.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant

There was very little debate when they thought the earth was flat. Many scientific beliefs have been proved wrong in the past.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 05:49 PM | Reply

There was very little debate when they thought the earth was flat. Many scientific beliefs have been proved wrong in the past.

Flat earthers have always been bible thumpers. Scientists have known that the earth is a spheroid since at least around 100 B.C. when Eratosthenes quite accurately estimated the circumference of the earth.

#17 | Posted by horstngraben at 2018-08-16 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It must be 7......... All the plants live on it.

#2 | Posted by Sniper

CO2 is not a pollutant all you --------! To prove it Sniper is going to go suck it out of his tailpipe. Can't wait.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-16 07:26 PM | Reply

There was very little debate when they thought the earth was flat. Many scientific beliefs have been proved wrong in the past.

#16 | Posted by Sniper

Yeah it's called learning MORE. We learned C02 heats the earth. C02 isn't going to STOP being a greenhouse gas no matter how bad your polluting puppetmasters want you to think it's no big deal.

Republican logic: if someone learns something more than what they knew before, that means anything they say can never be trusted. Best just stick to the bible. That never changes so we know it's totally accurate.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-16 07:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What could possibly go wrong?

#20 | Posted by chuffy at 2018-08-16 08:21 PM | Reply

None of this 'man caused' global warming has any proof that it is man caused and high levels of c02 will kill us all.

No once claims "will kill us all".

Also, it's called deductive reasoning. Comparing modern trends to past trends reveals that they're very different with human activities considered.

If you believe the study done on the ice cores, c02 levels have been higher in the past.

A. Humans didn't have a word wild civilization largely centered around shorelines back then.

B. How convenient for you to believe the parts of the scientific data you want while ignoring the fact that those who produced the data you tout when convenient disagree with you completely.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-17 02:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

B. How convenient for you to believe the parts of the scientific data you want while ignoring the fact that those who produced the data you tout when convenient disagree with you completely.
#21 | POSTED BY JPW

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

So glad someone said it.

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-17 02:49 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by Sycophant

I have no issue with the science that points to elevated cO2 levels in the atmosphere being a factor in the warming of the planet we see.

The one & only reason I take issue with the scientific models which reach these conclusions, is I never see anything regarding the solar effect on Earth being a part of the equation regarding 'planetary warming'.

I'm aware that NASA has been reporting of warming & climate change in our solar system, for a few years now I believe. We've got theory on the, planet-wide dust storm on Mars, why Saturn and even Pluto appear to be undergoing some 'climate change', apparently unrecorded before.

When you're fed these scientific theories & reasons for such things do you think, 'oh yeah.....that's gotta be what it is. They said that's what it is & so that must be what it is'?

Well, I don't think like that. I do trust main stream science far more than main stream anything else possibly, but I also understand the power of money, funding, grants, etc. IOW's, I don't buy all that is sold to me, as I know many don't either.

Sorry, but I question religion, government, laws, norms, & yes science.

#23 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-17 03:04 AM | Reply

"The one & only reason I take issue with the scientific models which reach these conclusions, is I never see anything regarding the solar effect on Earth being a part of the equation regarding 'planetary warming'."

Here's one:

www.skepticalscience.com

#24 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2018-08-17 03:09 AM | Reply

is I never see anything regarding the solar effect on Earth being a part of the equation regarding 'planetary warming'.

Have you ever looked? Because I know for a fact that that question can be answered easily within a few seconds.

It's been examined because, obviously, solar input is part of the equation. It wasn't found to be a significant contributing factor.

but I also understand the power of money, funding, grants, etc

You can always tell a lay person by how the perceive the grant process...

Nobody gets rich doing academic science funded by public dollars. It's that simple.

Also, at least in the field that I'm in, grant funding is absolutely ruthless and hardly worth it. There are far easier ways to use a PhD or master's degree in a hard science to make money than academic or government science.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-17 04:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

CO2 is not a pollutant all you --------! To prove it Sniper is going to go suck it out of his tailpipe. Can't wait.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Is that what comes out of an exhaust pipe?

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-17 10:25 AM | Reply

Human beings are f•••ing-up the planet!

Get used to it!

The STUPIDS won't stop.

MAGA

#27 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-08-17 11:53 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by Sycophant
consensus proves nothing. Are you a lemming? Do you know where the clif is?
#15 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-08-16 05:47 PM | FLAG:

There is no debate in science.
#9 | Posted by Sycophant
There was very little debate when they thought the earth was flat. Many scientific beliefs have been proved wrong in the past.
#16 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Consensus is literally one of the hallmarks of science, you dolt. Multiple studies and experiments confirming the same result and theory.

The Consensus you are referring to is literally study after study, experiment after experiment, arriving at the same result. These aren't opinion pieces. They aren't surveys of what scientists believe. They are studies of what the outcome of these published studies and experiments are and that they agree.

And just to show how stupid you are, no one has really thought the earth was flat since around 500 b.c. It's a myth taught in school that people actually believed that by and large around the time of Magellan.

Don't waste our time anymore.

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-17 12:44 PM | Reply

--Consensus is literally one of the hallmarks of science,

Actually it's consensus followed by a crumbling of the consensus, followed by replacement by a new paradigm. Read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-17 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Actually it's consensus followed by a crumbling of the consensus, followed by replacement by a new paradigm. Read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Kuhn never said that consensus "crumbled" (using your term) absent somebody making the leap in thinking that lent itself to a greater number of scientific questions being answered. Up until that point he agreed that a current paradigm is scientifically sound.

#30 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-08-17 01:08 PM | Reply

#29 | Posted by nullifidian

Very true. But the evidence is conclusive that human inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere is acidifying oceans and fueling a positive loop that is changing climate. I don't see this paradigm shifting.

#31 | Posted by horstngraben at 2018-08-17 01:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Actually it's consensus followed by a crumbling of the consensus, followed by replacement by a new paradigm. Read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

#29 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-17 01:03 PM | FLAG:

Isnt that work a bit "postmodern" for your taste?

#32 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-17 01:42 PM | Reply

Consensus is literally one of the hallmarks of science, you dolt.

#28 | Posted by Sycophant

I can't believe you would post such a stoopid thing. Actual proof is the only hallmark of true science.

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-17 02:09 PM | Reply

"I can't believe you would post such a stoopid thing." - #33 | Posted by the imbecile with a record 35 plonks at 2018-08-17 02:09 PM

"If you weren't so inbred to the point of objective retardation..." - #5 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-16 03:17 PM
That would be snippy.

#34 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-17 02:18 PM | Reply

"Actual proof is the only hallmark of true science.
#33 | POSTED BY SNIPER"

Evolution is just a theory, bro!

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-17 02:20 PM | Reply

There is no debate in science.
#9 | Posted by Sycophant
There was very little debate when they thought the earth was flat. Many scientific beliefs have been proved wrong in the past.
#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-16 05:49 PM

Flat earth appears to be a recent phenomena. It is essentially interpreting Biblical language to define avenues of physics and dynamics. Perhaps there is a counter-rotation zone for reality, explaining the miles high ice wall which Game Of Thrones is obviously borrowing. It has interesting propositions that parallel several aspects of conspiracy horror - because for such an enormous idea to remain hidden the effort and successes must also be obviously horrific. No denigration, just extrapolation.

If you consider the rest of history - megaliths, the planetary and stellar alignments require nearly 100,000 solar rotations to map accurately once. The Vedas claim to humans have performed this several times. Sumerian of cylinder seal of allegedly 5,500 years back appear to depict eleven planets in orbit of the sun. They included Neptune and Pluto. And actually, of you look far to the right there is a twelfth one depicted in an extremely elliptical orbit, right in front of the seated giant. Everyone globally seems knowledgeable at once, then ignorant at several times throughout history.

#36 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-08-17 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actual proof is the only hallmark of true science.

#33 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Science doesn't deal in "actual proof".

Don't commen on things you know nothing about.

Which I know means you won't comment at all.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-17 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sniper, just out of curiosity, what sort of proof would satisfy you? What are some scientific theories you consider adequately proved?

#38 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-17 03:16 PM | Reply

#36 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-08-17 02:58 PM

Remember, you're dealing with the imbecile who has a Retort record 35 plonks, RLR.

No doubt you lost him after the words "Flat earth."

#39 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-17 03:17 PM | Reply

Consensus is literally one of the hallmarks of science, you dolt.
#28 | Posted by Sycophant
I can't believe you would post such a stoopid thing. Actual proof is the only hallmark of true science.
#33 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Actually Science doesn't believe in "actual proof". "Actual proof" doesn't exist in Science. They believe only in evidence corroborating theory. And every single bit of evidence in this case points the same way.

I can believe you would post such a stoopid thing.

#40 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-17 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Consensus is literally one of the hallmarks of science,
Actually it's consensus followed by a crumbling of the consensus, followed by replacement by a new paradigm. Read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
#29 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Kuhn never said that consensus "crumbled" (using your term) absent somebody making the leap in thinking that lent itself to a greater number of scientific questions being answered. Up until that point he agreed that a current paradigm is scientifically sound.
#30 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Hagbard is correct.

And actually Kuhn said the opposite,Nulli. Consensus didn't crumble. He called a Gestalt Switch. Consensus would essentially shift overnight once the current Paradigm (set of theories) had enough evidence it couldn't explain and a new Paradigm (new set of theories) better answered the evidence. That isn't happening with Climate Change. In fact, evidence continues to corroborate.

I've read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolution" and published papers on it. You should try reading it sometime followed up by Imir Lakatos. Lakatos really put it all together using Kuhn's work.

#41 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-17 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You like apples?

How do you like dem apples?

#42 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-17 03:25 PM | Reply

"And actually Kuhn said the opposite,Nulli." - #41 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-17 03:24 PM

Remember, nullitroll received his degree from CNC.

CliffNotes College.

#43 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-17 03:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Have you ever looked? Because I know for a fact that that question can be answered easily within a few seconds.

It's been examined because, obviously, solar input is part of the equation. It wasn't found to be a significant contributing factor.

#25 JPW

I see. So this is just folly on the part of NASA. I mean, considering we know all we need to know of our star, specifically its corona, for science to say it is not a 'significant factor'.

Taken from Parkerprobe.edu

"Launching in 2018, Parker Solar Probe will provide new data on solar activity and make critical contributions to our ability to forecast major space-weather events that impact life on Earth."

#44 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-17 05:30 PM | Reply

#44 predicting solar storms isn't about global warming IIRC.

It's more about communications, satellite function ect.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-17 05:58 PM | Reply

news.nationalgeographic.com

"The surface of the sun is 10,000°F, but its outer atmosphere -- the corona -- soars to some 3.5 million degrees Fahrenheit."

"This temperature inversion is a big mystery that no one has been able to explain," says Nicola Fox, project scientist for the Parker Solar Probe, the NASA mission that aims to finally get close to the sun."

"That's close enough to find answers to the sun's 'other' big mystery: what creates the solar wind, the charged particles that accelerate from the sun and wreak havoc on Earth's electrical systems."

I haven't read anywhere, as of yet, that the mission is 'more' about one thing than another.

#46 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-17 06:19 PM | Reply

JPW,

All I'm trying to say that we still have more to learn about contributing factors & their significance.

As I said, I've no issue with man-made cO2 being a contributing factor. However, the sun & the power it wields has the capability of 'wreaking havoc' on more than electrical systems. We must also consider any weakening in the earth's magnetic field, which has also been occurring.

www.livescience.com

#47 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-17 06:30 PM | Reply

JPW,
All I'm trying to say that we still have more to learn about contributing factors & their significance.
As I said, I've no issue with man-made cO2 being a contributing factor. However, the sun & the power it wields has the capability of 'wreaking havoc' on more than electrical systems. We must also consider any weakening in the earth's magnetic field, which has also been occurring.
www.livescience.com

#47 | POSTED BY 9MMHEATER

You are comparing two different things. There are no studies or research or experiments showing the sun to be a contributing factor in climate change, let alone a major contributing factor.

#48 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-17 06:43 PM | Reply

There are no studies or research or experiments showing the sun to be a contributing factor in climate change, let alone a major contributing factor.

#48 | Posted by Sycophant

Comparing two different things? Is that not what factors are, different things?

"This temperature inversion is a big mystery that no one has been able to explain," says Nicola Fox, project scientist for the Parker Solar Probe, the NASA mission that aims to finally get close to the sun."

"That's close enough to find answers to the sun's 'other' big mystery: what creates the solar wind, the charged particles that accelerate from the sun and wreak havoc on Earth's electrical systems."

If science, to now, is unable to explain such a massive temperature inversion & its causes, how could science possibly arrive at the conclusion that the sun is not a significant factor, or a factor at all?

And, if this is a mission which takes us closer to the sun than we've ever been, with science not even knowing what data, specifically, that may be gathered from it, does this not point to unknown variables which could become factors? Again, especially when coupled with a weakening of our magnetic field. Which is yet another factor in itself.

What I am questioning is, what I consider to be, a significant lack of plausible factors which remain unknown to us. As you pointed out, 'There are no studies or research or experiments showing the sun to be a contributing factor in climate change.'

This experiment/research/study on the sun & its corona goes further than any I'm aware of before, and should result in far more data than we've ever had as well.

#49 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-17 07:28 PM | Reply

If science, to now, is unable to explain such a massive temperature inversion & its causes, how could science possibly arrive at the conclusion that the sun is not a significant factor, or a factor at all?

There's so much logically wrong with this statement it almost makes sense.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-17 11:54 PM | Reply

50

Hehe...I think it's been established I'm no scientist. I tend to think more to the philosophical, psychological but also analytical. I know the wording sux, but I suppose the basic question is, if we still have much to learn about our sun how can it be said that it can be entirely ruled out as a significant player in climate change?

It did, after all, take care of a mini ice-age not long ago, relatively speaking. That may be an oft used example & one not taken seriously, but it's a fact that's hard for me not to include in the broader scale of things.

#51 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-18 12:37 AM | Reply

It did, after all, take care of a mini ice-age not long ago, relatively speaking.

What, exactly, does that statement mean?

#52 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-08-18 12:44 AM | Reply

What, exactly, does that statement mean?

I second that motion.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-18 01:02 AM | Reply

if we still have much to learn about our sun how can it be said that it can be entirely ruled out as a significant player in climate change?

Because the ability to affect the Earth's climate is still limited to the wavelengths that transfer energy, ie infrared.

High energy particles are deflected by the magnetosphere and, beyond the Auroras, have no effect on Earth.

Which seems to be what you're talking about in your posts above.

So even if we don't necessarily understand how the Sun's energetic processes occur (which may or may not be true...), we can measure output and that's all that's necessary.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-18 01:08 AM | Reply

Global warming is a fact and it is at least exacerbated by humans. You can't drive on the freeway everyday and tell me any different.

If the sun is pumping it up lately, well we can solve that with..... tarrifs on the sun.

Course that could backfire.

"Hey MoFos, I don't have to come up every morning. I mean who orbits who.

#55 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-08-18 01:24 AM | Reply

Global warming is a fact and it is at least exacerbated by humans. You can't drive on the freeway everyday and tell me any different.

If the sun is pumping it up lately, well we can solve that with..... tarrifs on the sun.

Course that could backfire.

"Hey MoFos, I don't have to come up every morning. I mean who orbits who.

#56 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-08-18 01:24 AM | Reply

I like your style, Bruce.

I thought I responded to the other stuff, but I guess I didn't submit it. No worries tho.

#57 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-18 04:35 AM | Reply

Once again, consensus proves nothing.

Change of consensus over time
See also: Theories and sociology of the history of science
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to our current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change.[6] This is made exceedingly difficult also in part because each of the various branches of science functions in somewhat different ways with different forms of evidence and experimental approaches.[citation needed]

#58 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-18 10:28 AM | Reply

Once again, consensus proves nothing.

Once again, science doesn't "prove" anything.

Consensus simply tells us what our best answer is at this point in time.

And all science can provide is the best answer at this point in time.

So yes, consensus is important in some regards.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-18 11:06 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort