Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

Mild summer

Carry on

Stopped trying to deny the science, I see.

Be sure to talk about how much we are worrying over nothing with your grandkids. Let them know what kind of person you are.

[RandomGuy]

While there is definitely an urban heat-island effect, the law of conservation / Newton's 3rd law generally applies. Where you have extra heat in say, Dallas-Fort Worth (good example because you don't have other confounding geographic factors nearby like water, elevation or other nearby big cities) you have an equal cooling effect in towns and rural areas not too far outside the metroplex. The human-caused heat is generated and is contained in DFW and a reverse cooling effect occurs if you live around say Decatur, Waxahachie or north of Denton.

AGW is overstated, there are many more causes to climate change that greatly super-scale out any tiny man made effects of global warming. Total warming is 2 degrees celsius on average over 100 years, it's not worth fussing over... yeah we definitely should scale back on pollution and deforestation (especially), but reforestation and high tech energy-efficiency in the USA and the West is already neutralizing that trend.

Problem is the ty second world countries in the Middle East and (especially) China continue to be the biggest offenders and producers of not only CO2 but more importantly water pollution and toxic carcinogenic smoke, air pollutants and radiation that wrecks ecosystems and is a threat to nature and humanity. China continues to be humanity's #1 enemy, whether it's creating superbugs in labs or continuing to operate early 20th-century technology factories and lead the world by a light-year in pollution and environmental waste.

"there are many more causes to climate change that greatly super-scale out any tiny man made effects of global warming"

Natural cycles cannot be the cause of observed global warming because they don't fit the observed fingerprints of global warming. Only increasing greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities fit the observed fingerprints and explain the observed energy imbalance.

The argument that global warming is due to natural cycle commits single cause fallacy, by assuming there is only one driver of climate change (e.g., natural factors) when there may be others (e.g., human activity). In this case, the myth argues that the same factors, namely internal variability and natural external forcings, that drove past natural cycles must also be the same factors causing current global warming. But the fact is that humans have emitted large amounts of CO2 into atmosphere by burning fossil fuel since the industrial revolution, and it is the main cause of recent global warming.

[pgardn]

So do you want the low down on the author or not?
Its actually quite interesting and shows the anybody can do science and review at ude is quite prevalent. And with very few rules.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/


You might want to start with the above so you can take note of the large ins ution studying this.
I also like the address, "global warming solved..." no, not at all.

And there is a whole bunch more thats pretty... sad. No real sad.
I almost feel sorry for the guy. I got plenty more if you want.

End of story TSA?
Yeah? thought so.

There are a lot of good science people who have looked at the CO2 manmade model and said "hold on a second, this is a weakness, what do we have here" and they hash it out with other groups and discuss what makes the model really good and where there might be holes. AND THEY WRITE ABOUT IT. But this is not one of those groups.

You found another planet pizza. There is more for more laughs, or weeping.
So you think we should just stop researching this altogether now since you have been duped?

[TSA]

So do you want the low down on the author or not?
Its actually quite interesting and shows the anybody can do science and review at ude is quite prevalent. And with very few rules.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/


You might want to start with the above so you can take note of the large ins ution studying this.
I also like the address, "global warming solved..." no, not at all.

And there is a whole bunch more thats pretty... sad. No real sad.
I almost feel sorry for the guy. I got plenty more if you want.

You STILL haven't read the study. You're a lost cause pissing in the wind.

[pgardn]

You STILL haven't read the study. You're a lost cause pissing in the wind.

The study involves a lot of energy on the sun he has taken from other people and somehow applied into thinking HE and his MOM and DAD have solved global warming. This has ALREADY been debunked.

So this is a family of 3 living in Ireland who call themselves a research group. AND NOT ONE of the three knows a damn thing. Mom was a teacher, Dad is a washed out engineering type, and the Son wrote the paper.

This research FAMILY is funded by whom TSA?

This "research paper" was submitted to whom TSA and rejected for the simple reason NO ONE, not one of the people listed in that paper would endorse it. The author and leader of the family research would not endorse his own paper!

You want more, it gets sadder from here?

[pgardn]

cmon TSA, more mounds of copy paste you think you understand without even looking into who put the pure up!

[TSA]

The study involves a lot of energy on the sun he has taken from other people and somehow applied into thinking HE and his MOM and DAD have solved global warming. This has ALREADY been debunked.

So this is a family of 3 living in Ireland who call themselves a research group. AND NOT ONE of the three knows a damn thing. Mom was a teacher, Dad is a washed out engineering type, and the Son wrote the paper.

This research FAMILY is funded by whom TSA?

This "research paper" was submitted to whom TSA and rejected for the simple reason NO ONE, not one of the people listed in that paper would endorse it. The author and leader of the family research would not endorse his own paper!

You want more, it gets sadder from here?

You STILL haven't read the study None of the 23 co-authors claim to have solved global warming.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

Invited Review. Received 7 Dec 2020; Revised 9 Mar 2021; Accepted for publication in Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics on 14 Apr 2021.

[TSA]

None of the authors endorse it

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM):
“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and
specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate
connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of

Naples Federico II (Italy):
“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the
specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because
the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate
warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic
records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the
urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total
solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar
studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better
correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural
component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar
and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this
very issue.”

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:
“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all
available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern
climate research.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s
Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):
“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness
changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose.
The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity
and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness
changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own
planetary systems.”


Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Russia:
“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of
solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine
the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term
climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-
monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated
that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2
anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise
1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since
and prior to their fabrication.
The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount
of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the
intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry
caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities
that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal
Astronomical Society (UK):
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest
science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the
mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the
real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next
big leap forward.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Ins ute of Earth
Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary
Geology in Xi’an, China:
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local,
regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper
will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes
from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength
impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera
(LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de
Tu án (FACET-UNT), Argentina:
“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant
long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done
mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the
case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit
of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who
also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:
“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always
was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31
years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm,
not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been
as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review
of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can
help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to
understanding climate change.”

László Szarka, from the ELKH Ins ute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and
also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate
change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community
should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the
truth.”

[ChumpDumper]

The goalposts moves by Trump s over the years have to be exhausting.

[pgardn]

You STILL haven't read the study None of the 23 co-authors claim to have solved global warming.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

Invited Review. Received 7 Dec 2020; Revised 9 Mar 2021; Accepted for publication in Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics on 14 Apr 2021.

uhhh no...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126

Now go to the bottom and click Which authors of this paper are endorsers?No authors of 2105.12126 can endorse.

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate

Ronan Connolly:

Is registered as an author of this paper. Not currently an endorser. (why?)

Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. J. Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Lüning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka, Harry van Loon, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang are not registered as owners of this paper. (why?)

now click on the whys? what does it say TSA?
This is May 2021 with the Cornell group who runs a noted research journal which requires scientists in their field of study to read and endorse. NO ONE did. Why do you think no one, not even the author, would endorse a paper from his family of 3 that has set up their own research group

Keep going TSA.
There is more sadness.
We are Planet Pizza level and now going into the basement!

Should I show the images associated with this family of 3 so we can all have a laugh? They have a home page. And you are allowed to review their paper and endorse thru their journal. Go on, endorse the paper, you are the expert here! You have read it thoroughly. Endorse it and show the board you have done so. It will allow us to be sure that the change in the earth's climate has been solved by this group. Please endorse it TSA.

[pgardn]

This is the biggest bunch of BS.

Look who are the leads in giving credence to this paper based on your pdf.

1 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA
2 Independent scientists, Dublin, Ireland

Guess who these come from?

And look at what is listed below these first two... it is total horse .
And you found this article in an ultra religious right wing church from China publication with a camp in the US.
Congrats. Now look back at 1.

[pgardn]

And by all means keep up with your giant copy pastas that strike you as ultra convincing.

[TSA]

uhhh no...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126

Now go to the bottom and click Which authors of this paper are endorsers?No authors of 2105.12126 can endorse.

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate

Ronan Connolly:

Is registered as an author of this paper. Not currently an endorser. (why?)

Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. J. Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Lüning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka, Harry van Loon, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang are not registered as owners of this paper. (why?)

now click on the whys? what does it say TSA?
This is May 2021 with the Cornell group who runs a noted research journal which requires scientists in their field of study to read and endorse. NO ONE did. Why do you think no one, not even the author, would endorse a paper from his family of 3 that has set up their own research group

Keep going TSA.
There is more sadness.
We are Planet Pizza level and now going into the basement!

Should I show the images associated with this family of 3 so we can all have a laugh? They have a home page. And you are allowed to review their paper and endorse thru their journal. Go on, endorse the paper, you are the expert here! You have read it thoroughly. Endorse it and show the board you have done so. It will allow us to be sure that the change in the earth's climate has been solved by this group. Please endorse it TSA.

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quan ative biology, quan ative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index...view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study

Senile old fart

[SnakeBoy]

Covid dies at 149F

Drill Baby Drill

[Thread]

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quan ative biology, quan ative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index...view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study

Senile old fart

...you must be following the peeg again. Hey, I know what! Let's go to Arby's for a jamoca shake and talk out of school about the peeg. Eh?

[Thread]

The goalposts moves by Trump s over the years have to be exhausting.

You all taught us the fine art, Dumps. You've nary room to talk.

[pgardn]

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quan ative biology, quan ative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index...view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study

Senile old fart

That is research in ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS
By one research ins ute run by a family of 3. Thats who he works for. Your man Conally.

CONALLY himself submitted his article to a system run by Cornell that relies on endorsements to get it published and he chose the route under ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCE. Its a different type of system because it does rely on the normal route of peer reviewed papers in a specific discipline! This is the way to go because he can get it up, but he cant even get it endorsed. This IS EXACTLY why he tried this. HE also submitted it to HIS OWN JOURNAL RUN BY HIS FAMILY. More on this if you wish.

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific content. The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.
arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines.



So you now can go back to his website, Global Warming Solved and see why he is trying to backdoor a paper on GLOBAL WARMING


Read the peer reviewed study????? Its a study about the Sun and Energy that has does NOT have specific relevance to Global Warming as this part has been DEBUNKED by the scientific community who HAS actually determined the sun cannot be close to providing all the warming we have seen. And he did tried to backdoor it through his research ins ute of 3! Mom, Dad And Ronan Conally. So you read the peer reviewed study and clearly see that through this paper he HAS SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING LIKE HIS SITE SAYS?

You did not read and understand the study, Because you dont understand the data presented because YOU are not qualified in this area to even see that it is not applicable to anything like SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING. Dont pretend. YOU dont know this stuff.

But the way your chosen man has gone about his business says it all.
You are back to Planet Pizza. Mommy and Daddy give him money to work AT HIS research ins ute of 3

gtfoh.... you are faking again by pretending like you have gone through mounds of evidence, except this one wont make the papers but you HAVE, been called on it.

But please Keep going TSA.
There is more with his association to the weird religious right wing nut job in China that have a compound in the US and their weird obsession with climate change. You like following weird trails? Lets walk this together. BTW there are still about 2 % of the scientists in the area of atmosphere and climate who still dont think this cause by humans. You should try them... or walk this through with me. I say you stay with me and your fake .

You call me senile and old... this is fun.

[TSA]

That is research in ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS
By one research ins ute run by a family of 3. Thats who he works for. Your man Conally.

CONALLY himself submitted his article to a system run by Cornell that relies on endorsements to get it published and he chose the route under ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCE. Its a different type of system because it does rely on the normal route of peer reviewed papers in a specific discipline! This is the way to go because he can get it up, but he cant even get it endorsed. This IS EXACTLY why he tried this. HE also submitted it to HIS OWN JOURNAL RUN BY HIS FAMILY. More on this if you wish.

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific content. The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.
arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines.



So you now can go back to his website, Global Warming Solved and see why he is trying to backdoor a paper on GLOBAL WARMING


Read the peer reviewed study????? Its a study about the Sun and Energy that has does NOT have specific relevance to Global Warming as this part has been DEBUNKED by the scientific community who HAS actually determined the sun cannot be close to providing all the warming we have seen. And he did tried to backdoor it through his research ins ute of 3! Mom, Dad And Ronan Conally. So you read the peer reviewed study and clearly see that through this paper he HAS SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING LIKE HIS SITE SAYS?

You did not read and understand the study, Because you dont understand the data presented because YOU are not qualified in this area to even see that it is not applicable to anything like SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING. Dont pretend. YOU dont know this stuff.

But the way your chosen man has gone about his business says it all.
You are back to Planet Pizza. Mommy and Daddy give him money to work AT HIS research ins ute of 3

gtfoh.... you are faking again by pretending like you have gone through mounds of evidence, except this one wont make the papers but you HAVE, been called on it.

But please Keep going TSA.
There is more with his association to the weird religious right wing nut job in China that have a compound in the US and their weird obsession with climate change. You like following weird trails? Lets walk this together. BTW there are still about 2 % of the scientists in the area of atmosphere and climate who still dont think this cause by humans. You should try them... or walk this through with me. I say you stay with me and your fake .

You call me senile and old... this is fun.

Connelly doesn’t run the RAA nor does his family you senile old fart

arXiv doesn’t peer review you senile old fart

Its a study about the Sun and Energy that has does NOT have specific relevance to Global Warming as this part has been DEBUNKED by the scientific community who HAS actually determined the sun cannot be close to providing all the warming we have seen

You one AGAIN prove you haven’t read the ing study

If you aren’t senile you’re either lazy, re ed, or both.

[pgardn]

Connelly doesn’t run the RAA nor does his family you senile old fart

arXiv doesn’t peer review you senile old fart



You one AGAIN prove you haven’t read the ing study

If you aren’t senile you’re either lazy, re ed, or both.

Neither have you.
What does RAA stand for?

And you dont even understand my point you fkn dumb .
YOUR MAN submitted it to the Cornell run ATMOSPHERIC and OCEAN section of a site THAT believes that peer review is not the only way. Thats why he submitted. And what happened. Its NOT even ENDORSED for ATMOSPHERE and OCEAN. This is where one would submit global warming. Physics... THEN specifically ATMOSPHERE and or OCEAN. The endorsement is the easy way around your peers and he cant get it done because he has no peers that work legitimately on Global warming research.

The sun energy has already been debunked, he is trying to slide this in under another name and cant even get it done.

And seriously, you have no fkn idea what the data in his paper means. And you know you dont.

[pgardn]

He also posted this in his OWN FAMILY run non peer reviewed journal. It has not done so well as the other journals that use endorsing. Which it is sketchy on anyway.

The real problem is you have not looked into THE MAN and his family. 23 authors... He sites their studies.
And some are in that ultra right religious freak group in NY. So you did find another group of weirdos, just not nearly as popular as you Q anon adventures.

[spurraider21]

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quan ative biology, quan ative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index...view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study

Senile old fart

bear in mind that this is an "invited review" and not a "research paper" in that its not providing any original date/research but rather is giving a commentary on recent developments in the field, so it's not really a study in that sense

[TSA]

Neither have you.
What does RAA stand for?

And you dont even understand my point you fkn dumb .
YOUR MAN submitted it to the Cornell run ATMOSPHERIC and OCEAN section of a site THAT believes that peer review is not the only way. Thats why he submitted. And what happened. Its NOT even ENDORSED for ATMOSPHERE and OCEAN. This is where one would submit global warming. Physics... THEN specifically ATMOSPHERE and or OCEAN. The endorsement is the easy way around your peers and he cant get it done because he has no peers that work legitimately on Global warming research.

The sun energy has already been debunked, he is trying to slide this in under another name and cant even get it done.

And seriously, you have no fkn idea what the data in his paper means. And you know you dont.

RAA—Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Journal that accepted and published the peer reviewed study.

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index...view/4920/6080

Your so hung up on the endorsement on a site that doesn’t peer review themselves. Have you even looked at what little it takes for an endorsement? Hey prof…endorse me…okay. He submitted a preprint and then had no need to follow through with an “endorsement” because the study was actually peer reviewed and accepted in a journal. Which the arXiv preprint CLEARLY states.

“Sun energy has not been debunked” and if you’d actually READ THE ING STUDY you see how the address exactly that.

[TSA]

bear in mind that this is an "invited review" and not a "research paper" in that its not providing any original date/research but rather is giving a commentary on recent developments in the field, so it's not really a study in that sense

Technically yes. I can swap study/paper/review/research without thinking. It doesn’t really change my point.

At this point I’m just having fun watching him constantly step on his own and then back track only to step on his dock again. Easily avoided if he would have just taken the time to actually read it.

[pgardn]

RAA—Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Journal that accepted and published the peer reviewed study.

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index...view/4920/6080

Your so hung up on the endorsement on a site that doesn’t peer review themselves. Have you even looked at what little it takes for an endorsement? Hey prof…endorse me…okay. He submitted a preprint and then had no need to follow through with an “endorsement” because the study was actually peer reviewed and accepted in a journal. Which the arXiv preprint CLEARLY states.

“Sun energy has not been debunked” and if you’d actually READ THE ING STUDY you see how the address exactly that.

Sure it has

Here is the Authors site:

Global Warming Solved
Climate Change Research by Connolly Scientific Research Group

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/

yes he solved it.
Idiot.
This is his families research group.
Look at all of them and read the qualifications.
Wow... experts.

And linked to some weird Chinese ultra right religious group.
That I find very interesting but you probably dont want to go THAT kind of place, again.

[pgardn]

TSA

What is specifically wrong with our view of the Suns role in Global Warming
What specifically have we missed that he has pointed out.

In your own words. No copy paste.