Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

What I did was simply correct your mistake, using your link. Actually the scientific link in the popular article. I assume that's okay right? You said this...

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

And you were wrong. The article and the article it linked to didn't say that.

I think I now get your point here.

The article I originally linked I used to prove my point that there are people who think the world is cooling. My goal using it was not to discuss the validity of that claim. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I guess I left it a bit ambiguous.

Now, you're saying that both that "page post" (so to speak) & the article you linked debunk the idea the world isn't cooling. They don't. Sighn & Bhargawa do not, at any moment, link the decrease of sun activity with climate repercussions. Sure, YOU can interpret that, but to do so you would need more scientific evidence that backs up that correlation.

That's sort of what the page post does. It reports on decreasing sun activity & then reports of weather events of places getting colder. From all the articles I mentioned (have you checked them out?) sun activity has negligible influence in Earth's climate, and weather events are absolutely meaningless when we're talking about climate (and confusing these two things just point that the person is ineducated in that subject), so neither of them back up scientifically the claim that the Earth is cooling. So no, as far as evidence has been brought, I am not wrong.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

Last I heard there were people who specialized in glaciers, some on historical glaciers, some on sedimentary deposits on the ocean floors. There are people who use boreholes to read climate from thousands of years ago. Others that look at isotope fractions in the air, and on the ground, and in rocks.

Yeah, so do I. Geology is my field of study. And I trust Quaternary geologists, glaciologists, sedimentologists & geochemists when their articles and hypothesis are backed up by evidence, and I think their claims are inheherently more valid than say those of climatologists, astrophysicists, geographers and oceanographers... when they're discussing about their field of work. When a Quaternary geologist is talking about Earth's conditions a few hundred thousand years ago, I trust him profoundly. When a glaciologist writes an article that points of evidences for a NW-headed ice sheet, I trust him. When a sedimentologist claims this is silt and not sand, I trust him. When a geochemist says carbon dating isotope isn't the best way to measure this sediment's age, I trust him. But when any of them talk about modern climate.... I trust them as much as I trust a geographer talking about geology. Sure, they know what they're talking about, but by no means they're as knowledgeable and trustworthy as those operating in their respective fields.

(Sorry, I get a bit too excited when I talk about Geology.)

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

Plus the guys that wonder about correcting satellite sensors' data streams. And a hundred other areas of science related to climate. This idea that there is a single species, no doubt created by global warming, a sort of human creature who is a climatologist, is a new one.

That's the equivalent of saying that I should trust a nose-specialized allergologist to do a rhynoplastia surgery. "They're all doctors, and they work on the field nose!".

Um, no. Geologists analyze paleoclimates, not modern climate - they know how to measure Earth's past climatic events and to interpret the paleoenvironments from that, but that's about it. The methods used are COMPLETELY different from that of a climatologist (geologists use fossiles, sediments & isotopic equilibria to do these stuff whereas climatologists as far as I know use mathematic models of prediction). Same goes for guys who correct satellite sensors.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

So you don't trust astrophysics? Or those that work in the field?

When they're talking about astrophysics, by every means I do tust them.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

I assume then you don't want your climatologists messing around with astrophysics?

Would you trust a climatologist's analysis of the sun's activity, despite knowing he doesn't work in that field & neither has expertise on it?

Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

But that makes no sense. Seems to me like an astrophysicist certainly could tell you something about the direct and indirect effects of the Sun on Earth's climate. More watts in, less watts in. Watts out. Effect on clouds, high or low. Who do you want to trust? The climatologist that just knows bugs?

They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.