Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
So you combat it by attacking the source, and not the argument?
How effective do you think that is supposed to be?
It does happen on both sides though....you attack Fox News for what they reported, Photon posts an ACTUAL retort...someone attacks the source of his argument.
Kinda lame, but whatever.
|
Ya know something, I agree. It's a petty and all-too-often repeated way of going about things and I'm just as guilty as anybody.
So, instead of attacking the source, which you obviously don't like, go ahead and debunk this, which is a significant point of the Bad Astronomy article in question...
In general the solar output varies very little over the course of a year, less than 1%. Over the whole sunspot cycle, though, it’s a little more complicated. The sunspots darken the Sun by about 1%, but they are surrounded by regions called faculae, which are actually brighter in the visible and ultraviolet. So when the Sun is its spottiest, it’s actually brighter than average by about 0.1%. At most, this would raise the temperature of the Earth on average by 0.2 degrees Celsius
If I can drag myself to the end of that Michael Crichton article, I'll try to do the same, even though I think another poster did it already and a lot better than I'll be able to do (he used science words!).