Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Don't overreact, I read him as saying that there's no evidence that the current warming is due to solar input, not that solar input has no impact on climate at all.
So how do you tell the difference between a fanatic and someone who's looked at the contrary evidence and decided that it isn't evidence or it isn't contrary?
|
I overreacted when he said "There's basically no shred of evidence to it". Wouldn't you?
That's as good an argument as saying there's basically no shred of evidence to evolution. It's obviously untrue when the basis of all climate models (despite your position) must involve solar output. There are mountains of studies and academic works based on solar activity as the primary catalyst for temperature fluctuations in the earth's history. It's basically the foundation of it.
What climate change activists often do now however, is to discount the effects of that, and to place man-made factors in the forefront. I simply do not agree wholly with that position and there are plenty of dissenting scientists as well from the supposed consensus.