We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

[shtferbrains]

I am wondering why you did not post the link to the retraction which the same website wrote one day after publishing the article you quote entitled "There Probably Won't Be A "Mini Ice Age" in 15 years" https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/ https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

I am wondering why you think the article you quote is credible when in the retraction the writer states that AFTER publishing the article you quote they spoke to the researcher. I would have thought a real journalist would have spoken to the researcher before writing a sensational story.

I am wondering if the news you report is so credible, why there is no byline telling the name of the author or a date of the publication

I am wondering your opinion of the conclusion of the researcher as quoted in the follow-up retraction the next day: "However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming."

I wonder why you believe this research when it is based on computer modelling, the same type of research which is used to claim global warming

I am wondering why you believe obvious click bait to be science?

I'm wonder if you read the "retraction"?

The woman is an Astrophysics PhD doing ongoing research about the sun that many don't seem to want to hear about at this time.

Unlike climate change the science is not all in.

Can you imagine the "hate" she had to endure from social media crusaders when they saw that "click bait".

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for the daily dose of optimism on a cold snowy morning Chuck. For humanities sake, I really hope you are right.

But, please for your own credibility, stop using the word consensus in regards to anything scientific, we have been through this before. You have done a good job of avoiding using the word believe in this context lately, which is good progress. Just trying to be helpful, so that you can be taken seriously when you discuss these issues.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

And more importantly have you seen the sensational headlines the media creates every time a new alarmist report is released, particularly by the IPCC in their own summary for policy makers, which has little in common with the actual report it is supposedly based on, yet we see no retractions or apologies.

[chuckChuck]

Thanks for the daily dose of optimism on a cold snowy morning Chuck. For humanities sake, I really hope you are right.

But, please for your own credibility, stop using the word consensus in regards to anything scientific, we have been through this before. You have done a good job of avoiding using the word believe in this context lately, which is good progress. Just trying to be helpful, so that you can be taken seriously when you discuss these issues.

Anytime you want to provide scientific evidence from climate scientists that humans are not causing climate change and challenge the consensus you are welcome to do so.

We have been waiting for many months for you do this but you have always been too busy! But apparently not too busy to write several posts a day with almost nothing in the way of science to back up your opinions.

[Horse]

well Mother Nature is making it increasingly obvious as is shown on your US temp charts , -11 here again
lots are saying , even some on here , what a warm winter it's been
it's like they have their head shoved firmly up their ass

Speaking of heads up asses you do understand that weather goes on beyond your fence line (dont you ??).

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Anytime you want to provide scientific evidence from climate scientists that humans are not causing climate change and challenge the consensus you are welcome to do so.

We have been waiting for many months for you do this but you have always been too busy! But apparently not too busy to write several posts a day with almost nothing in the way of science to back up your opinions.

You just used the word consensus again, it is a good thing I am patient with slow learners. After all, it only took a couple of years to explain to you that belief is not a part of the scientific method. Science is not a democracy. It only takes 1 piece of contrary evidence to disprove a popularly held theory.

[jazz]

All within the margin of variability in a chaotic non-linear non-determinant system.

[Guest]

Speaking of heads up asses you do understand that weather goes on beyond your fence line (dont you ??).

Tell that to 90 % of the world that doesnt have a stupid f$&king carbon tax so they can give millions to their buddies
How has your carbon tax worked out for you last few years. Did you cool the world lol

[chuckChuck]

You just used the word consensus again, it is a good thing I am patient with slow learners. After all, it only took a couple of years to explain to you that belief is not a part of the scientific method. Science is not a democracy. It only takes 1 piece of contrary evidence to disprove a popularly held theory.

Really! One piece of evidence can completely change the thousands if not millions of other pieces of current evidence that human caused climate change is real? If you believe that, then your understanding of science is limited.

But hey, go ahead show us the one piece of evidence from a climate scientists that disproves human caused climate change. We are still waiting!

[dmlfarmer]

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

If you believe that was all the retraction did I suggest you read both a lot closer. This is not a journalism or reporting by any stretch of the imagination. The writer, whoever it was, did not interview the researchers before writing the article and admits in the article "it was not possible to evaluate the research." It appears they based their story, and the misleading headline, on an article written in "The Telegraph" and does not even credit the writer of The Telegraph article.

Second, we do not know if they called to interview the researcher after publication of that opinion piece or if the researcher called them to set the record straight and ask they write the retraction. But the important things to note that the researcher actually said were that the research did not bring up the impact on weather or climate. So this study of sunspots drew no conclusions about the impact on weather. When questioned, the researcher said that a climatic impact was POSSIBLE; not probable or if it was going to happen.

Third, the most important statement made by the educated astrophysicist in the actual interview was: "We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening."

Finally, I consider the first article nothing more than spin doctoring to present a preconceived position, typical of what happens in the climate debate. I note that the second article, in which there as a semblance of journalism by interviewing the researcher was shared 281 times. But the original story where there was no interviews and in fact they admit the research was not even evaluated, was shared 9954 times. No wonder facts get lost about climate change when such dubious reporting is used as proof of your position.