Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar

Where are your sources of course you made it up

Thank you!

nothing is certain in science, when any research is done it merely concludes that there seems to be one relation or another. It seems to be that electrons wizz about your computer and make you a nice video to watch, but we can't prove it 100% it's just not statistically possible. I hope that clears up the confusion over diction.

This is what I was looking for.

"It's the sun! Doesn't matter what we do, it's the sun! And they'll raise my taxes!!"

Thanks for links, but when someone is able to show a high correlation between two variables for an extensive period of time I would not disregard the result because it breaks down at some point. His basic thesis may hold, but using just one factor may not be sufficient.

And I'm not ruling out that the extra factor could be man made CO2. But even your suggested search had this to say about explanatory variables "likely some that havent been clearly identified yet"

What you are missing is that no one denies there is a solar component that regulates climate. It's just that, to follow Svensmark, you have to posit some invisible, as yet unidentified mysterious force to come up with a match to observations.
You might as well use flying saucers of fairies.
The physics of GHGs are well understood, and predictions made over 100 years match the observations we are making now.

"flying saucers and fairies"? Well if I ever meet Svensmark I will tell him. Thanks for sharing your insight - too bad noone told him back in the days!!

Yeah sorry - looking at some of your other videos/comments I couldnt help but comment in a similar way. Anyway - I do find your videos very interesting and informative. But coming from Denmark I know that Svensmark is one of the guys behind this theory and callling him a denier is maybe stretching it a bit far. He is just taking his research in a different direction than the "overwhelming majority...". Regarding the certainty - thats new to me.

Svensmark has not met the standard to be taken seriously.
google
ams seminar discusses sun's role in warming
and
nasa How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.

You are stretching to play word games.
The conclusions are not mine. They are those of the overwhelming majority of working, publishing climate scientists.
It is typical of deniers and fundamentalists to be completely, rock solid positive. Scientists, by contrast, use words like 'likely", "very likely", "almost certain", because they always leave room for new information and discoveries.
Nevertheless, our certainty about global warming is on a par with our certainty about gravity.