You've nicely identified the real problem. It is not the science, it is the politicizing of the science. Science has nothing to do with politics, so identifying a scientific hypothesis like Hansen's with left or right politics is nuts. Why do you suppose this AGW issue had it's name changed to "climate change" in the first place, and why did it become a political football? I think the answer, as always, relates to money, human emotion, and damaged pride. Once individuals become emotionally involved in what should be a science issue, they become incapable of doing dispassionate scientific inquiry. That, in my opinion, is precisely what happened to James Hansen. He is human after all. He is, so to speak, now like a thoroughbred with a gimpy leg. The only humane thing to do is to shoot him and save him from further pain. As a guide to .what can happen to science once it is politicized we have a number of fine examples such as the Lysenko affair --my personal favorite-- and the eugenics movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Currently we have both "climate change" and "fracking". These subjects can not be dispassionately approached by many because they are thoroughly wrapped up with commerce and thus politics. Fortunately there are still many scientists who are able to maintain their integrity despite a political fracas. And naturally these folks become the target for all manner of ad hominem attacks, and their science is automatically dismissed by those who have fallen victim to common wisdom driven by politics and emotion. I am not going to go so far as Gore Vidal who said "common wisdom is nearly always wrong", but I do believe it often is. There are many examples to prove this point.
I typed this search.. gravity causing falling no links to peer reviewed science The peer reviewed science must be out there though. Afterall, there is scientific consensus on both.
They don't of course . One reason why they don't publish is this...of course A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation. “This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. People like Nir Shaviv.
Well that's not really the crucial issue is it.. The crucial issue is will humanity continue to play a game of Russian Roulette with the planet and its climate, when there is no other competing scientifically sound explanation for recent strong levels in global temperature increase other than by man made atmospheric CO2 . Or will some be insane enough to only argue controversy, or promote misleading non-scientifically validated ideas that fly in the face of what is scientifically known and understood , for political reasons, or just to fulfill their personal beliefs.
I don't agree. You've confused solar radiance. which can't account for temperature changes, with Shaviv's hypothesis, as did the blogger you gave a link to. I'm not going to do it for you, because I can't. But if you take the time to look into Shaviv's work you will find that he has shown that there is very likely another mechanism that can be responsible for cloud formation linked to solar activity. It may be wrong, but unquestionably it is brilliant. More recent laboratory results by others lend support to his hypothesis. You must take the time to read his papers, or if you are not able to do that, you can, at minimum, watch and listen to his fascinating youtube presentation. (I have given you the link.) He did not plan that, it was just something he was invited to do while visiting Washington on unrelated scientific matters. Fortunately for all, he agreed. In the end, Mother Nature will have the last say. Feel free to look up both Salby's and Shaviv's papers on your own. If you have a University Library nearby go to the reference librarian and ask them for assistence in how to use Science Citation Index. They will be happy to oblige.
you might not be seeing it in peer reviewed papers because Newtons law has been superseded by general relativity. and the way you worded your search seems to be a very newtonian understanding. .... So, to summarize, general relativity says that matter bends spacetime, and the effect of that bending of spacetime is to create a generalized kind of force that acts on objects. However, it isn't a force as such that acts on the object, but rather just the object following its geodesic path through spacetime. I hope this has been helpful. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced stu... you really do need to find some science to support our superstition about man made co2 causing warming.
It is very unlikely you'll ever understand what a ridiculous response that is , or how much you managed to pull off such a gigantic WTF??!! moment by totally making and missing my point both at the same time. Let me try that "you might not be seeing it in peer reviewed papers because anthropic co2 has been superseded by climate change." Nah, somehow you just say something absurd and then make it even more so!
Then you (Shaviv & Salby) need better science, your opinion isn't enough. I have been careful not to confuse what Shaviv or Salby have been saying. I think the shoe is on the other's foot as far as that is concerned. Or rather in your gushing praise of them, you confuse what science is actually about. The science is specific and particular and it covers all aspects of solar influence not just radiance. The science distinctively refutes and thereby dispenses with Shaviv's idea. I'm sure you do believe his proposal is brilliant, but the problem remains that it does not conform with observed data and known science, therefore it does not explain as well as or better than the anthropic influences do. Good scientists let their brilliant ideas go to the graveyard when they contradict known scientific facts. They use that failure to explain or use as a guide to what is much more likely to be the case and when everything starts pointing toward one thing, like it does with AGW, (and Gravity!) they improve knowledge. No matter how many universities or libraries you suggest I use, or video's you are impressed with, information that does not correspond with observed fact, like Shaviv's or Salby's is not a sound basis to argue against AGW. They are little more than a form of promoting controversy not knowledge. They should know better. Presumably you should too piezoe. She certainly will if you make her.