@ DarkDollars

Did you meanwhile receive your 11,000 Euro?

Have you reviewed any of the articles you have been provided? Yes or no. What was not clear?

Would you like me to quote directly from them, so that there is less of a need for you to read?

Also, have you completely tossed out your silly ideas that solar flares, and the atmospheric events known as Carrington events, are not a huge threat to our modern world?

Here is a short summary of work on climate & solar etc. as it affects the Maunder period.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

I am not sure what part of this you are having trouble understanding.

The Sun warms the Earth, so we must look somewhere else, other than the Sun, if the Earth cools as it did in the Little Ice Age.

Let's see how logical that is. "Winter" is the result of orbital factors and planetary tilt, affecting Solar watts per square meter on a given part of the Earth.



And even a "Little" Ice Age is worse than a "winter."

But solar effects are not the cause, you say? Well, where did all that heat go? I'm sure the people in the LIA who starved during the "Year without a Summer" would really like to know that one. They blamed witches, often or not. The very conception of witches today dates from those time.

"Cold as a Witch's Tit"?

Now where did that saying come from?

Oh ya.  NASA.  Ya, that figures.  Since Obama, NASA's mission is to make Muslims feel good about their scientific achievements and pump the climate change scam.  They don't even bother with getting into space any more.  Just outsource it to corporate cronies.

Rats!  Jewtube took down Ramzpaul's hilariously funny and poignant video of the above so I cannot readily provide a link.  Oh well.

Wonder how many of these entities run on grant money.  Grant money which wouldn't be their unless they play ball on the climate change scam.  I'll bet every last one of them.

This reminds me of the 'big list' of formed a 'consensus' of U.S. 'intelligence agencies' who found that Russia hacked the election (or one similar idiotic assertion from that time.)  It included entities who obviously had no reason or ability to look into the matter.  e.g., the Coast Guard.  It was obvious that they just signed some piece of paper which was thrust in front of the director's face.  Totally meaningless and a joke.

As we learned from climate-gate, the 'peer review' process in climate-land is a meaningless circle-jerk of scientpriest conspirators.

You'd have to look pretty hard a 'peer-review' of anything which doesn't support the fraud because anyone who did so will be black-listed from academia and will have to find a new line of work.

On the flip side, a 'peer review' of the most flawed and ridiculous 'climate-change-caused-foo' paper will sail right through the 'peer review' process in it's current implementation.  So 'peer review' is doubly meaningless.

If a fireman was running around setting fires so he could have a secure job, how long do you think they would be allowed to operate for? Why is it the medical industry is allowed to profit directly from their own failures, which at this point seem more like fraud than incompetence? Failure in the medical industry is not a bug, it is a feature.

I defended Quickseller when he was being mobbed, even thought I don't like him and he has harassed me for years at a time in the past. What do you know? People seemed to listen and let it go! Shocking.

As I said from the very first post of this OP, there is another set of rules for Vod on this forum and he is allowed to abuse people freely on a regular basis, using the forum's systems as his personal weapon, something others are punished harshly for. This is why I have been advocating so vocally for "rule of law", IE a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, before rating, because rule of law is what protects the rights of the individual. For example the USA is a republic, because it preserves the right of the individual within a Democracy. In a pure democracy, all you have is pure mob "justice", and it is a popularity contest not a matter of fact. What this forum is, is mob justice with no protection for the individual. The mob simply votes the individuals rights away. I really don't think this is what Theymos intended even if it is what resulted.

I have to ask you, in your reviews of any of this material, were you able to find substantiation to ANY of Vod's ratings against me? I know for a fact several users don't agree with his behavior, they simply won't speak up for fear of being the next target of Vod and people like Vod. Anyone with any reputation is too fearful to lose it to speak out, anyone without one is easily dismissed. That said, it makes your participation here more important as the rest of the forum is more concerned with their own personal interests.

His lack of substantiation is important, because it is a pattern he has been exhibiting for years that clearly demonstrates his motivations are not to protect people from fraud, but to use the system to serve his own personal vendettas. I have been advocating people exclude Vod from the default trust for his years long pattern of disregarding the rules of the forum trust to fight his petty squabbles, but this forum seems more interested in who is popular and protecting their own ass than the actual viability of the forums systems. After all, if people are only punished by rules, and not protected by them, historically what happens to those systems of governments? They fail. Horribly and spectacularly.

The mathematical factor "climate sensitivity" is the technical way of describing effect of humans.

This replaces vague words like "primary" "likely" blah blah with simple estimated constant.

However if you would like to continue believing that a LIA and the GSM are separate and unrelated events that somehow circumstantially occur together, instead of the GSM being the obvious cause of the LIA, have fun with that.

Hm, even if we are to explore the line of thought that people were stopped from reporting data or something along those lines , I feel as if the most important portion is that you interfered in a primary -- something that is handled by a political party, not by the government.

Even if you were to interfere in the voting of a primary, would that be illegal? As the party makes any and all decisions relating to the voting process for the primary. If the DNC wanted to right now, they could vote to change their bylaws and pick Clinton as their nominee if they so pleased. I'm assuming this is right.

But yes, this was posted online and it was beyond stupid that this is being blamed as one of the big reasons for the delays. Shouldn't have posted it online and maybe the app should've been working.

"THE" ?

So like, I've emphasized getting basically familiar with the historical record, right?

Another good read is Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

Wolf minimum   1280-1350
Spörer Minimum   1450-1550
Maunder Minimum   1645-1715
Dalton Minimum   1790-1820

These are ALL grand solar minimums.

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.