backtop


Print 252 comment(s) - last by elron.. on Sep 9 at 10:08 PM


The record-setting surface of the sun. A full month has gone by without a single spot  (Source: Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO))

Sunspot activity of the past decade. Over the past year, SIDC has continually revised its predictions downward  (Source: Solar Influences Data Center)

Geomagnetic solar activity for the past two decades. The recent drop corresponds to the decline in sunspots.  (Source: Anthony Watts)

A chart of sunspot activity showing two prior solar minima, along with heightened activity during the 20th century  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

According to data from Mount Wilson Observatory, UCLA, more than an entire month has passed without a spot. The last time such an event occurred was June of 1913. Sunspot data has been collected since 1749.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month.  Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero.   Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins.

But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.

The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.

But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, tells DailyTech the sunspot numbers are another indication the "sun's dynamo" is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark's "SKY" experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays -- which the sun's magnetic field partially shields the Earth from -- increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

Solar physicist Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland, tells DailyTech the correlation between cosmic rays and terrestrial cloud cover is more complex than "more rays equals more clouds". Usoskin, who notes the sun has been more active since 1940 than at any point in the past 11 centuries, says the effects are most important at certain latitudes and altitudes which control climate. He says the relationship needs more study before we can understand it fully.

Other researchers have proposed solar effects on other terrestrial processes besides cloud formation. The sunspot cycle has strong effects on irradiance in certain wavelengths such as the far ultraviolet, which affects ozone production. Natural production of isotopes such as C-14 is also tied to solar activity. The overall effects on climate are still poorly understood.

What is incontrovertible, though, is that ice ages have occurred before. And no scientist, even the most skeptical, is prepared to say it won't happen again.

Article Update, Sep 1 2008.  After this story was published, the NOAA reversed their previous decision on a tiny speck seen Aug 21, which gives their version of the August data a half-point.  Other observation centers such as Mount Wilson Observatory are still reporting a spotless month.  So depending on which center you believe, August was a record for either a full century, or only 50 years.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:28:33 AM , Rating: 4
-1- Sell me your coastal land at 10% on the dollar... it is soon to be worthless because of rising ocean levels. 10% is a generous offer under those circumstances. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/hey-coastal-lib...

-2- Promise to subsidize fossil fuel usage if cooling occurs http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/global-warming-...

-3- Eat insects. Much lower carbon footprint than beef! A large percentage of the world eats bugs. You can too if you are serious about saving the world. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/global-warming-...

-4- Live like the Amish do. Do not use a car. Admit it you hate technology so show us how its done. Use a horse and buggy. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/if-you-believe-...

-5- Show us your are serious. We are about to be inundated. Build an Ark so it will be ready for us all to live in when we need it. Show us how visionary you are. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/global-warming-...

Or ... you can do nothing and demonstrate its all just a cheer-lead con job by a bunch of frauds and followed by a bunch of poor saps feeling irrelevant because they have insufficient skills in a world that is increasingly technical and globalized.




By djkrypplephite on 9/1/2008 10:36:47 AM , Rating: 4
Hey has anyone noticed how the terminology has changed from "global warming" to "global climate change" because none of their theories work out over time? They can't figure anything out. One week we're warming, now we're cooling, but only until 2020, then we'll starting warming again. Something tells me this may have nothing to do with CO2, just throwing it out there.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
So of course they need to get the taxes going now so when 2020 arrives we are already up and running with a solution.

I have a solution... put all liberal NJF MSG's on an island together. Make a reality series called Gorigans Island.

NJF / MSG ( Neurotic Joyless fkcu / Militant Stalinist Green ... because the people worrying about global warming appear to be very neurotic germanic white people who worship nature. If you have been to germany you KNOW what I mean!


By JohnnyCNote on 9/1/2008 11:02:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NJF / MSG ( Neurotic Joyless fkcu / Militant Stalinist Green ... because the people worrying about global warming appear to be very neurotic germanic white people who worship nature. If you have been to germany you KNOW what I mean!


How do you connect "Stalinist Green" with "neurotic germanic white people"?


By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
I spend alot of time out of the country and Brazil is my favorite. What are the Brazilians reactions to germanic or germanic derived cultures? - ( biggest ethnic group in the USA is german. ) After having spent alot of time there its evident ( really from day one ) that Americans are a cold non-talkative lot in comparison with Brazilians and in fact all the Euro-Latins I have run into there. ( Extensive numbers of students ) They know we Americans are a coldish / closed off lot in general. ( NOT IN PARTICULAR )

What is clear with these environmental and other movements of the left is lacking "society" or "community" they have subsituted "cause". Its a lonely world and its not surprising something is substituted in a society where community is only manifested in an aids or breast cancer walk with ribbons. A bit staid. In comparison Brazilians are social to the point where I now laugh if someone in the USA says they are having a party. They know not what of they speak.

I have significant german ancestry and thus I speak with experience that these folks have their fair share of fetishes or as I call them neurosis. This nature worship is only the latest manifestation.

You will not find this anal retentive nature worship in Brazil. You will not find it in Portugal, Spain or Italy.

You will find it in England, Germany, Australia and the USA. I never see alot of brown people with warmer personalities caught up. I only see neurotic white germanic people caught up. Full disclosure I am white.

We do do business in the USA like no other place. In seeking to be more social we should never seek to be socialist. Unfortunately that is exactly what global warming is all about.


By Bucky Beaver on 9/1/2008 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They can't figure anything out. One week we're warming, now we're cooling, but only until 2020, then we'll starting warming again.


Actually, it's much worse! On any given day, half the planet faces global warming whereas the other half faces global cooling!

Coincidentally, the warming half is the one facing the Sun, and the cooling half is the opposite side! Go figure...


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 5
I am very concerned. This could day / night thing has reached the crisis stage. We should follow the cautionary principle and try to stop the world spinning on its axis.

The terrestrials against rotational delay (T.A.R.D) are severely misguided on this issue. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/terrestrials-ag...

This manic depressive global warming trend is very concerning to me.


By Samus on 9/1/2008 3:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
The sun is a smart God, it knows what's going on here. It's just hooking us up because the Earth is tired of hooking us up.


By Zoomer on 9/1/2008 3:21:36 PM , Rating: 1
Rally! Every Terrestrial Against Rotational Delay.

R. E. T. A. R. D.


By Regs on 9/4/2008 8:55:54 AM , Rating: 3
This planet survived ice ages, volcano's, mass floods, earth quakes, fault lines breaking, and asteroids.

For some reason, these very smart people, think this planet won't survive,..., us?

This planet will be here long after we're gone, don't worry. When new intelligent life forms arise from the ash, and open up our buried time capsules to find how diligently we tried to "save the planet", I'm sure mother earth will actually die from laughing.


By thepalinator on 9/4/2008 4:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm already laughing now


By rudolphna on 9/1/2008 1:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but for this we have documented records of this happening before. The best example is the Maunder minimum, known as the little ice age. It was horrific for Great Britain, and wont be any better today.


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 5
I reject all this crap... I mean your post is funny, I will give you that. But "liberal" and these "paraniod climate change freaks" are not the same thing. I am liberal and I believe the planet is and will be fine. It has survived far FAR worse than mankind can throw at it.

Get this striaght...
liberal is to paraniod climate change freaks
as
Conservative is to book burning abortion clinic bombing nutjobs

Because a very small group of freaks bombs abortion clinics does not make all conservative idiots. The same goes in reverse.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 3
There is a definite correlation between being liberal and being a climate believer.

There is a definite correlation between being conservative and being a climate denier.

Both liberals and conservatives do not jump off of the empire state building because gravity is a scientific physical phenomena.

Conservatives by and large do not believe in MMGW because why? Because its not a scientific issue. Its a political one. And a gin'd up one at that!

So reject all you want. You are a denier of the obvious!


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 5
What exactly am I denying?

Fact - I am a liberal and not a climate change beliver
Fact - McCain is a conservative and is talking about making policy changes due to climate change.

They are not the same - some liberals and some conservatives believe in the climate change thing and some of each dont. I will give you the point that it is very likely more weighted toward liberals, but its not an exlcusive club.


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said - I'll give you that point.

You are just too caught up in the lib vs. con. thing... Its not all black and white, there are thousands of shades of gray.


By feraltoad on 9/1/2008 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 5
Shade of grey? In nature yes. In the society of man things tend to go to black and white in discussions. Its simpler that way.

Yeah, F*CK understanding anything! Let's just argue non-stop instead of finding solutions! Let's argue futilely forever!!!!!


By omnicronx on 9/1/2008 4:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
You really have your head up your ass, regardless of your beliefs.

In today's society I would say that far more people believe in global warming than those who don't. Whether or not this is because of the force fed BS that people have been tought is a totally different issue.

Sure its true that most fanatical environmentalists happen to be liberal, but I think you are far off on the subject of how many people currently believe in global warming, its far more people than you would think, which is one of the reasons it will be part of both parties platforms come this fall. Otherwise why would Mcain even mention such a thing if all of his potential voters do not believe in it.

Global warming has been pushed into our heads for the past 20 years, its no wonder that many people consider it fact, without even considering the fact that there has been absolutely no hard evidence supporting such a thing. I would not find it hard to believe that a good 70% of Americans believe global warming.


By bpurkapi on 9/6/2008 5:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Careful calling liberals Stalinist, else they call conservatives Mussolinists. Once again another person with no knowledge of history or policy passes judgment, and all of us suffer from their ignorance.


By ggordonliddy on 9/1/2008 12:07:04 PM , Rating: 4
> low and behold

It's "lo and behold"!! Doesn't anyone actually read anymore?


By phazers on 9/2/2008 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's "lo and behold"


I thought it's JLo and BHold :)

But then maybe I've read one too many tabloid headline at the supermarket checkout stand.


By Fronzbot on 9/1/2008 7:07:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Far more liberals are members of the Church of Later Day Warming than conservatives.

Your logic is flawed.

You're saying Liberals all believe in climate change because more believe in it than conservatives?

That's like saying more Americans are considered "obese" than in the UK therefore all Americans are "obese".


By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:28:57 PM , Rating: 1
By and large was the key phase. Vast majority conservatives do not believe.

Vast majority of liberals do believe. Why not it allows for a tax EVERYTHING possibility. Such is the nature of the Stalinist.


By FITCamaro on 9/1/2008 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
McCain is not a conservative.


By gmw1082 on 9/2/2008 8:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
At least someone understands Republican does not mean conservative.


By Oregonian2 on 9/8/2008 5:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's even more complicated than that. There's also "economic conservative", "social conservative", and "religious conservative" (and the same set with "liberal" in place of "conservative"). As well as middle-of-the-road versions. An individual person may be in zero to three of those conservative groups in any combination and be liberal in others. There also is a difference of having the Republican party "be" something and having a Republican person be something (the press will spin to use them interchangeably to make their own point appear stronger). Even within a single broad category above, individuals may be in different camps. Categorizing broad concepts has a lot of weaknesses, just like categorizing people. Often wrong. Further, the press will show conflicts between a "liberal" stance and a "conservative" stance when it really is a 'liberal" vs "religious" conflict ("religious" aspects seem to pop up on both the liberal and religious sides of things -- still haven't quite figured that out clearly). In my experience, for instance, it's common to be very conservative economically but very liberal socially (although not directly mapping to "democrat" or "republican" very well, it is closer to "republican" most years (it varies depending upon who is "running" each party)). So it's usually better to concentrate on the individuals and less on their party to see things clearer, particularly this year where both McCain and Palin are people who have attacked their own party (McCain obviously a lot more times and over a much longer period) so they're not so much "party animals" as previous candidates (it was funny having the RNC convention hall go dead silent momentarily when McCain attacked his party in his acceptance speech at one point -- but not something new for him).


By cocoviper on 9/1/2008 2:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
Saying that liberal is to climate change believer as conservative is to book burning / abortion clinic bombing is definitely a misnomer though.

What principles do virtually all conservative leaders, especially the mainstream ones promote in those areas? I.e. where do the leaders and majority of conservatives stand on book burning on clinic bombing?

I then ask the converse; what principles do virtually all liberal leaders, especially the mainstream ones promote in the areas of climate change?

Maybe you're able to convince yourself that the wacky liberals are just on the fringe of your philosophy's leadership, but reality demonstrates otherwise. Liberal philosophy and the democratic party was hijacked post-Kennedy.

If you really believe in the past tenets of liberalism (chiefly social liberalism in relation to government and society), but you reject the craziness that increasingly is in control at the top of your party, I would you would be more vocal about it and not simply vote along party lines.


By Pavelyoung on 9/3/2008 5:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait, this will turn into a mini ice age and when we start to come out of it the liberals will start screaming global warming. Which will of course be confirmed by their scientific results :)


By omnicronx on 9/1/2008 3:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is a definite correlation
So where are the stats then? if there is a correlation, then there has to be some hard proof, where are the statistics to back your theory up? I guess I must have missed that question on the latest census...

quote:
So reject all you want. You are a denier of the obvious!
He just said he was a liberal and he didnt not believe in global warming.. what is he denying?


By Ringold on 9/1/2008 6:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
You people really sound like tools. Would you guys also argue out your ass about a statement like "most black people are Democrats," despite its obvious truth?

In case you really need everything handed to you on a golden platter, here, the results of literally 3-5 seconds at google.

http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partis...

Is the Pew Research Center some uber-partisan group? Not that I've heard. 89% of Democrats believe it, versus 49% of Republicans. Only 27% of Republican's believe man is causing global warming, compared to 58% of Democrats.

Now, do I need to link to evidence that on a clear day the sky appears to be blue to most humans, or can we now agree that Democrats, in the aggregate, do believe in global warming far more than Republicans and that, yes, the sky is blue?


By omnicronx on 9/2/2008 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans are increasingly skeptical that there is solid evidence that the earth has been warming over the past few decades: just 49% of Republicans say there is evidence that the earth's average temperature has been rising, down 13 points since January 2007.
But unlike something which can be proved (i.e black voting) these articles are merely based on a small pool of data. In fact just last year Fox news posted an article saying that 70% of repulicans in one way or another believed in at least partial man made global warming. It also states that 90% of Democrats and 84% independents believe it in, which does not seem to match the findings by the people press. I would also like to point out that fox news is usually favor conservatives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250571,00.html

As such my original point stands, he and you are making statements based on something with no definitive data. Black voting is probably part of the census data collected each election, where as belief in global warming is not. My point was that he said there was a correlation, where by definition there needs to be numbers to prove it, where in reality there is not any definitive proof at all.

And even by the numbers the peoples press have provided (which do not seem to match the findings by other sources) for ever 2 democrat believers, there is one republican believer, that's a far cry from 'only democrats believe in global warming' as by the stats, 50% of democrats do not, which frankly i do not believe either.

p.s here is another source claiming otherwise
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27pol...
(which claims 84% of Americans believe in some sort of global warming)

This all goes to prove that there are many reasons to believe in global warming. For example it is far more likely for a republican from Florida or Louisiana to believe in global warming because of the increased hurricane trend, where as a republican from Washington state would have not have the same view as they have had the same experiences.


By omnicronx on 9/2/2008 12:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
correction:where as a republican from Washington state would not have the same view as they have not had the same experiences.


By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
You are stabbing with a rubber knife. That tool will not cut.

I would be surprised if more than 10% of republicans really believed. There is no sense in talking to you if you deny the obvious. And if you look up "obvious" in the dictionary you will find this next to it.


By TheCreeper on 9/1/2008 11:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, but wouldn't you say that the number of right wing conservatives advocating bombing abortion clinics is relatively small? and the number of liberals who share your views on global warming is also small?

Unfortunately, too many high profile people support this warming theory. I agree with otherposters. Global cooling is far more scary.

But the news about sun spots means we will know within a couple of years that Gore is a big windbag.


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 3
I'll do you one better. I am a liberal, and a democrat and I will honestly say right now today - Al Gore is a windbag. No need to wait! =)


By AlexWade on 9/1/2008 4:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of Al Gore and hot air, watch this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VeU6WOjMS0

(Wait until near the end)


By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know of any Conservative Politicians advocating bombing abortion clinics. Yet, Al Gore, the King of GW, former VP of the USA, 1/2 Nobel winner, Oscar winning film lecturer - is a Liberal - and promoting all styles of GW taxes and fees. He even invests in GW govt-subsidized stocks through his Generation Invesment LLP http://www.generationim.com/

Liberals are Paranoid Climate Change Freaks - led about the nose by grifters such as Liberal Al Gore.


By onwisconsin on 9/1/2008 5:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I reject all this crap... I mean your post is funny, I will give you that. But "liberal" and these "paraniod climate change freaks" are not the same thing. I am liberal and I believe the planet is and will be fine. It has survived far FAR worse than mankind can throw at it.


I'm in the same boat. I lean to the left but I constantly disagree with the Democratic Party (and Al Gore in particular).


By truthbeknown on 9/2/2008 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get this striaght...
liberal is to paraniod climate change freaks
as
Conservative is to book burning abortion clinic bombing nutjobs

Because a very small group of freaks bombs abortion clinics does not make all conservative idiots. The same goes in reverse.


This post bothered me enough that I decided to register to respond. I am shocked and appalled that you believe those two examples are equivalent. Liberals are being accused of being paranoid about global warming. I could take that statement far further and it still wouldn't compare to the second "equivalent" statement. I could say that liberals waste taxpayer dollars enacting legislation designed to counteract global warming. As an example, the liberals from my state (CA) have enacted a new law so that starting in January 2009, all new vehicles are required to have a "global warming score" based on testing of greenhouse gas emissions for each and every vehicle type.

Let's compare this to your second statement, and see if the accusations have equivalent weight. The second statement alleges that conservatives are mass murderers of abortion doctors. No matter how far left or right a person is, I would think most people would agree that accusing someone of mass murder is many times more serious than accusing someone of being paranoid or even of wasting taxpayer dollars.

The statements are dissimilar in another way as well. Do you really believe that the percentage of conservatives who are mass murderers of abortion doctors is anywhere close to the percentage of liberals who believe in global warming? A number of people have posted statistics here on what percentage of liberals believe in global warming. These statistics vary greatly, with the lower end being 50% and the higher end being 90%. Even if only the lower end of those statistics is true (50% of liberals believing in global warming), do you really believe that 50% of conservatives are mass murderers? If you really do believe that, then I'd encourage you to expend your energy stopping the conservatives from slaughtering abortion doctors, rather than trying to prove that not all liberals are worried about global warming.


By Donkeyshins on 9/1/2008 1:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
What if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage since it is a finite resource, and, in the case of coal, contributes to acid rain - does that make you a whackjob?

BTW: interesting challenge - too bad the site has such a right-wing bias.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
It only makes you a wack job if you try to force another person to believe these same things. Coercion is wrong in the company of polite people trying to live together.

I personally hate driving and ride a bike when I can.

Economically we are being destroyed by not drilling on the OCS and in ANWR. Drilling with conservation is a great strategy. Just guessing you won't comprimise. Only conservation would be your tagline. That's not a solution by itself. I'm an engineer. I would love to see more of nuclear and other advanced sources. We won't make it to Alpha Centauri with a chemically powered rocket. But one must be practical. Our society currently runs on oil / gas / coal. It will do so until technology allows otherwise and will not run on platitudes of the left.

As for being conservative....The vast majority of engineers are thrifty with a buck ( cheap ) and thus conservative. If you want left wing bias you should go to a site that talks about Brittney. Men / technology lovers tend to be logical thinkers who do not let emotion rule them.


By Donkeyshins on 9/1/2008 11:01:52 PM , Rating: 3
OK. Even if the theory of abiogenic petroleum is valid (and the jury is still very much out on this), you're still trading one finite resource (petroleum) for other finite resources (calcium carbonate and iron oxide). Neither petroleum in its raw form nor calcium carbonate / iron oxide are produced as a byproduct of burning hydrocarbons - therefore they are finite resources.

There is nothing inherently 'right wing' about the theory of abiogenic petroleum - however, http://amarketplaceofideas.com has a definite right-wing / conservative bias.


By Ringold on 9/1/2008 4:58:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage since it is a finite resource, and, in the case of coal, contributes to acid rain - does that make you a whackjob?


Everything is a finite resource. I get a lot of amusement watching people in the environmental movements talk about "sustainability" as if its a useful economic term. The steel, aluminum, concrete or whatever else that is used in "renewable" technologies is no different. That their output is also variable means that much more finite resources have to be deployed in order to get the same output that, say, a smaller nuclear facility can output almost non-stop. This excludes, of course, some legitimate renewable technologies, like hydro and geothermal (which DT recently talked about).

Cost bares a direct relationship with resource utilization and scarcity. That wind and solar are, for most parts of the country, uncompetitive with traditional fuel sources, particularly without subsidies, should immediately tell you something about the underlying scarcity issues at work. Markets work until we screw with them as we have done with ethanol.

So no, wanting to reduce fossil fuel use because its a "finite resource," doesn't make you a whackjob. Just dishonest or misinformed; dishonest because people attempt to couch what is really a moral view in economic arguments that hold no water, or misinformed because people simply don't know what they're going on about. Take your pick. :P


By theendofallsongs on 9/2/2008 2:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
If wind power ever got dirt cheap (which it won't, of course) you'd see environmentalists protesting it just as much as coal or nuclear. Cheap energy is what makes civilizations grow and prosper, and they don't want that.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2008 4:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
We have a winner. And you know why ?

Liberals know that in a thriving prospering nation there is NO WAY their opinions and positions on things stand a snowballs chance in hell. Thats why they ONLY focus on the negative, marginalize the positives, and blow everything out of proportion to the extreme.

Spend five minutes listening to Obama and he paints the picture that this country is a third world disaster thats going straight to hell unless we " change ". Same from pretty much every liberal. They are the KINGS of handwringing.

You nailed it. The LAST thing they want to see is abundant energy in this country and cheap power/gas prices. Because then everyone would be happy and see no reason to change things by voting for them.


By Spuke on 9/3/2008 6:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liberals know that in a thriving prospering nation there is NO WAY their opinions and positions on things stand a snowballs chance in hell.
People are more apt to give and share when they are happy and financially secure. You would think this would be promoted. When people don't have anything to share, they don't give. Initiatives like public healthcare won't fly now because people won't want to give their money away.

When people have money to burn, they would be likely to agree to public healthcare or other things. This is just logical. I wonder what the statistics are on American donations. Have they gone down with the economy?


By wvh on 9/1/2008 7:31:09 PM , Rating: 4
Somehow, this interesting article about sunspots turned into a good ol' American soapbox politics drama again. Quiet indulgent, don't you think...


By NVBOB on 9/4/2008 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am a republican. I am concerned about the environment. I have seen first hand the devastation that was caused by drilling "offshore" in Galveston, TX. There are no living natural reefs within 220 miles of Galveston. When you play in the surf on Kayaks, you get out of the water with tar on you. Thirty years before I was there the reefs were alive with fish and corals and when the drilling commenced, the city of Galveston had to scrape off the dead fish every morning to keep the rotting fish smell at least bearable (I talked to several lifelong residents).

In 1995, I went to Alaska for the first time. I hiked up to see Exit Glacier near Seward Alaska. I saw the many signs that marked where the glacier had been in the early 1900's as you drive and then hike up to the glacier. This showed me that the glacier had been melting long before I bought an SUV. I returned to Exit Glacier in 2003. I was truly stunned at the distance that it had receeded. I have photos from 1995 with me standing in a crack in the glacier just on the other side of the rope at a bench. The glacier is a quarter of a mile from that now. I don't know what I expected, but that was certainly not it. I know that man is not having the impact that Al Gore says that we are. However, in cases of drilling off the shores of our country, we can see the damage done to the underwater habitat. I am an avid scuba diver and have been diving for 29 years. I don't have all the answers but I know that drilling in the oceans is not what I want my party to stand for!! I don't want to be taxed out of the country by the other party either. There needs to be some balance. There needs to be people talking to people who get the word out about problems affecting the environment without regard for party bias. I don't have children, but I still want the wild areas of the planet to be accessible for generations to come. That means we have to protect the planet and also we need to be sure that people have their rights in order to go see it.


By lkjh on 9/6/2008 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
This is the silliest, least thoughtful comment I've seen in a long time. No one serious about global warming makes the kind of straw dog arguments phxfreddy here is making & then trying to knock down. He simply doesn't understand the issues. Too bad he is so misinformed.


By ConcernedHuman on 9/8/2008 9:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Islam (the belief and living accordingly inline with THE One and Only Creator, "muslim" literally means “someone who tries to do Islam”) has already messaged many scientific facts, including the bing bang, the expanding universe, the atomic structure, creation and evolution of both the universe and human kind and the creation of other creatures besides humans and animals.

Try to overcome your misconceptions due to misinformation based on international politics and the wrong doings of some muslims and open up your mind and heart to Islam, learn Islam from Islam, not from biased mass media or luciferians pretending to be muslims or misguided muslims:

QuranMiracles(.)com

WhatsIslam(.)com

ShareIslam(.)com

BibleIslam(.)com

IslamCode(.)com

TurnToIslam(.)com

AllahsQuran(.)com

Peace to all.


global warming?
By Bluejacket on 9/1/2008 10:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.


This is just one more example of how the left seeks to control things. First, with the Marxists with the flow of history, the productions of goods, the re-making of the new man and now; the control of climate.

They will never get it. The reason: The fun, for them, is in the control!




RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
I reject the idea of the left being fun. They are singularly joyless and unfunny.

In both their so called "humor" and everyday life they appear to be very fearful. Chronic ongoing fear does not yield a good humored person.

What it results in is a "Gus Hall" style dire dour sourpuss who as it turns out seems to be power hungry Stalinist types.


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 11:32:16 AM , Rating: 3
So the worldwide consensus by climatologists on the human impact on the current global warming is nonsense because Marxism didn't work and because a "drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth".

Makes sense!


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:53:57 AM , Rating: 1
Eckstein... can you please quote a peer reviewed paper to support your point?

Global Warming is nonsense because the same "thought center" latched on to it as a vehicle. Yes point well taken.

Of course its more direct just to say Marxists love MMGW because in it they see a vehicle to power. Before the left embraced it MMGW was a good plot for a disaster movie.

The problem is some people have been watching to much TV!


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 12:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eckstein... can you please quote a peer reviewed paper to support your point?
This is a good point to start: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

quote:
Of course its more direct just to say Marxists love MMGW because in it they see a vehicle to power. Before the left embraced it MMGW was a good plot for a disaster movie.
So you are saying that the worldwide scientific consensus on climate models is wrong because you think that "Marxists love MMGW"?

quote:
The problem is some people have been watching to much TV!
I don't even own a TV and think that the IPCC reports are by far the best assessments in existence on the human impact on the global climate.

They are based on the global consensus on the current state of climatological science, which qualifies them to be the base for political decisions in this regard.


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 12:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
A well meant tip: Absolutism is your worst enemy!


RE: global warming?
By judahbenhuer on 9/1/2008 1:11:33 PM , Rating: 3
Are you 'absolutely' sure?


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:02:42 PM , Rating: 1
I am unsure but I am pretty sure I can find a peer reviewed paper to support my position. Whatever that position is. Let's call it position X.

I do love learning. Problem is those who believe in MMGW are unrealistic and thus I am not swayed by their thinking. To those that do believe in MMGW let me posit there are real problems we could be devoting this misguided energy to. There are alot of people in the world that would love to be your friend. Find a country and become familiar. My own personal favorite is Brazil. I help spread capitalism there and in return they teach me how to be much happier than I have learned to be in the USA. This too is a science. Get out of the house more Eckstein. You do not even need a note from your mother. On all levels being the best possible person you can be is the best help for the world. Including devoting your energies and concerns to real problems instead of confected ones.

Yes I just said it. MMGW is the powdered donut of problems.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
There is a definitive divide between a priori an posteriori knowledge. Only an idiot attempts to equate the two.


RE: global warming?
By porkpie on 9/1/2008 12:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
The "worldwide scientific consensus" is a myth. This site alone has posted papers from dozens of climatologists that refute CAGW. Last year, 400 scientists signed a paper asking the UN to reconsider the IPCC conclusions, and over 9,000 Ph.D'd scientists have signed a petition refuting AGW alarmism.

Compared to the 40-odd scientists who actually write up the IPCC reports, that a huge figure.


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 1:26:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The "worldwide scientific consensus" is a myth. This site alone has posted papers from dozens of climatologists that refute CAGW.
Citizens Against Government Waste?
So what?

quote:
Last year, 400 scientists signed a paper asking the UN to reconsider the IPCC conclusions, and over 9,000 Ph.D'd scientists have signed a petition refuting AGW alarmism.
There are several million people who have an Ph. D. and the vast majority of them will tell you that it is ridicules to critisize scientific research that is not in your field.

If you had been on a University, you would know that people owning an Ph. D. are often wrong in their opinions as well.

There are petitions with tenthousands of signers (under them many scientists), who want to proclaim Elvis Presley as a brother of Jesus.

quote:
Compared to the 40-odd scientists who actually write up the IPCC reports, that a huge figure.
That you simply make up a number here shows how well educated your opinion is.


RE: global warming?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 1:36:25 PM , Rating: 4
His figures are roughly correct. Chap 9 of IPCC AR4 -- the important part that concludes anthropogenic GHGs are contributing to global warming -- has 53 lead authors. Rather than representing science as a whole, most of them have coauthored papers together and/or are citing their own papers in the conclusion. A full 20% of those authors come from a single institution -- the Hadley Center for Climate Change, an institution predicated on alarmism.

Still worse, the AR4 Summary isn't written by scientists at all, but by politicians, with representatives from member nations approving every word, line by line. The summary is written first, then the report is reviewed to ensure its conclusions are in line with the summary. Simple fact.

As for conclusions "outside your field", I've personally interviewed or spoken with over three dozen solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, and climatologists who believe anthropogenic global warming is anywhere from a nonentity to no more than a mild annoyance. Several of them are IPCC expert reviewers themselves.


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 2:13:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
His figures are roughly correct. Chap 9 of IPCC AR4 -- the important part that concludes anthropogenic GHGs are contributing to global warming -- has 53 lead authors.
And they base their conclusions on the research of hundreds of other scientists as you can see in the reference lists between the reports.

You could have said as well that only one person actually wrote down the report.

quote:
Rather than representing science as a whole, most of them have coauthored papers together and/or are citing their own papers in the conclusion.
This is simply totally wrong!
The reference index on this report alone is 11 pages long.

quote:
A full 20% of those authors come from a single institution -- the Hadley Center for Climate Change, an institution predicated on alarmism.
So only 20% of the authors of one of the many reports are "predicated on alarmism" now and not the whole evil colluding entity behind the IPCC?

quote:
Still worse, the AR4 Summary isn't written by scientists at all, but by politicians, with representatives from member nations approving every word, line by line. The summary is written first, then the report is reviewed to ensure its conclusions are in line with the summary. Simple fact.
That the summaries are not based on science, but on politicans might be your opinion, but is certainly no fact.

All I know about is that a single author complained about (Chapter 8) being altered, which was of course denied by others.
What do you expect from a report that includes HUNDREDS of authors?!

quote:
As for conclusions "outside your field", I've personally interviewed or spoken with over three dozen solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, and climatologists who believe anthropogenic global warming is anywhere from a nonentity to no more than a mild annoyance. Several of them are IPCC expert reviewers themselves.
And I spoke with Elvis himself and he said that you are wrong!


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 1
We have a high priest of the brotherhood of later day global warmers among us!

High Priest Eckstein ... do you have any of the global warming monk robes available is XXL ?

Face it. MMGW is the merchandised model of global crisis' but we do not all want to go humeda humeda oooooooohmmm with you.

Its only going to take a few more years and MMGW is going to be Y2-K-O'd. That is to say year 2000 will pass uneventfully and people say "What was all the hub bub about?"

Just remember how hard over you have been High Priest Eckstein. Remember to be duly embarrassed for your misguided belief in this farsical religion.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 3:07:43 PM , Rating: 3
There is something inherently ironic about an idiotic zealot declaring that the other side's idiotic zealots are blowing hot air.


RE: global warming?
By Jim28 on 9/1/2008 10:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but one set of zealots wants to control our lives via taxes, restrictions, and environmental BS, the other set of zealots does not and wants to be left alone. I am going with the latter. Those AGW folks can hit the road, and don't let the door hit em' in the ass! (one of my fathers best lines!)


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
No zealot here. I am completely atheist. I believe in no religion. Not even global warming.

What is truly ironic if you want to talk about irony is:

-- liberals kill off religion ... then immediately ressurect it in the form of MMGW.

You see the real problem for liberals is not religion. It is that we are not worshipping at their alter.

It may be true that I am a zealot if you talk about how strongly I reject their Church of Later Day Warming.

I do not like whooey Crap B.S. Fudge lies Misrepresentation fraud .........any word you want to put on it.

The irony then truly is on your side when you go humeda humeda humeda ooooooooohm to your MMGW god.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/4/2008 10:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Zealotry and atheism are not mutually exclusive in common English. Maybe in ancient Hebrew or whatever we derived zealot from.

"Liberals killed off religion": If religion is dead (a spurious claim at best), it wasn't 'Them dern librels' who killed it. Religion, quite frankly, did it to itself.

I call you a zealot for a couple reasons. Your posts resemble the ramblings a paranoid twit who believes so strongly in his correctness that it has an air of satire around it. If you are fakeposting, you are doing a damn good job of it.
Your little rant about religion (besides merely lacking internal consistency) is irrelevant to anything really.


RE: global warming?
By chichikov on 9/1/2008 10:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are several million people who have an Ph. D. and the vast majority of them will tell you that it is ridicules to critisize scientific research that is not in your field.


If it is ridiculous to critize scientific research that is not in your field wouldn't it also be ridiculous to advocate for scientific research not in your field? Seems to me that there are many ridiculous politicians, failed politicians, political messiahs and self-proclaimed environmentalsts out there who are very ridiculous indeed. Perhaps even yourself?


RE: global warming?
By ipay on 9/1/2008 7:11:46 PM , Rating: 1
RE: global warming?
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
You don't own a TV. But you apparently own an Internet connection. Here's your Global Consensus on Climate Change:
MONEY!

Gore Investment Vehicle Closes $683m Fund
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/gore-inves...

Al Gore's fund to close after attracting $5 billion http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/11/business/go...

AL Gore, the Green Giant, is after your money. Hey, why not Al Gore traveling the world, making movies, promoting fear of the sky falling and the seas rising to convince Govts worldwide to tax/fee & spend their citizen's money to subsidize Green Tech so Al Gore can get a Fat Cat return on his investment funds.

You GW Believers have been had. You've been taken for a ride. You're Al Gore's fools. You've bought into and played his crooked Carnival game. HA!


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 2:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
What has the person "Al Gore" to do with the scientific base behind the human impact on the global warming?!

Is he a TV star in the U.S. of A. and talks about this topic?
Well I couldn't care less!


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Mr AlGore-ithm the robotic candidate is representative of the MMGW crew. Short on ethics. Short on scientific ethics and worse yet he has no scientific aptitude. Yet he goes round scooping up and diverting resources from real issues to the imaginary problem MMGW.

That is what it has to do with it.

Signed Ecksteins Mother.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: global warming?
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 4:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
I seem to recall Al Gore referred to the IPCC Hockey Stick Temperature Sick Curve in his Movies and Lectures!

The only ad hominem going around is Al Gore and you GW believers placing blame on Carbon users. Sorry! I cool or warm my house or drive my car, and I have ad hominem attacks thrown my way by a dope head like Al Gore and the likes of you. You bunch of hate-filled ogres.

I provided facts about what Al Gore is doing - attacting money and you're so unitelligent that you claim it's an ad hominem attack!

Al Gore is using a red herring - if you want to start naming logical fallacies - and he's making fools out of you - making you believe the future of the planet is short, while he's investing long-term!


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 11:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The only [personal attack] going around is Al Gore and you GW believers [I like how I am considered a GW believer for considering your argument a useless piece of bilge] placing the blame on Carbon users"


Placing blame is not an ad hominem attack. Saying "those global warming skeptics are nothing but parasitic Neanderthals (somebody posted a rough equivalent to this in another thread) and therefore we do not care what they say" is an ad hominem attack. Stop throwing around words whose meanings you clearly do not understand.

A red herring is a meaningless argument designed to change the subject. Kind of like what you are doing (tu quoque).
Your argument has little to do with the actual science and more to do with a conflict of interest. That is all well and good, but if the science is flawed, you should be able to show that it is flawed. Masher, for all that I have seen, is the only one who actually bothers to do this. The rest of you just serve to drag his cause through the mud by acting just as bad as those you lampoon.


RE: global warming?
By Ringold on 9/1/2008 6:36:38 PM , Rating: 5
Researchers that put food on the table with energy industry money, they can't be believed. At least, thats the common attack against such people.

But researchers who attach themselves to the government bosom for their money, and politicians all too happy to fund them because of the subjects popularity, they are credible?

I believe that may be the point. "Follow the money" applies to many things, and it hasn't been lost on me at least that armies of academics are feeding families solely because their studies have "Global Warming" in their title or summaries.

At least that is the tactic I'd take to question credibility, slightly more high-road than the other guy.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 11:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen Eckstein make such a claim, but perhaps I missed it because I skimmed through the bit above. Responding to a strawman with another strawman, while slightly amusing, gets both sides nowhere and only convinces bystanders (such as me) that both groups are a bunch of idiots with nothing meaningful to say. The question of credibility is, again, a red herring. If his work is flawed, show the flaw. If you can't, why the hell are you debating the point in the first place.


RE: global warming?
By gmw1082 on 9/2/2008 8:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's not uncommon for people to point the finger and make accusations against those they disagree with. It's a good way to divert attention away from yourself.


RE: global warming?
By Spuke on 9/3/2008 7:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a good way to divert attention away from yourself.
Spending an inordinate amount of time placing blame and pointing fingers does nothing to fix whatever problem needs to be fixed. We haven't even decided collectively that there is a problem. We're too busy placing blame and pointing fingers.

You have people that believe and people that disbelieve. We get together and argue and when the argument is done, we leave believing the same thing as before. We have only succeeded in wasting what short life we have left. Which could be better spent building a Pergola in the backyard.

I'm sure my comment will somehow become twisted.


RE: global warming?
By Hoser McMoose on 9/4/2008 6:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is just one more example of how the left seeks to control things.

Does anyone else HATE how EVERY single discussion that even remotely touches on climate change instantly degenerates into a stupid political mudslinging match between the 'Left' and the 'Right' (or liberal vs. conservative, Democrat Vs. Republican or whatever)? It's sad enough that so many people are so naive and/or stupid as to feel that a single word can describe their entire political belief system, but now it has to influence their understanding of science as well?

So, in the spirit of some scientific and historical debate.. The Maunder Minimum occurred at around 1650, right smack dab in the middle of the Little Ice Age, temperatures had been cooling for about 100 years when this happened.

Now we're seeing a time of abnormally low sun spot activity after about 100 years of general warming. Some possible thoughts here:

1. We're just at the very start of a period of low sun spot activity and it will decrease over the next 'x' number of years before actually hitting a minimum, with temperature falling along with it. This month is just the first blip, the start of trend in reduced sunspots but very abnormal for being low so early in that trend. The general lack of temperature increases over the past 6 to 10 years may suggest that we've already 'peaked' and are on our way down.

2. This is more of an abnormality in a normal ~11 year cycle of sun spot activity. While this month is a bit off, taken as a year as a whole it'll be much more in line with typical 11 year cycles? The sunspot activity graph posted at the top of this article could tend to support this hypothesis.

3. Sun spots are decreasing and temperature should have been decreasing for some time, but other factors are working against it to keep temperatures high.

4. Sun spot activity really doesn't have any link to temperature at all, it's just a coincidence.

Any other thoughts? Comments?


... So ignorant!!!
By Sandok on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
How awful. And the glaciers which carved out and filled in the Great Lakes are gone as well! The Last of the Mohicans with their SUVs must of melted them. Those evil pre-historic Native Americans! Ruining it for the rest of us.


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By wookie1 on 9/1/2008 2:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Repeat this to yourself - CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential trace gas that all life on earth needs to survive. The biosphere thrives on CO2. More CO2 = more plant growth, etc. Why should we spend tens of trillions of dollars to reduce the amount of plant food on the planet? There are people starving NOW that could benefit from some aid. Al Gore can get by without all of our money, he is already very rich.


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By ipay on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 5:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
We all notice you haven't provided any scientific knowledge, you Einstein ipay. Your refutation of others opinions does not a scientific statement create.


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By ipay on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By Jim28 on 9/1/2008 10:13:30 PM , Rating: 3
He is still correct. What insight have you provided other than proving you know how to troll? Show us your boundless intellect and educate the masses instead of being quite snobby and doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing!


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By ipay on 9/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By greenchasch on 9/2/2008 11:06:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He never reports anything that confirms the reality of AGW -
Why should he, when thousands of much larger news companies shout every pro-AGW story to the rooftops, usually exaggerating them as well? The MSM ignores all the research that doesn't support AGW. DT is giving us the "rest of the story" and I'm glad for it.

I notice that you've posted your 100th anti-Asher post without ever once saying what he has "lied and distorted". Are you going for some sort of stupidity medal?


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By ipay on 9/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By onelittleindian on 9/2/2008 3:30:30 PM , Rating: 4
Some of the many peer-reviewed studies which refute man-made global warming alarmism. (one page of the 12 page list).

Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994) (Planetary and Space Science, vol. 55, issue 1-2, Jan 2007) - N. Rigozoa, D. Nordemann, H. da Silva, M. Echer, E. Echer

Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability (International Journal of Climatology, vol. 22, issue 8, pp. 901-915, 27 May 2002) - R. E. Thresher

Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate (Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007) - Richard Mackey

Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands (Science, vol. 292. no. 5520, pp. 1367-1370, 18 May 2001) - D A Hodell, M Brenner, J H Curtis, T Guilderson

Solar variability and climate change (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, 1998) - E. W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman

Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (Space Science Reviews, vol. 125, issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, 22 December 2006) - J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, L08203, 2007) - H. B. Hammel, G.W. Lockwood

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, L14703, 2007) - C. D. Camp, K. Tung

The link between the solar dynamo and climate (Irish Astronomical Journal, vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 251-254, 09/1994) - C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston

The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries (Space Science Reviews, v. 95, issue 1/2, pp. 625-637, 2001) - T. I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P. J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, L16712, 2005) - W Soon

Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998 (New Astronomy, vol. 4, issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000) - W. Soon, S. Baliunas, E. S. Posmentier, P. Okeke

What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection? (Advances in Space Research, vol. 20, issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, 1997) - Eigil Friis-Christensen

Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future? (Geomagnetism i Aeronomia, vol. 43, pp. 124-127, 2003) - V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate (Space Science Reviews, v. 93, issue 1/2, pp. 175-185, July 2000) - Henrik Svensmark

Cosmic rays and climate--The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming (Astronomy & Geophysics, vol. 41, issue 4, pp 4. 18-4. 22, August 2000) - E Pallé Bagó, C J Butler

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (Space Science Reviews, v. 94, issue 1/2, pp. 215-230, November 2000) - Nigel Marsh

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001) - D. Kniveton and M. C. Todd

Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 107, no. A7, pp. SIA 8-1, July 2002) - F Yu

Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño-Southern Oscillation trends (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 108, no. D6, pp. AAC 6-1, March 2003) - Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate (Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, October 2004) - V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Insolation are the Main Drivers of Global Climate (arXiv:hep-ph/0506208, June 2005) - V. D. Rusov, I. V. Radin, A. V. Glushkov, V. N. Vaschenko, V. N. Pavlovich, T. N. Zelentsova, O. T. Mihalys, V. A. Tarasov, A. Kolos

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 110, issue A8, August 2005) - Nir J. Shaviv

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (Astronomy & Geophysics, vol. 48 issue 1, pp. 1. 18-1. 24, February 2007) - H Svensmark

Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series (Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007) - C Perrya

200-year variations in cosmic rays modulated by solar activity and their climatic response (Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, vol. 71, no. 7, July 2007) - O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev

On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century (Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, vo. 71, no. 7, July 2007) - M. G. Ogurtsov

Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection (Comptes Rendus Geosciences, December 2007) - Ilya G. Usoskina, Gennady A. Kovaltsovb

Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 1. Theory (arXiv:0803. 2765, Mar 2008) -V. Rusov, A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev

Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (Journal of Climate, vol. 19, issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006) - H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L13207, 2004) - D. H. Douglass, B. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, P. Knappenberger, P. Michaels

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979 (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 183–186, 2001) - J. R. Christy, D. E. Parker, S. J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W. B. Norris

Does a Global Temperature Exist? (Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006) - C Essex, R McKitrick, B Andresen

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years (Springer Wien, Volume 95, Jan 2007) - L Zhen-Shan, S Xian

Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, no. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000) - P Michaels, P Knappenberger

Revised 21st century temperature projections (Climate Research, vol. 23: 1–9, 2002) - O Frauenfeld, R Davis

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, D06102, 2007) - J Christy, W Norris, R Spencer, J Hnilo

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends? (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L06211, 2004) - J. R. Christy, W. B. Norris

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, L13705, 2007) - Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov

Global Warming and the Next Ice Age (Science, vol. 304. no. 5669, pp. 400-402, 16 April 2004) - A Weaver, C Hillaire-Marcel

Is global warming climate change? (Nature 380, 478, 11 April 1996) - Adrian H. Gordon, John A. T. Bye, Roland A. D. Byron-Scott

Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L11813, 2006) - T Matsui, R Pielke Sr.

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? (Energy & Environment, vol. 14, nos. 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003) – T. Landscheidt

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 71, issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990) - R S Lindzen


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By ipay on 9/2/2008 6:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm impressed that you know how to CTRL+C and then CTRL+V, but how does that disprove the consensus of every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet, all of whom confirm that recent climate change is due to human activity?

Do any of those papers (I'll do you the enormous favour, considering the dishonesty of most AGW deniers, that you're telling the truth and they have all been peer reviewed in legitimate science journals) disprove the past century of research which concludes that GHGs released by human activity have caused recent warming?

Or perhaps you've just found a few articles that are either:

1. discussing legitimate science about areas of uncertainty that do not dispute the scientific consensus of AGW

or

2. produced by wingnuts and dishonest people who are in the pocket of Exxon and other energy companies

Again, only the gullible and ideologically-blinded are going to fall for those tactics.


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
Can you please cite a peer reviewed study to support your point?

I guess it only works if you cite PRO studies. You do not like it if they are con.

Another NJF MSG writes in to support his Scientologist like religion.

You poor neurotic euro fanboi. We're not laughing with you. We're laughing at you.


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By AlexWade on 9/1/2008 4:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what's wrong about being eco-conscience and eco-friendly?


When being such requires us to sacrifice our way of life. It is not being eco-conscience that is the problem, it is being eco-conscience at all costs. It is caring more for a tree and a bug than for people. It is denying liberties and rights to protect something that doesn't need to be protected. It is advocating population control and even population reduction. You can be eco-conscience without destroying our economy. It is all about balance. The problem is, the global warming advocates don't want to be balanced.

Let me give you an example of something that the eco-nazis did. At Cape Hatteras National Seashore, they pitched such a hissy fit that they were able to ban driving on the ocean beaches. They did this to protect a non-endangered bird and a non-endangered turtle. Instantly, the local economy suffered. They cared more about these animals than the livelihood of the people. That is not being balanced.


RE: ... So ignorant!!!
By Aloonatic on 9/2/2008 10:52:46 AM , Rating: 3
To a certain degree, I agree with you.

We have almost no seasons in the UK any more. Snow that lasts for more than a few hours is rare (fortunately seeing how we react/panic to a bit of snow on our roads) and the last 2 summers have been a bust, I've been wearing jumpers to work in August for God's sake.

I have no problem recycling more and I quite like using the train, but when they are so poorly run and so over crowded (as they are in the UK) that you can't even be guaranteed a seat when you have a 1st class ticket in your hand, then I'll stick to my car for now but would have no problem using a train for some journeys should they be run well and a nice place to be.

The problems that I have are mostly political and trust issues.

My government wants me to think that I am some sort of environmental sinner. I was born a sinner, will live a sinner and will die a sinner but I can try to redeem my mortal enviro-sole by making regular donations to Gordon Brown's collection plate and begging for forgiveness from him.

And whilst trains are nice, cars bring freedom. I like that I can step out of my front door and into a vehicle that can take me to pretty well wherever I want without me having to check with other people first as to when and where I can go.

All these doom and gloom statements are bought by scientists who are trying to predict the climate in the future yet they cannot get the weather right a few days in advance. Fair enough, it's not really the same thing, but you know what I mean?

Am I the only person who remembers being being told that the last 2 winters were going to be the coldest on record, yet they were pretty mild and nothing to write home about?

So essentially, if you are willing to give up your money and your freedom on the off chance that they are right, have got a model remotely correct and that the things that they say we should do will save us if they have, then go ahead.

Stop driving, or pay lots of money to your government (if you live in the UK)

Stop doing all the things you enjoy until you are sure that the energy used to bring them to you and/or make them happen is from a renewable source.

And never ever use an aeroplane, or buy a product that was bought into your country, then supermarket by one.

I'll stick to recycling, using energy efficient light bulbs, drive more efficiently, even try to use public transport with the great unwashed when I can and try to buy locally but that's about it.

I am just sick of constantly being told that I am killing the planet, just for living a pretty standard life, flying once a year on average perhaps, driving 10,000 miles a year and living in a 1 bed room flat whilst all the time having money taken from my pocket for environmental reason by a government with sticky fingers that makes Tony Soprano's demands for wetting his beck seem reasonable whilst doing very little with their cut that actually has anything to do with the environment.

And don't get me started on celebrities who promote the environmental agenda who fly their stupid little dogs around the globe to have their nails clipped just how they like it and produce more CO2 just being alive than their "talent" warrants.....

*takes brown paper bag and breaths into it


Omigosh...you guys need to turn down the vitriol.
By elron on 9/3/2008 10:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. I can't believe I've just read an interesting article on sunspots, to have it followed up by the most ignorant bunch of ranting I've ever seen.

See, I get the whole skepticism on Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC - a term I think is more in step with the current theoretic framework in question, given a recognition of the complexity of climate science). I *get* skepticism on a whole bunch of scientific theories. It's difficult not to when you study History and Philosophy of Science. What I don't get is why this article should spark a barrage of personal attacks towards anyone who dares not come to the same conclusions as you. And for people who seem to lament the politicization of climate science, it seems bewildering why you'd instantly want to polarize this issue into one of *them crazy tree hugging lefties* vs *the obviously superior right*, when your contention is merely that solar variation is the PRIMARY factor in determining observed climate variation, rather than CO2 emissions. You'd think that dissenting views would be encouraged considering that posters here seem angry about the exclusion of dissent in peer reviewed publications.

Anyhow, the way I see it, science IS political, whether we like it or not. The 'scientific method' can dually be seen as a great triumph for reason, and also as a source of authority which unfortunately is never as certain as we'd like it to be, but is utilized anyhow in formulating public policy. Uncertainty is the bread and butter of science, yet in applying our "understanding" of the world we have to make many assumptions, which based on history will likely be deemed more or less flawed in light of future evidence.

When it comes to climate science and ACC, there are good reasons for skepticism, but politically and there are good reasons to ASSUME that we can and do disrupt the natural equilibrium of our world, and that the burden of proof is on those seeking to disprove detrimental effects from human activity. As much as you might dislike it, even yet to be proved theories, come into play when considering the legal implications of human activities. Some parallels might be drawn between environmental law and those surrounding the marketing and safety of medicines or other medical procedures, which I won't go into detail about, but the safety of SSRI's, immunizations and breast implants all come to mind as other controversies where science, politics and law have all butted heads.

The more recent shift towards accepting ACC as a fact, especially over here (Aus) is, I think a double edged sword. On one hand, coming from the area of study I do, I tend to think that we know far less than we think we do, but also, that society couldn't function without assumptions, even those which are likely to be deemed faulty. See, I'm okay with this. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that there was over-whelming evidence CO2 is nothing at all to worry about, I'd be pretty darn happy about it. I'd still be on team geo-thermal, followed by team "clean" coal given that air-born emissions still have direct health consequences for people...carcinogenic risks...and the strain it will put on the health systems of our developing export partners like India and China. We arguably have an ethical obligation to provide a safer energy production mechanism, independent of ACC theories.

The downside for a world where ACC is shown as false, is that resultant cynicism towards environmental concerns more generally might derail many of the projects given political momentum by the ACC narrative, even if they have merits in their own right - I'm thinking about some of the non-climate-change environmental and human rights concerns surrounding oil drilling, not to mention the anti-competitive nature of petroleum's dominance in the motor vehicle fuel market and the potential for profiteering when alternative energies are not invested in.

Also, in this case, the temptation to generalize from the incorrectness of the theory of ACC, to all cases where collective activity could result in detrimental effects, potentially undermines efforts to ensure the wider public good, whenever complexity and uncertainty are in prominent in relevant evidence. It's a cornerstone of democracy that our elected representatives work to protect the wider public good in step with the public's wishes. How we evaluate evidence as citizens is different to how we evaluate it as scientists and more to the point, it SHOULD be. After all, if we weren't geared towards identifying and avoiding *potential adverse risks*, even in the absence of solid evidence, our species probably wouldn't have lasted this long.

That being said, I contend that the work of scientists IS important for everyone in coming to the most coherent and reasoned understanding of the world possible, but there is a disconnect between a scientific and the day-to-day way science is contextualized and utilized - a disconnect that is likely exacerbated by the growing complexity and specialization/compartmentalization of different scientific fields. The everyday person can't possibly have the in-depth knowledge in all scientific fields pertaining to all things that they need to make decisions upon, yet they still have to make decisions. They can hardly be blamed for their reliance on the media in digesting and presenting severely "flattened" versions of the latest research (and on a side note, our public broadcasters here tend to be pretty brave when it comes to scientific controversy - so props to them, but there *IS* a lot of junk out there). The challenge for those of you who actually care about science and are concerned by it's use/misuse by the wider public might want to reappraise this "I'm right, you're a stupid smelly hippy...oh and btw, you're wrong!" approach to this situation, and focus instead on advocating for better critical thinking skills, even when it reveals shortcomings in your own preferred theories, rather than championing a particular conclusion. And maybe make space for people, including yourselves, to be wrong about things without it meaning that someone is completely daft and void of anything valuable to add to the debate? Would this not help everyone to rise to the challenge of better refining and justifying their world-view? Isn't this what we actually want - to get to the best understand of things we can? Or maybe just verbally bludgeoning anyone who doesn't agree with you is more your style.




By crash resistant on 9/4/2008 12:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion...
*note: this is not a contribution to science or constructive criticism, this is a mere post buried under many posts of mere opinions*

You elron, are a pretentious douche, and a sad example of someone trying to appear educated or experienced on ACC politics.
Therefore I call on any reader to take his long ranted post with a grain of salt- and not to give up on your quest to understand "climate change".

Go take another philosophy science class elron and read another book from a self-righteous author... My children's children will be entertained by the continual failures of your kind.

Blessed be the peacemakers- not the over thinkers.


By elron on 9/4/2008 11:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
News flash: I'm not a guy

And bravo...your biting assessment that I am a "pretentious douchebag" has completely made me reassess everything I believe in! Oh thank-you random internet stranger for enlightening me, for without you, I'd have never known!

Gawwd, would you grow up?


By crash resistant on 9/7/2008 4:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well "I'm not a guy" looks to be an attempt to make me appear sexist. I'm sure with a name like Elron combined with the fact that most posters here by a huge margin are male, you can understand my assumption. Sorry about that.

Wow... you come back to check your post for reply's, you see mine, and respond? Why?
"Newsflash", "Bravo", "Gawwd", "Grow up"..
And...
*insert sarcastic paragraph*

Following that kind of originality I half expected you to call me a troll. (Or about how you shouldn't feed them) I see it all the time...

Sadly I never get the motivation to rag on strangers over the internet. So, congratulations because your post was so lacking, disguised with false substance, and plainly god-awful that it broke a 10+ year record.

The truth is that I never intended on correcting or changing you personally, at all. I simply wanted to persuade a more casual or less careful reader than myself from falling too deep into your ... post.

Thanks, crash (at) crashresistant.com


By elron on 9/8/2008 4:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
Why would someone come back to check their post? Um, maybe because the whole notion of a discussion is to listen to the reply, see if it gives you any insight into a topic you're interested in.

See, it would seem a bit absurd to simply draw more attention to a post that in your opinion is "disguised with false substance, and plainly god-awful" but offer no specific criticisms, other than you suspect my verbosity is a cover for the fact I don't know anything about this subject matter.

If my post is so terrible that even you, in your infinite wisdom, can't find anything worthy to specifically criticize, then I think people are capable of coming to that conclusion even without your assistance. Why draw more attention to something that most people would just skim over anyhow?

I added my two cents because climate change and politics is kind of important when you live on the driest human-inhabited continent on earth. Our country saw a swing to labor in the last elections, not just because of a voter backlash from the previous governments changes to work-place legislation, but also through the many seats won because of the flow of preferences from the Greens. Along with an one independent and one family first senator, the Greens now hold the balance of power in the senate, making the senate a very interesting place of late. And they reflect a very real sentiment across many electorates, urban, suburban and rural, that neglect and misuse of our water resources, especially the Murray-Darling which is facing total collapse in the lower lakes, has been a grave mistake.

Back in 2000, we studied this system in VCE Geography. Even though our rainfall was still relatively good at that stage, there were signs of shifting precipitation patterns, and predictions that the south-east region, the Murray-Darling "food-bowl" could suffer increasing aridity, compounding problems of rising salinity, the tensions between environmental and irrigation flows, not to mention the states, whose management as the system can only be described as a monumental failure.

Back before the election everything was about the economy. The solution according to then Tresurer Peter Costello: More babies...and I quote "One for mum, One for dad, and one for the country!" Meanwhile all signs are pointing to environmental collapse in the very system which underlies them lovely export figures, but more importantly is relied on to (a) feed ourselves, (b) supply household water, including to the people of Adelaide, who are feeling a bit edgy at the moment seeing as what used to be extensive lakes wetlands now coming to resemble a barren moon-scape. Perhaps because the liberals seem determined to render themselves completely irrelevant in the wider public debate on the environment and water security (which considering the substantial rural vote for the libs has become increasingly *ahem* difficult), the greens have in a way become a default opposition on what is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT issues facing our government.

Anyhow, I don't really care if you think I'm uneducated or boring or whatever. I care about these topics especially in regards to public policy and governance. We have daily reports of rural suicides. Whole towns are collapsing or under threat of collapse, with every farming family leaving an area meaning an increased burden for those remaining to maintain the basic infrastructure needed to both deliver water and in some cases say mill grains or process milk produced in these areas. Without a critical mass of agricultural activity, not only do the farming jobs dry out, but so too all those sectors that service it.

I guess it would be a shame if the internet, rather than facilitating productive debate, especially on pertinent and difficult subjects like climate, became a place to marginalize dissent. But if you want to go on some mission to convince people you're right about how stupid anything I say is, then good for you...if it gets you through the day then far be it from me to take that away from you.


By crash resistant on 9/9/2008 1:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
You ride a high pony don't you?

quote:
Back in 2000, we studied this system in VCE Geography. Even though our rainfall was still relatively good at that stage, there were signs of shifting precipitation patterns, and predictions that the south-east region, the Murray-Darling "food-bowl" could suffer increasing aridity, compounding problems of rising salinity, the tensions between environmental and irrigation flows, not to mention the states, whose management as the system can only be described as a monumental failure.


Before typing all this out, did you stop to consider the possibility that you're precious study may have absolutely nothing to do with man made global climate change?
Are you that ignorant?

Newsflash: Your country has been getting dryer, hotter, and more desolate for millions of years. What you're just not figuring out is the rate has increased lately. Congratulations! More hockey stick projections and global mob-fearmongering.

Get a real job.

! *thinks of the ways all that money and energy could have been better spent*


By crash resistant on 9/9/2008 1:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow. I can't believe I've just read an interesting article on sunspots, to have it followed up by the most ignorant bunch of ranting I've ever seen.

Is it really outrageous and record breaking ignorance you have witnessed? Or frustration by concerned nerds like we all are? Be realistic here, it’s not that bad. Perhaps next time you can contribute a little substance to a rant of your own- rather than geo-political-social-theological.. hot air. I was half expecting you to use the word antidisestablishmentarianism. Sheesh. I’ll explain why…

quote:
See, I get the whole skepticism on Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC - a term I think is more in step with the current theoretic framework in question, given a recognition of the complexity of climate science). I *get* skepticism on a whole bunch of scientific theories.

Most of the “skepticism” on scientific theories on this subject is caused by scientific data. It’s not something you “*get*”. It’s not a trend. Not a fad. It’s rarely even political or morally complex. It’s substantial evidence. I find it insulting and degrading that someone as intelligent as you (with good grammar and a concerned mind, at least) would assume that “our” (those who are “skeptics” of ACC) frustration is uncalled for.
This isn’t a “personal attack” or “instant polarization” so please read between the lines to discover the roots of frustration. You’re not a peacemaker, so stop trying to be one.
quote:
Anyhow, the way I see it, science IS political, whether we like it or not. The 'scientific method' can dually be seen as a great triumph for reason, and also as a source of authority which unfortunately is never as certain as we'd like it to be, but is utilized anyhow in formulating public policy.

Pure science is not political nor a source of political authority. Your definition of science is, however. That’s my #1 problem with the massive influx of your breed these days. You seem to be more interested in uncertainly and theory. It drives your propaganda.
Once again this is not a personal insult- it is my opinion and observation.
quote:
When it comes to climate science and ACC, there are good reasons for skepticism, but politically and there are good reasons to ASSUME that we can and do disrupt the natural equilibrium of our world….Some parallels might be drawn between environmental law and those surrounding the marketing and safety of medicines or other medical procedures, which I won't go into detail about, but the safety of SSRI's, immunizations and breast implants all come to mind as other controversies where science, politics and law have all butted heads.

No you can’t get away with including breast implants and climate change in the same paragraph without a big meany-face like me calling it out, sorry.
quote:
The more recent shift towards accepting ACC as a fact, especially over here (Aus) is, I think a double edged sword. On one hand, coming from the area of study I do, I tend to think that we know far less than we think we do, but also, that society couldn't function without assumptions, even those which are likely to be deemed faulty. See, I'm okay with this. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that there was over-whelming evidence CO2 is nothing at all to worry about, I'd be pretty darn happy about it.

There are gigantic pieces of evidence that point to the theory that man made CO2 has nothing at all to do with climate change. Email me if you would like some material. However I suggest you follow-up on it regardless if you truly are interested in your happiness.

There is no reason to sacrifice human life and suffering for the sake of a “just in case” strategy are preserving mankind. If there was, the wiser of us would more pro-actively slaughter idiots. It just doesn’t make sense. We are too careful and loving of creatures put long term survival above short term. Society these days has proven to only plan a single generation ahead. Welcome to the 21st century.
I can and will argue that climate change projects and legislation cause death and destruction. (Not like, bombs blowing up, but people dying, starving or at best leading less comfortable lives)
quote:
The downside for a world where ACC is shown as false, is that resultant cynicism towards environmental concerns more generally might derail many of the projects given political momentum by the ACC narrative, even if they have merits in their own right - I'm thinking about some of the non-climate-change environmental and human rights concerns surrounding oil drilling,

The downside is a lack of fear of harming the planet? People have only proven to be more concerned about the planet as we pay more attention to science! Do you know anything about oil drilling environmental damage? ..Or economics? You’re so progressive you’re destructive in reasoning! For example, stability in the petro market has only caused unforeseen growth and prosperity. Not everything currently successful is “anti-competitive”. The oil business is by far the most competitive and driven industry, in history.
quote:
Also, in this case, the temptation to generalize from the incorrectness of the theory of ACC, to all cases where collective activity could result in detrimental effects, potentially undermines efforts to ensure the wider public good, whenever complexity and uncertainty are in prominent in relevant evidence. After all, if we weren't geared towards identifying and avoiding *potential adverse risks*, even in the absence of solid evidence, our species probably wouldn't have lasted this long.

Once again- you seem to cling to fearing some phantom “lack of wider public good” in regard to the environment. Fess up. Explain this theory more. It’s reasonable to imagine but there’s no evidence that people would start dumping oil and batteries in your lake- In fact just the opposite. I find hope and prosperity to lead to more of its kind.
quote:
That being said, I contend that the work of scientists IS important for everyone in coming to the most coherent and reasoned understanding of the world possible, but there is a disconnect between a scientific and the day-to-day way science is contextualized and utilized - a disconnect that is likely exacerbated by the growing complexity and specialization/compartmentalization of different scientific fields. The everyday person can't possibly have the in-depth knowledge in all scientific fields pertaining to all things that they need to make decisions upon,

Don’t be discouraged by a little more complexity or array of data coming out of the stream of scientific discoveries every day. It’s indeed possible to grasp to attain truth and coherence for our actions. There is never a need to do something wrong “just in case” to save the world without very strong evidence.
Argument should be encouraged and sought after. Don’t dismiss frustration with ignorance with a pretentious fart. If anything is dangerous in science, it is belief and propaganda. It will inflame a mob-rule of ignorance over truth and prosperity.


By elron on 9/9/2008 8:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, thanks for the comprehensive reply. I'll try and keep my reply brief:

* "Pure science is not political nor a source of political authority." See, this is a great statement because I admire your commitment to a lofty ideal, but it does beg the question: What is pure science? There is not an ounce of sarcasm in my voice. If you could clarify this would be good.

* The mention of "breast implants", along with SSRI's and immunizations, was done not to make a comprehensive point, but to list some previous scientific controversies where public safety/liability had to be determined in situations where what was "good" and "junk" science were difficult to determine. Given the current situation it seemed entirely appropriate. I'm sorry if I didn't draw the comparison explicitly enough.

* Also, in case it wasn't apparent, I'm trying to be as neutral as possible in regards to the truth of ACC, because the aim of my initial post was to air a view that science is inherently political, yet there is a danger in filtering everything through the lens of partisanship or vested interest. I'm trying to use 'political' in a wider sense, which makes it difficult to see how the practice of science is exempt, especially given the scale of the wider scientific 'apparatus' required to support the kind of research being undertaken. Is pure science something other than than the practice of science, or the outcomes of the practice of science? I'd love your thoughts.

* The reason I bring up first studying our water system back then is because it was when a very particular pattern of changing climate was predicted, outside of the usual drought cycles our country is accustomed to. The predictions were really not taken seriously, and everyone* believed the drought would break in 4 or 5 years like these "once in a century" events are suggested to have done. At the same time - the CSIRO - are jumping up and down saying "Noooo, this is different. There are completely different patterns of climate...and they're consistent with the predictions of Global Warming". I can't possibly give the sad mid-recent history of the Murray-Darling basin proper treatment here, but this is a HUGE TOPIC that has nothing to do with whether person a or person b is right about the cause of the current climate. It's a monumental failure of the "she'll be right" attitude endemic to this region. :P

* Now, I am remaining COMPLETELY NEUTRAL on what is causing this warming. I know solar variation is taken into account by CC models, but whether its effect is under-represented, I make no claim to know. The point is that over here, climate change skepticism WAS USED to avoid infrastructure investment...to avoid pushing for politically unpopular projects like recycled and storm water harvesting...to keep policies like the "baby bonus" unproblematic, even without guaranteeing all those extra people access to water into the future.

* My reference to "in the public good", is because I am a parliament junkie and it is a specific term that appears in proposed amendments - specifically as a guiding principle when applying the laws. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it was in this senate inquiry: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/gb... - Anyhow, I'm with you that it's not well explained in the legislation - a point that many witnesses put to the senate inquiry. It does suggest, however, that there is an integral link between this rather unscientific and subjective concept of 'public good', and research pertaining to the reef that warrants attention. 'Pure Science', may - best case scenario - give us a completely accurate picture of the world, but then what? Will arguments suddenly evaporate because people agree on a set of facts? What the heck is a fact anyhow?

*Of course not EVERYONE...but it was a common theme especially in the coalition (Libs/Nationals).


By elron on 9/9/2008 10:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
And just to show that I'm not bias in my criticism of the major parties, check out the *ahem* less-than-flattering evidence given about some of the Queensland state labor government in regards to water security listed under:

Options for additional water supplies for South-East Queensland > http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/comm...

It's hilarious reading. Some of them senators are really snarky!


Where does the data say that?
By martinw on 9/1/2008 10:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
According to data from the NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, the last time such an event occurred was June of 1913.

So I followed the link and according to the data the number was 0.0 in 1913. However the the number for August 2008 was not zero but actually 0.5. Also it was lower in June 1954 than now, at 0.2. So I don't understand how you draw that conclusion from the linked data.

It still doesn't look dramatically unusual yet overall, the time and values for this minimum currently look similar to that of the mid-50s. Now if it stays low for a few more months then it starts to get interesting.

Perhaps a bit too early to be spreading such alarmism?




RE: Where does the data say that?
By martinw on 9/1/2008 10:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
Edit - ok, I see the data on that page does not include August 2008. So is there a link showing the August 2008 data? I see data here that looks nonzero, but presumably there is a different source you are looking at?

http://space-env.esa.int/Data_Plots/noaa/ssn_plot....

Anyway, I'd stand by the original comment that this minimum is so far not way out of line with others, but if it persists for a few more months then it does indeed get interesting.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
Winter was very cold last year. Seven year locust coming this year!


RE: Where does the data say that?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 11:14:20 AM , Rating: 3
> "I see data here that looks nonzero"

Yes. There was a brief speck on Aug 21, which the NOAA and other observing stations said didn't meet the criteria for an official spot.

Just hours after this story hit Drudge, the NOAA flip-flopped and decided to count the Aug 21 phage, giving August half a spot for the month.

Other sources such as Mount Wilson and SIDC are still reporting zero spots for Aug. I have amended the article accordingly.


RE: Where does the data say that?
By martinw on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 11:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
We're not using the NOAA to get the 1913 point; that data is available from multiple sources

And an article update is coming shortly; I'm waiting for a response from SIDC at the moment, as they apparently reported the sunspot in the wrong hemisphere of the sun. Since its very rare to reverse an earlier decision on whether a spot is official or not, it's important to get clarification as to why exactly they did, or if they even meant to do so.


Does this?
By dickeywang on 9/1/2008 10:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
have anything to do with the recent flood in India and massive earthquake in China? I'd love to read some scientific paper regarding the relationship between the activity of Sun and the climate and seismic phenomena.




RE: Does this?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
The rumble in your gut is inversely proportional to the heat output of great fireball in sky. Is that what you mean?


RE: Does this?
By StevoLincolnite on 9/1/2008 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
The Butterfly effect.


RE: Does this?
By dickeywang on 9/1/2008 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it should be more than that. Keep in mind most of the climate phenomena, including rain, cloud, seasonal hurricanes etc, can be directly linked to the sun.


RE: Does this?
By Donkeyshins on 9/1/2008 2:04:14 PM , Rating: 3
Oh crap - does this mean there is a relationship between sunspot activity and Ashton Kutcher's film activity? If the relationship is proportional, then everyone should hope - nay, pray - for an extended period of no sunspots.


SUN Microsystems
By Visual on 9/1/2008 10:50:36 AM , Rating: 3
Ok everyone, fess up! How many of you thought this article was going to be about SUN Microsystems when reading the title? I can't be the only one...

I know, I know... I've read it in the footer under a lot of articles already - DailyTech is a science website. I'm just for some reason associating it with IT... don't know why.

Doesn't matter though. I'll just go to www.newscientist.com or some such to read about IT :p




RE: SUN Microsystems
By grenableu on 9/1/2008 11:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the photo of the big flaring ball didn't clue you in?


RE: SUN Microsystems
By Visual on 9/2/2008 3:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
There are no photos on the dailytech column on anandtech.com
Are you suggesting that there are any other ways to reach the dailytech articles? Nonsense!


RE: SUN Microsystems
By Donkeyshins on 9/2/2008 12:00:19 AM , Rating: 3
Busted.

Guilty as charged.


YEAH!
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 2:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Mikey I knew you were full of it but this one's a doozy! I went to soho's website to take a look at their gallery of daily images.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/synoptic/sunsp...

I picked a month out of the blue just to see if there were any other pictures of the sun with no spots. February sounded good to me so I looked. Strangely enough I found that on many days the sun had no spots at all. I found them throughout the month in 2005 and through every year up to this one! What a SURPRISE! You're taking, yet again, someone else's work and using it to support your own claims. This is why it's so simple to dismantle your argument's. Have a good one Mikey!




RE: YEAH!
By whiskerwill on 9/4/2008 2:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well "Underqualified", it looks like your name certainly describes your reading comprehension. There are always some days without spots. The news is there's been an entire MONTH (thats 30 days in a row, by the way) without them.


RE: YEAH!
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 4:32:55 PM , Rating: 3
WOW! Whiskerwill you truly are amazing! I never knew I couldn't read. But since you say there are always days without spots, as if you can defend this with some scientific proof, I guess my only response would be to ask you to show some of that proof. I'll give you something else to search for once you catch up to where I've already been. How about you check how often there are up to 3 to 4 weeks (that's 21-28 days in a row, by the way) without them. If you knew what you were talking about you'd find that its not uncommon. Go figure. So what you're now trying to say is those 2-9 days make the point credible. Thanks tho for finding the most creative way to use my name! A+++ for the effort!


RE: YEAH!
By underqualified on 9/5/2008 6:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hey where's Mike to take up your defense since it seems you're unable? Doesn't seem like something a great friend would do. If you want, I'll be your new friend! The only difference is I'll tell you the truth! Some people just want to make themselves seem intelligent by using other's material. Using, not understanding, just using. SMILES ALL AROUND :-D


Global warming hoax.
By Spiritsoup on 9/1/2008 9:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
When will you sheep realize that green house gases represent only .05% of the gases in our atmosphere and of that .05%, carbon is .05%. The solar activity of the sun, the current of our oceans and the amount of cloud cover on this plant dictates temp. Not Carbon...it's all a lie you dupes have bought into so now the U.N. and other global governments are doing their damnedest to instill a Global Carbon tax. If the Idiot Box constantly repeated the sky was really green most you morons would think it was.
Wake up, set down the remote and beer and do the research your selves. If you don't hear an opposing view on ANY subject, chances are it's a lie or propaganda.
You are all sheep...you actually think the Bull shit they peddle on the T.V. as truth.
T.V. is an illusion along with 90% of the News reported on the Corporate CFR member owned media. You are all fools.




RE: Global warming hoax.
By stilltrying on 9/1/2008 9:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the people are clueless as to what you speak. CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderburg, Club Of Rome, etc... America has become a nation of sheep easily led with lies by the media and those with power. Even with the coming depression, the sheeple will believe the reason for the depression as told to them on TV and the paper.


RE: Global warming hoax.
By Spiritsoup on 9/2/2008 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
How sad...true, but sad. It's a shame people in the U.S. will continue to believe that the price of oil has gone up not the real reason which is the purchasing power of the fiat U.S. dollar has gone down. And when you try to explain this to people they are just to dumbed down to comprehend the truth.
But that is the plan is it not? To lower the buying power of the dollar to that of Canada and Mexico so the Fed can come in with the Amero as the savior of our dying economy. They did it in the EU and now they are doing it here. It makes me sick how soooo many people have no clue as to what is really going on. But just like in the 1976 film "Network", "Just let me have my television, my toaster oven and my steel belted radial tires and leave me alone."
Pathetic...But when they are all herded of into the FEMA work camps and are starving in the streets with RFID chips in their arms maybe then they will wake up. But then again they probably won't. It's becoming tyranny on the grandest scale ever witnessed by man. And Man-kind, through it's wonted ignorance...deserves it.


RE: Global warming hoax.
By ShaolinSoccer on 9/4/2008 5:13:07 AM , Rating: 2
Every single country on the planet has this problem. NOT just the USA. Gosh, you yourself is a sheep for even thinking USA is the only country in the world that is like this....


What kinda lag time we looking at?
By Amiga500 on 9/1/2008 12:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
Between the drop in solar activity and the change in global climate?

Anyone any idea?




RE: What kinda lag time we looking at?
By rudolphna on 9/1/2008 11:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
probably near-instantaneous.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 11:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
The heat content of the oceans is enormous; that alone introduces a high degree of latency into any response.

As to the response time, basic physics tells us it depends on the frequency (or period, if you prefer) of the forcing agent. Since even a single forcing such as the earth's orbital wobbles (Milankovitch cycles) actually consists of a half-dozen or more superimposed cycles of various periods, calculating response time is extraordinarily complex.

The sun as well has a large number of cycles (the 11-year Hale sunspot cycle, the Gleissburg ande de Vries cycles, and many others. Obviously, one cycle can be increasing while another decreasing, leading to a temperature response that requires spectral analysis to make any sense of.

Throw in the multide of other forcings, along with a huge number of positive and negative feedback mechanisms, most of which are poorly understood or not even yet elucidated, and you begin to understand why serious researcher claims to understand climate well.


I'm hopeful...
By beezdotcom on 9/1/2008 2:26:21 PM , Rating: 3
...I'm starting to see a number of otherwise 'liberal' people begin to question the unwavering belief in AGW...and that's a good thing. The politics of AGW are ultimately damaging to the poorest of the poor, because jacking up fuel costs to drive people to other fuel sources will hurt the people who can least afford it.

Once liberals and conservatives finally agree to remove the politics from this area of science, and the existing data is finally analyzed without agenda, it may serve to create momentum to further bulwark science against political opportunism. (Hey, a fella can dream, can't he?)




RE: I'm hopeful...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Since MMGW is a 100% polical issue confected with the purest of political motives to grab power and money if you remove politics there will be nothing left !

Try focusing on real problems. I won't want to legislate money for them either but at least you will not look insanely neurotic!


RE: I'm hopeful...
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 4:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Global Warming is not a science. It's a social science - dictating to people how they should run their lives.

You're correct. It prohibits poor nations from developing their natural resources such as coal and oil - keeping people in poverty. It's only the rich who can afford to be GW-Friendly. "Sure thing. I'll pay that carbon tax to save the world" - for your money you will and which won't save the world. The Carbon Offset Tax payer is still riding around in his jet and suv - the latter two considered evil.

GW is for the unthinking, economic knowledge-challenged, uneducated, insensitive, souless, touchy-feely types who believe saving a green milkweed is more important than poor people who pay more for food, clothing and basic shelter.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 4
The Great Global Warming Swindle mentioned the sunspot connection. It has turned out to be much more accurate than all the ENDLESS shows they have on Discover, History and Science channels.

When will "The Great Global Warming Swindle" be played in the USA? For gods sake they played it in Britain and they are supposedly alot more restrictive of free speech.

In case you have not watched it: http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/great-global-wa...




By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 11:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
We really have to thank the heroic intellect of the Internet for teaching all these dump climatologists that the Sun has an influence on the climate!

BRAVO!

Btw., it was sooo obvious that the global warming swindle introduced to the world by Al Gore was a lie!
I mean have you seen all these youtube videos on how wrong this is?!


By The Night Owl on 9/2/2008 9:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
As usual, DT is behind the curve...

http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/Info/lunews.nsf/I/379EA8...




By masher2 (blog) on 9/2/2008 10:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
I've commented on the Sloane-Wolfendale paper before, which makes a number of serious errors. To start, one small correction -- the article incorrectly reports their results as finding "no link". This is incorrect. What they did say is that less than 23% of the global cloud cover delta is due to cosmic rays. That's still a significant amount. Their actual paper is here. Read it yourself; never trust a media account:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001...

But a much more serious error is that Sloan et al examined low-energy cosmic rays. These are the ones which reach the ground (they used ground-based neutron counts). But it is the high-energy rays which are absorbed in the upper atmosphere that cause ionization and formation of clouds.

Note that papers by other researchers -- and experimental evidence by Svensmark himself, which doesn't have to rely on indirect statistical means -- have shown a correlation, especially at certain latitudes. Here's one such paper below. Dr. Usoskin, mentioned in the article above, has a couple himself.

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/77543w3q4...


By The Night Owl on 9/3/2008 1:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're kicking at an open door when you tell me not to trust media accounts. I posted the LU News article because it contains a link to the Sloan-Wolfendale study.

First, the LU News article reports that Sloan-Wolfendale found "no significant link" between ionizing cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover.

Second, a 23% change in cloud cover is not necessarily significant. It might be but it might not be... it depends on what the actual percentage is.


Peer Review Humbug
By DoctorOfLove on 9/1/2008 11:37:38 AM , Rating: 1
This creates two problems for the global warming-eenies.

First, maybe the gigantic star right next to the earth does have an effect on the earth's climate.

Second, the paper predicted this was rejected by a peer review committee.

Where is your peer review god now?




RE: Peer Review Humbug
By martinw on 9/1/2008 11:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
Of course the sun has an effect on the Earth's climate. Climate models have included solar effects for a long time. You can argue about the way it is incorporated into the models, but to suggest it is not being taken into account at all is nonsense.

On the peer review issue:

Firstly if you read above that the author of the paper himself said that the rejection by peer review was justified at the time.

Secondly you should see that the paper predicted zero sunspots in 10 years. So it's far too early to claim he was right. He himself says so too ("He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.)

Finally, note that this month was not a zero sunspot month after all, as the NOAA have amended their data since this article was published (see other thread here.)


RE: Peer Review Humbug
By porkpie on 9/1/2008 12:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like at least some sources are still reporting it as a spotless month. So take your pick as to which one to believe.


As an engineer
By Suntan on 9/2/2008 2:26:34 PM , Rating: 3
(bare with me guys, its long and drawn out, but I guarantee that it won’t be too interesting…)

As an engineer, it always amuses me to see people’s response to the statement,

“We don’t know yet.”

When they ask a question pertaining to something that can have future ramifications. It happens a lot. Unfortunately, just because a question is asked, it doesn’t mean that an answer is known, or that there is even a clear path known to get to the answer. It is amusing because quite honestly, uncertainty is more fear inducing than telling them, in no uncertain terms that something is wrong. After you tell them that something is wrong and it will have a very negative impact (on whatever project, schedule, lawsuit, etc.) they still get this sense of relief that comes over them because at least they have an answer. I’ve seen it abused to such an extent that they will literally bludgeon someone verbally until they receive a yes or no to the question even though that person just commented that they do not have an answer, no more than a few moments before.

I say this, because it is clearly what is happening with GW. Everyone is so scared about the *potential* issues that GW can have, that the paralyzing fear of not knowing if it is a problem or not is worse than subscribing to a caveman-like lifestyle as long as it means they can tell themselves the ambiguity is gone and we have already decided on a course of action.

Now, I am an engineer with a lot of experience in design of refrigeration equipment. In accordance with this, I have many years of education on thermodynamics and heat/mass transfer. (I’m by no means a “climatologist” and do not pretend to understand the workings of the world, but reading some of the actual articles that get published, it is clear that a lot of “climatologists” do not understand the basic principles of thermodynamics either.) Anyway, the point I am making is that I have a “better than average” understanding of how things get hot and how things get cold.

A couple years back, I spent a good week reading up on the actual data involved with global warming. I was personally curious, and it was applicable to work as the impact of government sanctions against different refrigerants (what the greens always seem to think of as just “greenhouse gases”) could cause every project we had going to stop in their tracks (and I was bored at work.)

After spending the better part of two days just trying to find information on the web that was free of obvious bias (you can just tell when an article has bias – whether it is pro or con for any subject.) I finally came upon the most raw of data available. I forget the title of the data but it was basically the NOAA field data reports. The raw data from different scientific and field studies that had been compiled to that point. Heavy on data, light on conjecture/polished dissertations. Basically the same data that got ingested by the different think-tanks prior to them writing their various “incontrovertible proof” pieces either for or against GW.

I read a great deal of the 600 and some pages available. The one thing that just kept leaping out at me was that all this information was so conflicting and open ended (and that a lot of it only had high quality, accurate sampling for maybe the last 10 years or less) that anyone trying to write a dissertation to put the question of GW “to bed” was either a complete fraud, an ego maniacal blowhard, or completely aloof to the astounding amount of variables involved.

So I began to read about some of these different “global climate forecasting models” that were, and still are the linchpin of all things pro GW. As I read about their merits and shortcomings, it started to become clear that a lot of them simply did not encompass all the information available for modeling such a complex operation. Its not that they purposely left out information that conflicted with the results people wanted to see, but just that the information (limited as it is in terms of historical depth) is still just too much to even try and quantitate much less model the interactions of, so a lot of it was simply “left out.”

About this same time as all of this, two things happened in the real world that really brought things into perspective. First, was the widely reported computer model the summer after Katrina hit that the hurricane season would be very bad with many more hurricanes making landfall than the previous year (numbers up into the teens if memory serves.) This was a climatological estimate, admittedly dealing with a very large land area (from the coast of Africa over to and including most of the East coast of N & S America) but still only a small portion of the globe, with a foreword looking estimate that only extended out about 4 months. Now for anyone that remembers the preseason doom and gloom, the result was, I believe, 3 tropical storms that grew into hurricanes, and none of them even making landfall in the States. I remember thinking to myself, these guys can’t even get it right when talking about a one season general trend what only extends a couple of months. There’s no way they are ready for primetime with their global modeling out 10, 20, 50 or more years.

The second thing that showed it clear as day that they weren’t ready to go thumbs-out was a news report stating that researchers in the northern territory of Alaska had just proven that they had found liquid water vapor present in cloud formations at temperatures below -60°F. At the time, this was hailed as monumental news in the climate modeling community because the interaction of the sun’s rays to water vapor (as opposed to solid ice particles) is basically polar opposites from the standpoint of heating the earth. The fact that this commonly held assumption (no water vapor at such cold temps in the atmosphere) was just recently proven wrong further shows that climate models, based on a lot of assumptions, just isn’t going to give us a dead-nuts-on answer to the question that everybody wants to say they already have solved.

Sorry guys, its just not as simple as deciding to believe the question has been answered.

At least, that’s my take on the subject.

-Suntan




RE: As an engineer
By theendofallsongs on 9/2/2008 2:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. I've heard it said that we're at least 50 years away from even having computers powerful enough to model the climate. The current models use enormous cell sizes (treating thousands of cubic miles as a single homogenous entity) and leave out huge numbers of critical factors, just so the computers can handle them. And even still they continually mispredict climate even a few years into the future.

Predicting climate now is about like the ancient greeks predicting rain was due to gods living in trees. Maybe it was the best explanation at the time. But that's not saying much


Global Cooling...
By Phocus on 9/1/2008 9:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
But...we have programs! We...we are getting ready to tax everyone based on WARMING! Now, you bring up this cooling crap? People are going to think we don't know what we're doing...they might stop praying...er listening to us. This is terrible! Al...? Al...? Al, you gotta stop em!




RE: Global Cooling...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you understand we are cooling because we are globally warming? er wait....we are warming because we are cooling.

Ooh ... my pretty little liberal head gets all confused nowdays. Its that logic stuff and number thingies....they make my head hurt because all I have is a liberal arts degree and a strong desire to feel part of "something" even if its not real.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
... It is only logical if

If it was logical to have a carbon tax when we were warming

... It is only logical to have a carbon subsidy if we are cooling !!

Ok Al .. Gas up my car. And while you are at it please wash, wax and vacuum it. It will be good for you my portly friend as you have been eating good lately and can afford to lose a few.




By lochness on 9/2/2008 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore sets up carbon-trading bourse BEFORE he goes on the road with his dog and pony show. Sunspot data may show tiny sunspot, but is it really significant? So they say they'll "count it as a half a spot"? Sounds like Orwell to me. Is it getting colder or warmer? Colder, drier, where I am. Warmer, wetter somewhere else. Who knows? I don't, and if everyone was honest, they'd admit they don't know either. But I do know Al Gore is set up to make lots of money off of carbon trading. Follow the money to the truth, it works every time. If Al Gore had no connection to carbon trading, I'd be more inclined to believe in it.


WRONG. Mt Wilson must have been sleeping
By fictisiousname on 9/1/2008 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
because Sunspots were indeed observed in August.

Check Spaceweather.com




By fictisiousname on 9/1/2008 1:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
I found this from their Aug 21 Archive

http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day...

It does say that they were the first in "over a month" so maybe there's just a need to correct the article re: no spots in August


Obama and Taxes
By Loryienne on 9/1/2008 1:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Of course Obama would likely not say he was raising taxes on everyone ... but he has already introduced legislation that would give tons more money to the poor nations of the world (forget the fact that huge money handouts grow the bureaucracies and corruption in those nations). He also promises 0-5 free public preschool and national health insurance. Don't forget that he is willing to sink the economy in caps and trade and global carbon taxes in support of the global warming hoax. Personally, I think these actions will require more taxes, while likely reducing our incomes in other ways.




RE: Obama and Taxes
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
Obama?

Puh-leaze.

Most Americans shower/bath and use anti-perspirant daily. So why would they want to have BO for four years?


RE: Obama and Taxes
By Donkeyshins on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
Global Change is religious. I can prove it.
By The Tankstar on 9/2/2008 3:33:25 AM , Rating: 2
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.(King James Version). This directly refutes the belief of global climate warming or cooling or changing. To have people believe in any of these new scientific senarios you must first convince them that the Bible is make believe. And that is not going to happen. Also if I am not mistaken the last great scientific blunder other than evolution, was during the time when the majority believed the world was flat. Once again the Bible also refuted this as well. It would not be so sad but the fact that science's most foolish blunders have always been contrary belief to the Bible, while science's greatest endeavors have been based upon the discipline found in that very book. Check your history and know the belief system of the greatest scientists who ever lived.




By FITCamaro on 9/2/2008 6:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
You can find references in the Bible to justify many things. I think people once tried to use the Bible to justify slavery.

Personally I think if god had feelings he'd be smacking himself in the face shouting "DOH!" whenever arguments like this are brought up. I have no problem with religion. I grew up Catholic. But to try and interpret modern events by referencing the Bible is foolish. You can make anything say anything if you stretch the words far enough (look at what our Supreme Court is doing with the Constitution if you need an example).

And to not believe in any measure of evolution is lunacy. There are fossil records dating back millions of years that show a clear path of development for man and other creatures. That doesn't mean a "god" couldn't have started life on this planet. Or another planet and it got brought here. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I may not be a religious person but I do believe somewhere, sometime, everything had to have been started by something. I also recognize that the Bible was written in a time period where people believe that those with leprosy were cursed by God. If you went back in time today with some of our modern technology, you'd be considered a god.


What's Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)
By Live on 9/2/2008 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.
So says NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That's not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle." This report, that there's nothing to report, is newsworthy because of a growing buzz in lay and academic circles that something is wrong with the sun.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_sola...




By greenchasch on 9/2/2008 10:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
We've logged about 50 more spotless days since Hathaway originally wrote that article.

Also Hathaway is the fellow who, in 2006, predicted this solar minimum would be weaker than normal. Instead, he's had to keep revising his charts over and over (and it looks like the one in that article is already out of date)


Missing the Point??
By TomHMann on 9/2/2008 1:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
"and the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all they house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation" Genesis 7:1




RE: Missing the Point??
By Pavelyoung on 9/3/2008 7:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hey the guy next door is named Noah and he says that god never said a word to him.


SPOTLESS SUNLIGHT & BURN MODES
By AENEUMANN on 9/2/2008 10:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
It is entirely possible, if the Knumbskoff-Christofnick theory is correct, that anytime the sun goes quiet there is a higher probability that it might change burn modes and go into burning helium instead of hydrogen.

Knumbskoff-Christoffnick analysis shows that when the burn mode changes, the sun will flicker several times. This will result in a subsequent period of virtually complete blackness followed by a bright flash as helium-burning kicks in. The time between the flickering and the blackout is supposed to be several months. The flickering will not be evident to the naked eye however every astronomer will know it.




By Pavelyoung on 9/3/2008 7:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
True, but you can calculate the weight of the sun and what its composed of so that you have a rough idea when that should happen. Based on the data we have of the sun we are a few billion years away from that point.


according to this page
By ShaolinSoccer on 9/4/2008 5:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
nasa says there were sunspots

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060830.html

gotta love people who write articles just for the sake of getting clicks on advertisements for money....

speaking of which, if there is anything I can't stand about reading any kind of news article, it's seeing tons of advertisement all over the page. I want the news. NOT a bunch of leeching advertisements for pete's sake! I realise people gotta make a buck but this is rediculous!




RE: according to this page
By thepalinator on 9/4/2008 8:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
gotta love people who write articles just for the sake of getting clicks on advertisements for money....

Gotta love people too stupid to realize their link points to a picture from TWO YEARS AGO, when the date is written right across the front of it. I'm still laughing.

Do us all a favor. Don't have kids.


WTF???
By quickk on 9/1/2008 11:01:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
When the sun is active, it' p begins.< cycle new a as quickly, very return sunspots Normally near-zero. to drop briefly numbers and slows, activity years, 11 Every month. single in more or 100 of sunspot see uncommon not s>




can anyone here read a graph ?????
By John Ryan on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
By Spiritsoup on 9/1/2008 9:23:52 PM , Rating: 3
Explain, then why the temps fell from 1940 until the early 1990's if carbon is the cause then shouldn't the temps have gone up since the 40's when the industrial revolution was in fill swing? Try thinking critically, just sit back and let the world government tax plant food. We are carbon based life forms along with ever other life on this planet. You people are fools. Keep buying the lies puppet.


Let's be a little more precise
By javapoppa on 9/2/2008 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 3
If you are going to discuss the issue at all at least understand the distinction that the so-called 'deniers' are not categorically denying that some warming of our planet may have taken place over the last century; what they are saying is that any such warming was not caused by human activity. Using the term 'global warming' with no qualifier is just blowing smoke. After the the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums it is only fitting that the next cooling period should be labeled The Gore Minimum.




The current ice age
By Zurtex on 9/1/2008 9:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
The author does realise we are probably in an ice age at the moment?

Just the talk of ice age is very strangely worded in this article.




solution
By adamrussell on 9/1/2008 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well, yea but we know what to do about cooling. Ramp up the co2 production.




By Anosh on 9/1/2008 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the sun is active, it' p begins.< cycle new a as quickly, very return sunspots Normally near-zero. to drop briefly numbers and slows, activity years, 11 Every month. single in more or 100 of sunspot see uncommon not s>


Damn. Perfect example of copy-paste gone wrong.




What goes up....
By rudolphna on 9/1/2008 1:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Must come down.
quote:
Usoskin, who notes the sun has been more active since 1940 than at any point in the past 11 centurie


If the maunder minumum has been the worst, and it was very active before hand, this can only mean that since the sun has been very active, that this will be the worst one yet. Everybody! Grab your winter coats, buy new skiis, and head for the lifts! I love winter, so personally, it wont bother me so much. But the possibility of a food shortage, I must admit... Is... frightning.




Peak Warming, Peak Oil
By jjauregui on 9/1/2008 7:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
I, for one, have stopped all political and environmental action donations and environmental magazine subscriptions. This includes Mother Earth News after 25 years as a faithful subscriber. Why pay for relentless, mind numbing Climate Change propaganda. We receive plenty from the media for free. I have asked all these outright liars and hucksters to take me out of their databases permanently.

We need to put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis . Everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, "What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial 1 degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks - with steepening declines forecast? Furthermore, can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, the most likely scenario given the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model forecasts of climate change?” Solar cycle # 24 will tell the tale. The problem is not AGW. The real problem is the end of cyclical warming coincident with the onset of Peak Oil. And, the critical question is who has provided Al Gore with $300,000,000 to convince all of us that we are personally responsible for Global Warming. Someone is expecting a big payoff. Perhaps it’s the www.chicagoclimatex.com lobby.




Global Worry
By tbirobot on 9/1/2008 10:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
All of you should worry about is the percentage of oxygen in the air. At 23% oxygen in the atmoshpere the atmosphere will light up in flames. In the '70's percentage was 17%, in late '80's was 19 % so what is it now? I guess the atmosphere on fire means global warming!!




Sunspots
By fntermite on 9/1/2008 10:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
I guess George Bush turned off his sunspot machine.




Detection Tools
By John Q Dallas on 9/2/2008 4:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
Every eleven years they dust off the telescope lenses and the sun starts jumping again. Actually, a bill will be simultaneously be introduced to all national legislatures to require defunct satellites be spun off to trajectories sending them to the Sun to generate sunspots. A monumental cure for our planet, rivaling the addition for fluoride to our toothpaste to dispose of the toxic aluminum production byproduct. As a Cosmologist, I love the scientific deduction that comes when a speck of dust being mistaken for a period causes Chicken Little to assume the sky is falling. The low count during the Maunder minimum may well have been due to volcanic haze. After all there were no satellites back then. There is no significant reason to assume that the 11/22 year cycle will not continue, unless there is something in it for Al Gore (inventor of the Wolf number??).




By Hitlery Clintler on 9/2/2008 9:28:55 AM , Rating: 2
The rantings of the left matches perfectly with the body of research done by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER. If you search his name online you will find abstracts of his work, see World Net Daily.




This is Bush's fault!
By sharky45 on 9/2/2008 11:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
God, he's worse than Hitler! America is the most oppressive evil country in the world. It makes me so mad I almost spilled my mocha frappacino on my Che Gueverra shirt.




By theBike45 on 9/3/2008 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
Liberals block nuclear power for 35 years and then claim others responsible for carbon emissions and global warming.




The point is!
By Pavelyoung on 9/3/2008 7:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
People, the point is that there hasn't been a year with this few sun spots since the Dalton Minimum. Whether or not the trend continues and we get something equal to the Maunder is yet to be seen. However, I can tell you that global warming is a scary topic, but the thought of a mini ice age scares me much much more.

The last time there were this few sun spots was 1823.




Global Warming and Pirates?
By sluggoTN on 9/4/2008 4:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone considered the inverse corelation between the decrease in the number of pirates and increase in global temperatures in the last 200 years?




By ConcernedHuman on 9/8/2008 9:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Islam (the belief and living accordingly inline with THE One and Only Creator, "muslim" literally means “someone who tries to do Islam”) has already messaged many scientific facts, including the bing bang, the expanding universe, the atomic structure, creation and evolution of both the universe and human kind and the creation of other creatures besides humans and animals.

Try to overcome your misconceptions due to misinformation based on international politics and the wrong doings of some muslims and open up your mind and heart to Islam, learn Islam from Islam, not from biased mass media or luciferians pretending to be muslims or misguided muslims:

QuranMiracles(.)com

WhatsIslam(.)com

ShareIslam(.)com

BibleIslam(.)com

IslamCode(.)com

TurnToIslam(.)com

AllahsQuran(.)com

Peace to all.




Silly Silly Humans
By JeebusSaves on 9/2/2008 6:19:35 PM , Rating: 1
My oh my you are a silly lot. Since when do you think you get to chose whether reality exists. I told dad that this free will thing was a mistake. Just a quick heads up though. Only lunatics and morons don't "believe" in climate change

The last scientific group with any credibility changed their tune last year making a 100% consensus in the scientific community that climate change is occurring, and that human behavior is influencing it.
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.p...

Sorry if this makes you feel guilty when you fill up your pickup, but rather than pretending that the sun rises in the west why not tell the truth. You don't give enough of a rats ass about future generations to inconvenience yourselves. At least that is an honest position.




...
By Duwelon on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By David Mc0 on 9/1/2008 9:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
There's definitely something a bit more scary about the sun's activity dropping than a gradual increase in atmospheric c02.

Lets hope this does not lead to another 'little ice age'. If it does, I'm sure Gore will move his investments from carbon credits to food stocks before prices rocket.


RE: ...
By Hypernova on 9/1/2008 10:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
The end is neigh! Get your suicide pills ready and head to the church! Burning begins at 10.


RE: ...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Read what Al Gore said:
quote:
Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense.
- Al Gore Chairman

Generation Investment Management LLP http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/

Al Gore is grifter. He flunked out of Law school. Flunked out of Divinity school. Flunked a Harvard undergrad course in basic science. But he knows how to preach Hellfire and Damnation! Yeah, Even Verily! Al Gore the Prophet! and promote his Gospel of Fear and like the Crafty Priests of TV Evangelism, take your money offering to Heal the Earth from the evil sinners of CO2.


RE: ...
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Read Al Gore's investment partner's strategy.

quote:
We hope to make sustainable investing mainstream and encourage businesses around the world to be more responsible, ethical and sustainable.
- David Blood, Managing Partner

Generation Investment Management LLP
http://www.generationim.com/strategy/

Has GW become mainstream? Has your employer embraced all things Green and GW? Hey. Thanks Al Gore.

All for his investment vehicles. Al Gore knows you're a stooge and can fall for lies as the truth if it's repeated often enough.

CO2 is evil? All so Al Gore can make a buck at your expense.


RE: ...
By JeebusSaves on 9/2/2008 7:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
totally. cum laude from Harvard undergrad then "failed out" of law school directly into Congress. what a loser.


RE: ...
By JonB on 9/1/2008 9:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
and won't it be ironic when the "carbon" people start saying - Pump more carbon into the atmosphere, the glaciers are getting TOO BIG! Polar Bears are reproducing OUT OF CONTROL!


RE: ...
By AlexWade on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 9/1/2008 10:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
With the potential for rapid cooling seeming far more likely than rapid warming, it amazes me that the government still continues to support taking perfectly good food and turning it in sub-par fuel.

I guess that's the change Obama is talking about. You'll have less food on the table.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 10:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, thats right... Turn a very recent discovery about the sun that may or may not happen into a stab at Obama. Forget the billion of dollars in Tax credits your buddy Bush gave to Oil companies and McCain wants to give even more - Obama's change really is about taking food off of our tables...

Nice stretch. NEXT!


RE: ...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 10:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
never EVER? I challenge you to find anything that shows Obama said he will raise taxes on anything other than to remove the tax breaks Bush gave to the people making over $250,000 per year and actually reduce taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year.

You are generalizing using 20 year old democratic ideology... Times have changed.


RE: ...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
You just described a tax increase. And believe me ... if he should be elected he will raise taxes like CRAZY.

The best reason against the Big Zero is that congress has unDemocrat majorities.

We need divided government. This I have seen with both unDemocrats and Republicans. This way we can get nothing done.

Nothing demonstrates the value of nothing better than MMGW. We are better off without them doing a thing.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
You are taking talking points from right wing radio and they take it right out of thin air.

I repeat, "Obama said he will to remove the tax breaks Bush gave to the people making over $250,000 per year and actually reduce taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year."

I challenge you to find anything that shows he said differently!!! Come on now, if he did, the reps would be all over it and it would be all over the web...

You cant, because he didnt, and he wont. your argument is totally flat, you have nothing to say but false attacks taken out of thin air and a political climate 20 years ago.

OWNED!


RE: ...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
LOL ... you have a liberal arts degree for sure!

Anyone who thinks democrats know ANYTHING about business are crazy. Any one who thinks they will not raise taxes is crazy.

Unfortunately sir your diagnosis comes back QWACKERS! LOL


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
No, computer science for me thanks...

But to quash your mindless point let me give you a quote...

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement

Ya, forget me and my computer degree - What could Alan Greenspan possibly know about economy that right wing radio doesnt know...

OWNED SQUARED!!!

Care to cube it? ;)


RE: ...
By grenableu on 9/1/2008 11:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
Greenspan, you mean the guy who REAGAN appointed to office?

So much for that "owned".


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes... what of it? I am not here saying everything the reps do is bad and everything the dems do is good... I am responding to others that are saying the opposite. At least I am here seeing both sides.

Reagan made a great appointment- and I can honestly say did a heck of alot of other great things as well. but to totally dismess Clinton is rediculous. Even the last 2 fed chairmans (the one before greenspan) said great things about CLintons white house and how it helped the economy.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), Fall 1994


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yes... what of it? I am not here saying everything the reps do is bad and everything the dems do is good... I am responding to others that are saying the opposite. At least I am here seeing both sides.

Reagan made a great appointment- and I can honestly say did a heck of alot of other great things as well. but to totally dismess Clinton is rediculous. Even the last 2 fed chairmans (the one before greenspan) said great things about CLintons white house and how it helped the economy.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), Fall 1994


RE: ...
By grenableu on 9/1/2008 11:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
By the way, check out this book (by a liberal no less) that talks about how enraged Clinton was by Greenspan's actions, and how incompetent the two Clinton appointees to the Fed (Blinder and Yellen) compared the the rest of the Reagan-appointed board:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Apq464YfTA0C&pg=P...


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
I see, and agree... My Point was not that CLinton never made mistakes, just that he did overall well with the ecomnomy, and so say the last 2 fed chiefs who were in office from the late 70's to the mid 2000's. Specifally Greenspan - who is very well respected by all.


RE: ...
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who says owned, owned squared, powned etc ... well its the equivalent to a mental tattoo. You know how every duface has a tatoo nowdays? Its the person without the tatoo I want to know... because they are thinking for themselves.

See the problem with liberals is they never really tell me anything I need to know. Anything that will help make my life easier. They only tell me how they are going to make me work for them like some sort of strange metaphorical socialist butler. And of course they are always envisioned in their socialist fantasies as lords of the manner.

Really ... no thanks on your liberal fantasy. Never ceases to amaze me how retro liberals are. Even in the age of the internet.


RE: ...
By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
"Its the person without the tatoo I want to know... because they are thinking for themselves."

Well good. Because I have no tatoo and never will. I feel very similar to you on tatoo's and I apologize for the owned thing... Just lashing out...

OK, back to topic. It seems to be your point that nothing any Dem did economically speaking was any good... I posted greenspans comment to Bill Clinton. What do you have to say about that comment from Greenspan?

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement



RE: ...
By theendofallsongs on 9/2/2008 2:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
Retrospooty, you sound like a liberal with a brain. Better make sure your friends don't find out -- they'll take away your membership card!


RE: ...
By Donkeyshins on 9/1/2008 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
No tattoos or earrings. Oh yeah - I'm not a conservative either. Hmmm...I must be thinking for myself.


</