Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

What a pity they haven't graphed 'methane' or 'atmospheric water vapor' in that. The latter quite seriously effects re-radiation in the Arctic circles. But what it does demonstrate is Man Compatibility is very recent and potentially quite tenuous, given the steepness of the blue 'tipping point' curve.

Thanks AH... (I'm not sure I'd call 200,000 years of data a short term graph ) and the earth we live on today is roughly the same as the one 200,000 years ago.

This graph isn't from a peer reviewed paper (it's from a web site stocked full of a hodge-podge of unreferenced anti global warming factoids) and there is no interpretation of the raw data by a climate scientist.

I'm not a climate scientist either, so I'm not going to make any bold claims, but a few basics are pretty easy to grasp. Firstly nobody claims that CO2 is the only driver of global temperatures. 50 million years ago and longer (the kind of scale legible on the colour graph) there were no Himalayas, the continents were is different places so the ocean currents were completely different, the atmosphere had a different composition and, most importantly, the sun's output was significantly lower in the distant past.

Surely all this is why science is so important - because in any field anyone can stick the raw data on the web and say "there you go - proof!". Scientists spend decades sceptically examining the data. Just like engineers - (lots of people reckon they can size a beam to hold up a roof and a lot of the time they will get away with it. But some of us spend years and decades training to make sure we know exactly which beam is the best and why.)

So as engineers we should be giving the climate scientists their due. The subject is complex and difficult - some uninterpreted raw data on the web doesn't explain very much. This site http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm references peer-reviewed science (for anyone who doesn't want to wade through journal articles - but the links are there if you do) and has a lot to say on CO2 levels if you're interested.

Thanks, Robert.

No, you do not have to stop believing in ALL peer-reviewed science, just the science where the political landscape is such, that even the scientists are encouraging each other to make their 'outcomes' match the desired result rather than presenting 'truth'.

I emailed Dr. Jones who's email account was hacked, and the very person from, which the majority of my lack of credulity and respect for climatologists emanates, and asked him straight out what was in for him to lie about the weather, and to encourage others to suppress the truth also? He never responded. I can't help but wonder what his (and his cohorts) motives could have been. Was it just egotism run amok, or are they such 'died in the wool' socialists that they feel they must make the evidence tilt in the favor of those who desire to tax the asses off the general populous; or, are they just being paid to do so by those people? Whatever the reason, I ask again - what evidence is there to the contrary, especially on this topic, that other scientists who 'are believers' are not such ideologues, that they are not above doing the exact same thing?

This is not a rhetorical question.

"He never responded."

And what else would you expect when casting such a gross insult at someone?

I think scientists do have a big image problem. My wife calls it a communication problem. But the scientific problems of our time are becoming exponentially more complex and difficult for the individual to wrap his/her mind around. Conveying the nature of such problems to the rest of the population is getting to be as big a challenge as solving the original problem.

BTW, the idea of thousands of climate scientists collaborating in a lie is a bit of a stretch. This conspiracy theory explanation for every idea or event we don't like is getting old.

Ed Weldon

Robertoz -- You articulate your position in a excellent manner. Would that I could do as well. Your last two replies are keepers for me. (Obviously I agree with them); thanks. Ed Weldon

"the 26 gigatonnes of CO2 we send into the atmosphere each year (that's about 3.4% of the total CO2 emitted by all of nature every year".

There is no way to put a proper figure of the amount of CO2 being emitted in the world. You can't take a small amount of data and extrapolate that into data for some computer model, off of which people make definitive statements about mankinds affect on our universe and consequently our local (earth) environment.

This is not a serious problem and there is no correlation between the minute actions of our civilization (especially here in the States) and global warming!

With what is being proposed by way of legislation (cap and tax, carbon credits, etc.) and the small, possibly positive, impact it might have it is not worth the cost to our economy and anyone else's in the world. That legislation will go even further in damaging our already fragile economy, without any real results to show for it. There is no positive Return On Investment. It is simply a debilitating cost to us.

Mankinds footprint in our vast universe is miniscule and we have very little impact on the "big picture". As stated in past Posts our earth is a tiny part of the universe and it was created to withstand man's presence on it. If one looks at the universe as some chance occurence through random action then I can see how one would view this universe and our place in it as a fragile balance. The premise we start from is important to the outcome of the interpretation of the scientific data.

energy has always been a political football, with special interests firmly in control

we haven't seen any threads about the Keystone XL pipeline?

I wonder what the thinking is?

move the crude to the refinery, instead of refining closer to the source

too bad Steve S isn't around any more, he could probably offer some insight

I don't know why, but refineries take a very long time to build. I think it is in excess of 10 years. Plus you have every environmental agency in the world suing you (just like the nuclear plants).

If the capacity of our current refineries are not 100% or is relatively easy to expand, then maybe it makes sense (economically and temporally) to bring the crude to these existing cites.

That's my guess.

Well we better build a giant fold up sunshade out in space then...

I've said it here before, and I am saying it again, OF COURSE NO pollution is good; but, when applied to the whole scheme of things where the climate is concerned the current amount of pollution being caused by man is wholly inconsequential!!!!!!!!! Period. Exclamation Point! AND, it is definitely NOT worth destroying the American economy over! Which is the primary intention of the Al Gores of this world. It is definitely not worth taxing me one more cent for the fact that I exhale CO2. I know that the tree huggers have an idiotic belief that CO2 is bad for the "environment". The truth is that the trees themselves (and every other green plant) thrive on CO2, and when they thrive, they spread out and cover more of the earth's surface with green leaves, which ABSORB and utilize that energy to produce more O2, AND in the process give off more water vapor, which becomes clouds that reflect more sunlight out into space, and help COOL the earth. BUT, the primary regulator of Sunlight, which is what causes any warming that the Earth experiences, is the Earth's magnetic field. That is weakening because we are within 100 years of having a pole reversal.

I really don't think you know the right people to get anybody into the Tea party, and I seriously doubt that you could help anybody on that front. Besides, I already belong to the Tea Party anyway, and I wholeheartedly agree with Sara. At least if we became energy dependent we would NOT be buying the oil from the terrorists that we still need and will be using anyway, and NOT subsiding future attacks on ourselves. That alone is worth a few more wells here in America. But. preferably on dry land.

"wholly inconsequential!!!!!!!!! Period. Exclamation Point!" ......... SWB123

In a world of science that ought to be highly data driven that is an interesting quasi-numerical data point. Can you share a credible scientific reference?

How about some real numbers on the role of carbon fixation by plants and reflection of energy by clouds rather than more "just so stories". So we are within 100 years of a pole reversal? What's your source for that one? And just what is the probability of that number being correct?

I think the Director at CERN was right in limiting how much his people can throw out opinions and predictions based on their research. There is still lots peer review and further research on cosmic ray effects to go through. Their reputation is too important to waste it on statements that can mar their credibility. If one wants to view climate scientists as wanting to do their work via rigorous scientific method as a conspiracy of some sort then one is free to think that way. But I won't buy into there being anything but honorable about such an approach.

About US energy independence I think we generally agree: I think North American energy independence is a more practical immediate goal. USA, Canada and Mexico (the latter's internal problems notwithstanding) have too much in common interests. To that end I personally support further use of North American petroleum and gas resources. Our short term economic problems loom far more critical than the long term climate change issues. In my personal opinion there ought to be a small revenue neutral carbon tax starting with energy coal (as opposed to metallurgical coal)which goes directly to subsidizing the price of preferred energy sources heavily biased toward natural gas, which has the best promise of positive results in the short run. I would also advocate a small increase in gasoline tax to incentivize the engineering development of more efficient internal combustion engines such as small diesel cycle types. In other words big steps to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, especially MidEastern and baby steps toward reducing CO2 emissions.

Ed Weldon

I got the info on the magnetic field of the earth weakening from an article in National Geographic from about 15 or 20 years ago (or, there abouts - long before 'all things climate' became as politicized as it is today). They stated that the magnetic field as measured by satellites (placed in orbit for just that purpose) is steadily weakening, and they 'speculated', that at the current rate we could very well experience a pole reversal within a 100 years (give or take). The amount of solar wind, which actually strikes the earth, is directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. Ergo, weaker magnetic field means that more solar radiation reaches the earth's surface.

On the 'green leaves' - No, I don't have the exact numbers for what you ask, but it is all stuff I have read over the years, all of which is obviously not from a left leaning source. I know that makes it suspect in your world.

As for exact numbers on anything that Al Gore believes… Yeah! I'd like to find any scientist who is NOT funded by the green party communists, and who is NOT so politically motivated as to skew the numbers to make their "scientific" outcomes the preeminent ones. Yeah! In the field of climate in particular I do believe that there is a vast scientific fraud being perpetrated, and the hacked emails are just the tip of the iceberg! What evidence is there to the contrary? You show me the unbiased numbers, and then we will both know!

The stuff I offered about clouds is probably a hold over from my third grade science book. There too, information gleaned long before the present state of political idiocy.

Oh! Totally off topic, but vastly more interesting, something else I learned from that National Geographic article on "Gravity", that with new high tech testing devices, they have determined that the old experiment of dropping feathers, and a lead ball in a vacuum does NOT have the outcome that we were always taught. The feathers actually fall ever so slightly faster! They had not figured that one out yet. I personally speculate that the 'mass' of the lead somehow interacts with the fundamental matrix of space, and is slowed down by it. Can't prove it, but it works for me until the official answer is ferreted out.

If you had a big lead ball riding your butt you speed up, too! :)

Hi,

Just came back to see who's still beating this dead horse. I missed your rant at me earlier. Just to let you know, my wife is friends with Sara's next door Arizona neighbor. That's right, Sara has a house here too, not just the daughter. Sara's house is in a much more exclusive neighborhood, though. I expect she may launch her next doomed political campaign from here.

Anyway, since you are already a Tea Party member, and you ♥ Sara, I thought you might be interested in this organization. You might fit right in there too. The Flat Earth Society

WOW. It's really gotten gritty since I left. Bye.

Hey, Lyn, blood sugar level okay? ;-)

Sorry, just couldn't resist a poke in the ribs - all in good fun, of course. :)

Sorry,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I know.

You will admit that we have digressed from the original subject and can't seem to let this thing die, as it should.

Maybe I just don't have the temperament for these deep philosophical discussions on subjects over which none of us have ANY control.

Oh My God! I could just never pledge allegiance to a country that voted Sara into national office. Talk about the death of all science, there you'd have it for sure.

I am doing lunch now, so ta ta. see you later. Have to get that blood sugar back under control.

Isn't Obama the most prominent member of the Flat earth Society?

Who are you talking about? Do you mean Sarah Palin? It's Sarah, not Sara.

Sorry,

Sarah then. A rose by any other name, I'm sure.

Drill, baby, drill.

That is really all!

Someone pointed out to me that the correct spelling of your hero's name is Sarah. I don't care either way, but you might want to find out before extolling her virtues, publicly.

Oh, never mind. I "think" you got it right, this time in the previous reply.

That's enough for me. I have contributed to the vitriol too much. Goodbye.

I am really surprised so many people on this site are bound by the left/right paradigm. To me the choice between a Democrat and a Republican (GOP) are the same as Coke and Pepsi. Both are ultimately just sugar water with a lot of unnecessary crap and make you feel sick if you take too much.

Modern politics are ultimately divided between statism and libertarianism. I am libertarian. For me, despite everything, I still have faith in my fellow man and believe that We The People will, given the choice, make the best decisions.

It was just a few weeks ago that 'lawyer-turned-climate-alarmist' Al Gore was calling BS on anyone who dared to suggest that the Sun had anything to do with climate change and comparing non-AGW scientists to racists.

More and more it looks like 'global warming' is just the phrenology of the modern era.

Who are we to argue with the man who "invented the internet", who made a fortune pitching Global Warming, who was a Professional Politician elected and re-elected by the American voter, who almost was an American President, who was the son of another Professional Politician, who owns a half dozen houses throughout the country which need heating and cooling even when he's not there, who jets around the country on private jets (How much CO2 does one of those Leer jets spew out anyway?) How do we question the intentions of a man who can laugh at the American Taxpayer all the way to the bank, probably while collecting a pension from the same taxpayer and receiving free medical benefits besides most likely.

Kind of makes us a bit jealous, eh? Nahhh ..

Perhaps Al Gore in one of his perpetual rants will be demanding the sun be extinquished.

Terrestrial or extraterrestrial the cause, I'm convinced that we're facing global cooling, since on every year I get on my back, I feel the cold more intensely. And I'm not as old as the pyramids yet. S.M.

I don't know, or even care, whether Al Gore is right or wrong, but that article is based on a paper which basically made this argument:

1. The sun causes cosmic rays.

2. Cosmic rays cause increased aerosol nucleation.

3. Therefore, the sun causes global warming.

1 and 2 are true enough, and 3 is possibly true, but there's a ton of steps missing somewhere between 2 and 3. It's bad science.

Here's another article with links for more info.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

this is based on the dutch astronomer Svensmark's earlier work. essentially the current models do not take into account cloud formation and it's effect on the albedo of the earth. CERN proved that Svensmark's theory on cloud nucleation was correct (after everyone initially called him a nut, i'm glad he is being vindicated now.). and CERN went further and did a sensitivity study to show that the effects of that albedo change completely swamps all other inputs. It is not bad science.

redfred, not exactly. yes cosmic rays do indeed come from outer space (they also come from the Sun as well, but that is really irrelevant to the issue.) but the magnetosphere of the sun has a huge effect on whether they arrive in the upper atmosphere or not or are trapped in the sun's magnetosphere (the sun's equivalent of the earth's Van Allen belts.)

Yes, the sun also produces cosmic rays, particularly from solar flares. However, the article specifically states galactic cosmic rays. I remember that the article stated that the pion (pi meson particles are the first by product particles after a proton collides with an atom) particles used in the reaction were at about 4Gev themselves. I don't think that solar cosmic ray has enough energy to produce a pion of this energy. But if you really want I can verify that tomorrow. I believe that this is why the article stipulates galactic cosmic rays.

If memory serves, the Sun's role was that the Sun's magnetic field would partially shield the Earth from cosmic rays. As the Sun's magnetic field fluctuated or changed cyclicly through time, so too the amount of cosmic radiation received by the Earth.

I'm curious where the terms 'good science' and 'bad science' came from. I was under the impression science is just science..............

No. Langmuir coined the phrase Pathological Science, which describes the situation where researchers fail to correctly employ the "scientific method" to their work and/or provide fraudulent or incomplete data to support their claims.

Langmuir summed the symptoms of Pathological Science as:

• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

• Claims of great accuracy.

• Fantastic theories contrary to experience.

• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

• Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

The classic example of this was the N-Rays. I contend that Cold Fusion is another example of the term.

Langmuir might have coined the phrase but the word science remains universal in aspect regardless of human foible. It cannot be deodorized or corrupted. Deception is not science....it is an art.

The definition of the word or practice science is pretty well understood by everyone here.

The same can be said to a similar degree for the act of practicing medicine or engineering.

All can be done well and with skill or they can be done unskillfully or even with malice.

That means you can state those terms or practices as good medicine or good engineering or bad medicine or bad engineering depending how it is executed.

More to heart, an engineer that does not do their homework as part of the design process and delivers a badly executed project could be said to be guilty of bad engineering.

So can it be with science.

The definition of the word or practice science is pretty well understood by everyone here.

I disagree.......the word science is a verb..........it cannot be an object unless one uses it as a noun. Therefore it cannot be 'good' or 'bad'.....it just 'is'.

TVP, you have set up a straw man in order to knock it down, whether you meant to or not. You failed to note the sensitivity study between steps 2 and 3 that validated the theory.

I don't have access to the full paper tonight. I read it a few days (?) ago. Did I miss something? I can assure you that I only set up straw men when I'm trying to pull somebody's leg. That ain't the case here.

Do you have access to a free copy?

Science? I thought it was all about saying something over and over until it has to be true. Where there is a way, there is a will!

Your assessment is pretty good.

Regarding the point of "...mankind's greatest strength being ability to adapt.....and seeing no effort to....."

It may very well be one of our greatest strengths, but it isn't individuals that adapt....it's the species as a whole....in the process many individuals either freeze to death (not adapting to the cold or moving to a warmer climate), drown (too close to flood zone) or buried in volcanic lava and/or ash (too close to volcanoes) or ....I'm sure you get the picture.

I don't know what to think about global warming anymore. I do know one thing. CO2 and methane are going to a growing part of our atmosphere for a long, long time.

Neither cap and trade, nor any other scam is going to change that fact.

It's a shame that Al Gore, (a lawyer), and some scientists were so willing to bend the science involved, or outright lie, to reach a certain conclusion. Al Gore, to get very, very rich........................the scientists, I don't know what the motivation, maybe guaranteed funding to find the "right answers", that fit the bill.

I read enough of those leaked emails between the global warming scientists to know that they were burying data that disagreed with anthropogenic warming. Shame on them. Gore is a lawyer. Bull$hitting people out of their money is what he was trained to do. He's just doing what lawyers do.........................on a grand scale.

We have myopically become concentrated on "Global Warming" when our concern should be the wider picture of man's impact on the environment in total and the resulting impact on his health and survival as a species.

There are practical links between species on the planet. It isn't just a romantic fantasy or exaggeration that there is an interdependence.

Climate changes can be compared to past patterns through geological and natural imprints (rings on trees, for instance). Every day we are learning more. And what we learn enables us to make corrections to our past interpretations of the data we had before the new data arrived.

We also have some health records to go by. Cancer and heart disease are at the top of the list of causes of death. Is that mostly due to the sun? I don't see how we ignore the contributing causality of our environment in disease processes.

They say there are "lies, damned lies and statistics." While there are many ways to gauge "progress" as a species, I found one such presentation, albeit, to me, a narrow definition, of progress, that readers might find interesting and enjoyable. But life on the planet should not, and can not, be reduced to a set of animated charts, as fun or captivating as it may be. It might be interesting to see a similar presentation for stress and happiness as well as disease.

I always knew that our politicians got the best health care in the world.

Your theory has already been proven in Washington DC. Stupidity certainly seems to be the predominate disease there already.

predominant. Just saying.

I totally agree with you though.

I thought stupidity was already at the top of the list, but we have resigned to the fact that it can't be fixed.

I didn't want to make that point too obvious. You never know who may get offended under a generalized reference to incurable stupidity.

On another forum I had a nut who assumed that any reference to stupid or stupidity was a direct reference to him and thus required immediate reporting to the admin for name calling.

(I kept him very busy though!)

tcmtech-

Your comment may be correct... I don't know. It appeals to common sense. But I've been looking off and on while and since I posted to see a normalized graph of death rates from non-infectious diseases for the last 100 years. That would cover most of the technological advances in medicine. If you find one I'd love to see it posted. I tried the CDC website... even called them since they have an 800#. Then I called the university library to enlist their help and despite some "librarian's" effort got no further than my own search had done. You can certainly find graphs and stats. for certain years but the longest period I could find similar to what I was looking for was from 1999 to 2009.

"Cancer and heart disease are at the top of the list of causes of death. Is that mostly due to the sun?"

Heart disease and cancer has little to do with the sun. Many native Brazilians are very close to the Equator and greater exposure to the sun and yet they experience less cancer than we do in the US by a great deal. Their diet of superfruits which are very high in antioxidants explains some of this. These diseases in our society are mostly a result of poor diet and lack of exercise. Eventhough we spend more money on food than anyone in the world.

The availability and access to high quality, highly nutritious food in our diet is becoming less all the time. We are increasingly have diets full of processed sugars, preservatives, etc. Plus, we have a society of people who are more and more content to just be lazy and getting fatter all the time. We are much too sedentary for our own good.

"Climate changes can be compared to past patterns through geological and natural imprints (rings on trees, for instance)." Along with tree rings, looking at core samples from the ice that is even older than that, there is evidence of cycles of warming and cooling long before the Industrial Age ever began. We as humans do have impact on our environment but it isn't on a global scale that will affect climate conditions to any great extent.

When we are looking at scientific evidence, or any information for that matter, we need to be careful who we are getting our information from. What is their agenda, etc.? Al Gore is just a dressed up clown who is out to fleece the worldwide (and specifically the West, because that is where the money is) and line his pockets. He is the guy who made a comment recently about the temperature at the earth's core as being "millions of degrees". What credibility does this guy have and why would anyone listen to him????

"...We as humans do have impact on our environment but it isn't on a global scale that will affect climate conditions to any great extent."

There is an overwhelming majority of climate scientists who will disagree with that statement. Perhaps you are not aware of that.

Please spare us the just so story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story) presented as fact rather than as your opinion or belief.

Yes, I admit this is a snarky reply. But it is time for those of us who believe in the legitimacy of the scientific method and its findings to stand up and counter myths and fairy tales promoted as legitimate science by well funded propaganda sources. I'm reading way to much of that from otherwise respectible CR-4 contributors. It is time to stop feeding the lies some of which have developed entirely too much of their own life.

Ed Weldon

OK. What are your sources for your support of anthropogenic global warming? I sincerely want to know, as I am beginning a quest for the truth.

Thanks!

I think that the majority of people - scientists included - cannot go very long without trying to draw conclusions from inconclusive data. It is human nature. It is for that very reason that I do not trust published data.

What would help is if I knew the publishing scientists personally. Because I have not reviewed enough data on the subject, and don't really know anyone actively researching (actual data, not merely document searching, etc.) this subject, I can't, in good conscience, make a determination one way or another.

From my background, I tend to not believe that AGW is significant but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

This brings me to my belief that, there is so much data out there from so many studies/experiments, both for and against, that one cannot really make a conclusive determination, unless you are one of those actively gathering enough data to do so.

If you could rule out agenda, the interpretation of the data would be a lot clearer.

You're kidding right? I'm not having a go at you, I'm just genuinely bewildered. You don't trust published data unless you know the researcher personally?

I'd find that a really difficult line to hold, as I rely on about a gazillion scientific results every day that I trust because the scientific establishment has determined that the weight of evidence has shown these results to be the most likely hypothesis. None of them are known to be true or false, just they fit the available facts.

I don't know if the people researching these things have an agenda or not, but even if they do, any unverifiable claim usually doesn't get past peer review.

Thanks to the Western scientific method - (which makes no claims to truth, but is invested so heavily with scepticism that rubbish claims don't often get very far for very long) - I don't need to know the researchers personally.

".....What are your sources for your support of anthropogenic global warming? I sincerely want to know, as I am beginning a quest for the truth." .......Mikerho

These represent good summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

referenced in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point

Ed Weldon

Thanks Ed! Too late now, but I will be on it tomorrow.

lol @ "The science is now all-but-settled ... convincing new evidence demonstrates"

So...since CO2 is now proclaimed a dangerous gas....and methane is such a potent greenhouse gas.....

Is Al Gore the Boreacle going to call for cabbage and cauliflower as well as beans to be outlawed....and impose a Carteresque alternate breathing days to cut down on human CO2 emissions via reduced respiration?

There is an article, something like: A new ice age every 25 years. It was a research of newspapers of the time. Showing what people believed at times. NO, never mind science.

The UN IPCC discovered now, to anybody's utter and devastating surprise, that Sun and Clouds are a main factor in what we call weather. DUH, buddies.

Great discussion! It is pretty clear that global temperatures fluctuated for eons without human intervention: refusing to engage in a debate on this factor is at least narrow-minded. We should look more specifically at where and how we release toxins, rather than focus on temperature fluctuations. Where humanly or otherwise induced temperature fluctuation may remain largely outside the control of governance, toxin pollutants use and disposal regulations are governance responsibilities. I think the whole global warming issue has become a political and economic device. We need to include human psychology in the equation. I believe it is natural in us, as it is in any evolving species, to try to maintain a comfort zone; a state which is ideal for our development. We do this in our heads too; by defining, labeling and describing our environs, including how other people think. The lack of "labels" and "facts" make us very uncomfortable, although this causes us to rethink our beliefs and differentiate, mentally and physically, in adaptation. Some people, consciously or intentionally, take a polarised course and believe all things as black and white, but the Universe is not monochrome, and it makes them very aggressive when someone points this out. The extremes of thinking and beliefs are pretty well monochrome, but they carry the most potential energy for change; they behave like a capacitor charge with usable energy. Someone clever may one day have a formula for human capacitance; that would make a lot of people feel better, not because it would change much, but because it would explain the madness as not our responsibility.

Hard to see the forest, when you have bumped your head on the first tree.

What the Hell are you ranting about, man? Sun, Cosmic Rays and Clouds are decades old stuff, man. They are from the Heretics, man. Stay away from such dangerous stuff, man! That is not, and never will be Acceptable, man.

A good answer, Evan. Indeed a breath of fresh air; though unlikely to disrupt the energy of the ongoing 2 minute hate. Amazing the prescience of your Mr. Orwell

You may well find that the OT ramblings within this topic are a good microcosm of current American discourse. ...........Ed Weldon

UGH, I had a nice response written and the hyperlink messed up and caused me to reload the page (it put the submit and cancel buttons past the screen). I guess I will quit using hyperlink for now.

Anyway, on to the OP. This is just more misdirection from the tea partiests of the world. Climate scientists already new the sun warmed the earth (otherwise what would be the source of energy.). These scientists use the solar cycle as part of the evaluation to determine how much we are changing the global temperature. Now, these scientists all have their own models for the future and each one has determined their own "we will see this increase in temperature by this date" based on the data.

I just found a US program that I haven't heard of berfore. It is the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (http://www.globalchange.gov/about/overview). The purpose of the program is to "assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change."

I could point to studies all day long. The original article from this post never provided a link to the study. It is just like Fox fake news!

You wrote, "This is just more misdirection from the tea partiests of the world."

Can you cite your supporting evidence for that claim?

Exactly.....and why do the so-called "climate experts" who a few decades ago were convinced we were going into an ice age get to be assumed to be right and everyone else is somehow a crackpot?

Sounds more like lemmings than experts to me.

I ran across an interesting article in Scientific American a while back. The reason, (the article proposes,) that we are NOT in the middle of an Ice Age, is because Mankind has produced just enough CO2 to halt the run away glaciation.

Interesting read. Any thoughts?

Dragon

Never saw that article. So I can't comment on its contents.

Personally I think its all bunk, and we are seeing are normal climatic variations. 20 years ago they claimed we were driving the planet into an ice age.....now they are claiming just the opposite.

I view it like weather forcasting....just two steps removed from consulting a Ouija board. Professional and university degrees doesn't bestow them with infalible knowledge of everything.

After all, we have a record of direct observations and mearurement for HOW long? The planet is HOW old...

That relates to roughly a microsecond of time out of a century, and they claim that microsecond represents how it always is? Sorry, but all of these so-called derivatives claiming what it was etc....while good enough in accuracy for say, playing horse shoes and hand grenades....isn't nearly good enough for brain surgery which they are in effect claiming it is.

I'm glad to see that you accept that this original article from the Telegraph is a "tea party" misdirection.

When did the Tea Party branch off into UK politics? Since thats a UK blog, written by a UK person refering to a lot of other UK residents. And what proof has there been the Tea Party does any misdirection as opposed to the Democrat party misdirection that is well known.

I automatically assume a degree of skepticism when things on the net are refered to from the net.

You will find a LOT of information and "proof" of alien abduction too......but volume doesn't create reality.

Put enough money behind something as in incentive ( As in Al Gore profiting from this) and you have plenty of reason for someone to stretch the truth....or falsify "facts".

The whole climate "issue" is all about who can make money off of it....and pushing someopnes political agenda. Polution we can control.....climate was around long before anything crawled out of the oceans to live on dry ground. And Climate will exist long after we are gone......and once thing will never change. And thats the fact that climate IS always changing...always has, always will.

And the Sun is hardly the rock solid steady, and constant stabile source of heat that certain sides always assumed. Yeah its not going to burn out tomorrow..or go supernova in our lifetime, but nothing we can ever do will change the reality the sun isn't, never was, and never will be an absolutely steady and constant source of radiation. There is and always will be flucuations....sunspots...etc. If it varied greatly enough.....none of us would be here having this discussion now, and if it were to happen tomorrow there is nothing we could do to change or stop it.

Exactly. And since politicians are up to their ears in this (Al Gore to name just one).....nothing can be trusted as a result.

As opposed to Al gore who has set up creating his entire wealth on pushing this specific agenda.

No.....money is never a factor for him or his kind and never ever influence his decisions.

And I personally take offence to your comments about the Tea Party, they are not only incorrect, they are derogitory and inflamitory. Not to mention rude.

I hate Al Gore too! He is a fake. $3000 in electric bills for his house and flying around in his private jet, but hey, he buys carbon credits to offset it all. What a joke. He needs to go away.

I apologize for you or anybody else taking the comments as rude. They were not intended that way. They are based on everything that I have read on their movement, their anti-science propaganda, and their attempts to bully everyone into submission (this is based on their record in congress since 2010 elections).

You wrote, "this is based on their record in congress since 2010 elections"

Just for your information, the Tea Party is not a political party like the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Communist Party, etc.

There isn't a single representative in congress that belongs to the Tea Party because ether are no members to the Tea Party.

Therefore, the Tea Party has no record in congress, period.

Shame on you. Don't you know that the cruelest thing to do to any politician or pundit is to actually quote them from their own source.