The Sky Is Falling...?

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Sky Is Falling...?
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #75
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

All people are relgious, because we need to believe in something/someone else to feel safe in this world.
Who says we need to feel safe in this world? The natural state of humanity is one of near-constant bone-chilling terror. The idea of safety is a modern innovation.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 6795
Profile #76
If I could interject here -

While I'm willing to accept that there is doubt over whether human activities have caused any current warming, since I'm not involved in the field I don't feel I should offer you my opinion about it. What I cay say is that it is indicative of a larger problem, related to widespread ecological degredation around the world driven by overconsumption and exploitation of natural resources. As an ecologist, I can affirm that the evidence for that is damn near conclusive. I think that might be a more important perspective to take here.

Oh, and with respect to the "gaia" hypothesis, that the earth is somehow able to regulate itself, and that eventually these things will stabilise - the theory about whether ecosystems can maintain themselves in a stable state is still unproven, for either position. I wouldn't go relying on it.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Tuesday, February 14 2006 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 5545
Profile Homepage #77
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

All people are relgious, because we need to believe in something/someone else to feel safe in this world.
Who says we need to feel safe in this world? The natural state of humanity is one of near-constant bone-chilling terror. The idea of safety is a modern innovation.

You seem like a good candidate for the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. Synergy: consider Bokononism.

--------------------
Plaudite, amici, comedia finita est.
Posts: 344 | Registered: Friday, February 25 2005 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #78
OK, so humans put CO2 in the atmosphere. I can buy that. More CO2 means hotter temperatures. I can go for that too. What I am not seeing from the "human-induced warming" camp is how much is actually affected by humans in terms of degrees.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #79
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What I am not seeing from the "human-induced warming" camp is how much is actually affected by humans in terms of degrees.
You're not seeing that because you didn't take any look at the report that I linked to (or, hell, the Wikipedia summary). The IPCC report is pretty darn specific.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #80
A random snippet relating primarily to the scary "hockey stick" shaped graph Al Gore and others love to scare us with.

From Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media:

"Canadian research scientist Steve McIntyre, whose expertise is in mineral exploration and author of numerous articles on the made up name 'global warming', the real science of 'climate change'; and the facts and myths which surround it. McIntyre has recently discovered evidence which destroys the hypothetical theories brought on by James Hansen (who made up the name 'global warming' in 1988) and Michael Mann who developed the famous 'hockey stick' chart convincing us so-called global warming is caused by human pollution.

Steve McIntyre is every bit the tenacious investigator as I wish to be in disclosing the fictional fabrication of this made up name 'global warming'. He has recently discovered evidence while inspecting historical temperature graphs showing a strange discontinuity, or "jump", in many regions all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

The graphs, which are used by the IPCC and all other global warming advocates, were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen. After discovering this obvious 'disconnect', McKintyre made contact with Hansen requesting further information as to his findings. James Hansen, the creator of this myth known as 'global warming' refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data. Not being surprised at Hansen's defensiveness, McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data, hence the discontinuity (or jump) around the time of January 2000.

McKintyre notified the Hansen and Ruedy of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place, with 1921 being the third warmest year in recorded history. In fact, five of the ten warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

The fact is we are in a "warming trend"; this will be followed by a "cooling trend". It always has been, and it always will be. This fictional depiction of the 1988 made up name 'global warming', of which most people have been conditioned to equate to human pollution, is nothing less than a fraud."

For those who accuse me of indifference, perhaps you did not read my concerns about internal combustion and pollution. I am deeply concerned about our health and welfare and values. There is a reckoning and correcting coming by necessity. What I am not so scared about is the icecaps melting in the next century and flooding the world.

More on the history of CO2 and climate shift in which melting ice caps was not an irreversible trend:

" The new data show that throughout millions of years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels swung back and forth between about 250 parts per million, close to present-day levels, to more than 2,000 parts per million. At the same time, the southern ice sheets retreated as carbon dioxide rose and expanded again when levels fell, a pattern compatible with the idea that greenhouse gases caused the end of the late Paleozoic ice age.

"We can see a pattern of increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperatures, with a series of rises and dips," Montanez said.

Scientists had assumed that as the climate warmed, a tipping point would be reached at which the ice sheets would melt rapidly and for good. Instead, the new data shows that the climate went back and forth between the extremes. But the overall trend was to warming, and by 260 million years ago, the ice sheets were gone.

Records of fossil plants show rapid changes in tropical plant communities as the climate changed. On scales of a few thousand years, lush forests of tree ferns in cool, wet periods alternated with conifers and other plants adapted to a harsher, drier and warmer climate.

"The Permian greenhouse is the only record we have of the transition from an ice age to an ice-free climate on a vegetated planet," Montanez said. But instead of a smooth shift, the transition occurred in a series of sharp swings between cold and hot conditions, occurring during perhaps a half-million to few million years.

Montanez pointed out the data does show that such a major change in climate will likely not proceed in small, gradual steps, but in a series of unstable, dramatic swings. While these data cover millions of years, similar events might take place during a much shorter time span.

"Perhaps this is the behavior one should expect when we go through a major climate transition," Montanez said."

We may go through some significant climate shift in this century, and possibly even the flipping of the magnetic poles of the earth, according to some, and who knows what that would entail. Bottom line is I see far larger forces at work governing our planetary climate than ourselves, and we're just going to see how we fare with what comes next. Meanwhile, Al Gore and the scaremongers can bankrupt half the nations of the world with the CO2 red herring while climate shifts wreak the real havoc. That is the threat of aligning with a false cause. Our resources are far from finite and stretched far enough. As are our liberties.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #81
Right, this article is just as one-sided and dogmatic as anything written by CO2 alarmists. But two things:

quote:
The fact is we are in a "warming trend"; this will be followed by a "cooling trend". It always has been, and it always will be.
...how can we say that? If it's arrogant to think that we can significantly alter the course of climate changes, how isn't it arrogant to think that we understand warming/cooling cycles perfectly?

Thing two:

quote:
That is the threat of aligning with a false cause. Our resources are far from finite and stretched far enough. As are our liberties.
To which all I can say is this:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Evaluating the reliability of any institution, person, or source may require something more along the lines of intuition than any kind of absolute, certain measure.
And my intuition, good sir, says you're just as full of it as anyone else. You say your cause is any more worthy?

EDIT: Clarification.

[ Saturday, August 18, 2007 21:26: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
TM: "I want BoA to grow. Evolve where the food ladder has rungs to be reached."

Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #82
I believe the point is that cooling and warming perpetually follow one another given enough time. So it has been and will continue to be. The constant is change. We see the climate doing something different this decade or century than it did the last, and we freak out.

So, if I am as full of it as any other, then you concede that Al Gore or any so-called scientist may equally be likely to be full of it?

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #83
Oh, heck, anybody might be full of it. Overwhelming scientific consensus has been wrong before (not often, but sometimes). But if we're going to act on something, it makes more sense to act on overwhelming scientific consensus than on random suppositions by laymen.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #84
And that's where religious dogmatism comes into science. Contrary science is dismissed as random supposition by laymen. Majority means nothing. If we really look socially at how movements in science occur, even consensus means less than it appears to imply. There is bandwagon effect, funding, ego, industrial and governmental interest, along with probably a dozen or more other things to consider what gets studied, how it gets studied, for whom it gets studied, why it gets studied, in what context it gets studied, and by whose funding it gets studied. Science is not more noble than any other profession. In fact, I'd call it as dirty and skewed a business as any other profession. Scientists are bought all the time, just as middle managers in companies play ball even though they don't like the corporate environment. Do you imagine the average scientist has much clout or say how or what he or she is going to do working for some company? There is a mythology of the scientist, I perceive.

If we would stop worshipping scientists as our new high priests, we'd see this better, I think.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #85
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Do you imagine the average scientist has much clout or say how or what he or she is going to do working for some company?
I don't imagine; I know, because I've been one. As you say, personal experience is the best guide. By your own logic, nobody who hasn't been a scientist is really qualified to comment on the work scientists do.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #86
EDIT: Topic moving too quickly...

Synergy: TM has a reply to that, and you can probably guess it.

To me, anyone is as likely to be full of it as anyone else. Yet my gut tells me that Al Gore and other folks are on to something, while it tells me that the "This is within normal variation and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it" school of thought isn't worth acknowledging.

You see, what bothers me about this is that we seem to share some views:

quote:
I'm more concerned how we are poisoning our environments and bodies on an immediate level. I am disgusted that we have indulged a century and counting on an ancient, inefficient technology—the internal combustion engine, when computers have advance light years in half as much time. We should be doing better and being better stewards at this point. We could avoid much pollution, wars, and ugly city skylines among other things.
But somehow, it ends up as some crazy alternate universe point of view. Because if relying on all that lovely polluting out-of-date technology isn't doing anything appreciable to the climate, then does it all just boil down to aesthetics with you? Granted, it all kind of does boil down to aesthetics with any kind of argument like this, because so much of people's opinions are based on their own perceptions and biases (and therefore, to some extent, what they see as good and acceptable). But still... I feel like there's some sort of disconnect here. These CO2-theory supporters are trying to do something that should theoretically fall in line with what you said you care about.

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

There is a mythology of the scientist, I perceive.
Just as much as there is a cult of the new-ager, the anti-scientist. The one who believes that they, instead of the mainstream scientists, has the real answer to everything. The one who fervently clings to an alternate explanation of the universe in an attempt to convince themselves that their beliefs are closer to 'reality' than anyone else's.

So really, it just boils down to a basic shouting match, or a popularity contest. Either way, it's more or less pointless, as both sides of the conflict are vulnerable to these types of analyses. With that in mind, I don't think they constitute a logical reason to doubt the C02 theories.

[ Saturday, August 18, 2007 21:58: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
TM: "I want BoA to grow. Evolve where the food ladder has rungs to be reached."

Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #87
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

And that's where religious dogmatism comes into science. Contrary science is dismissed as random supposition by laymen.
You've apparently forgotten the point I made the last time we had this discussion. Scientists love to prove big scientific theories wrong. When Einstein seriously revised Newtonian mechanics with his relativity, many people were skeptical at first, but within fifteen years or so, he had won. Relativity had completely conquered every doubter in fewer than two decades. Quantum mechanics did the same thing a short while later.

Contrary science is not rejected by mainstream scientists. Contrary science, when it is based on real research, solid experimental testing, and legitimate theoretical explanation, is embraced.

quote:
Do you imagine the average scientist has much clout or say how or what he or she is going to do working for some company?
That's why I'm not talking about company R&D. I'm talking about basic research, which is rather different. Basic research still depends on grant money, but most of that grant money comes from the federal government, and if you think that the Bush administration is only giving scientific grants to people who agree with their views on climate change, you might want to check what basic research has to say on climate change and what the Bush administration has to say.
quote:
If we would stop worshipping scientists as our new high priests, we'd see this better, I think.
As I suggested in my last post, we have no better place to go for answers than people who are looking into finding the answers. Who would you like to ask, if not scientists, in order to determine whether climate change is occurring?

[ Saturday, August 18, 2007 22:45: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #88
Having re-read the OP, I have two things to mutter.

1. You do seem to have a lot to say,

and 2. of course sun cycles drive the climate. Things change over that short 12-15 year period, with oceans currents shifting and storm patterns changing. But the problem lies in ignoring the overall trend. No one is so stupid as to not notice the solar cycle, the just can account for the changes it makes, and still see a broader change.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #89
How long can have we had the capabilities to measure temperature on a global scale?

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Master
Member # 5977
Profile Homepage #90
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

you gzipped tarball.
This reminds me of something, you silly cucumber.

Heh. We just don't seem to get along nicely. I gather that our conflicting elements actually have been chosen with care.

Now let's get back on topic.

[ Sunday, August 19, 2007 04:44: Message edited by: Thralni ]

--------------------
Play and rate my scenarios:

Where the rivers meet
View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape.
Co-designed with Nikki: El Presidente.

Give us your drek!
Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4826
Profile #91
You just made me forget the topic, you ridiculous turnip.

--------------------
"Of course, not all technology is good. Some is exactly the opposite (bad)." — Dave Barry
Posts: 458 | Registered: Friday, August 6 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #92
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Do you imagine the average scientist has much clout or say how or what he or she is going to do working for some company?
I don't imagine; I know, because I've been one. As you say, personal experience is the best guide. By your own logic, nobody who hasn't been a scientist is really qualified to comment on the work scientists do.

Am I to suppose that the experience of one barely beginning scientist in Australia is supposed to represent the experience of the average scientist all across the world? We don't have to work in every field to be able to observe how business runs in the west. I observe human nature and the nature of institutions and corporations. I read. I learn about scientists who comment that if they go against the dogma of their group, will become unviable. To come to the conclusion that the data does not support CO2 causing global warming can cost you your job in this politically-driven environment. Just because inconvenient truths like these are not the ones making headlines does not mean they are not occurring. This is human nature in a modern, competitive, corporate world. And you don't have to be a scientist to observe it.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #93
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Contrary science is not rejected by mainstream scientists. Contrary science, when it is based on real research, solid experimental testing, and legitimate theoretical explanation, is embraced.
Except when it's not, when it threatens some established interest no one with clout is able or willing to challenge. I still consider science to be painfully resistant to simple truths about human health, because it so goes against what it wants to believe and what huge industries need to be true. LIke getting inducted into an elite club with real power, who is going to rock the boat and survive? You have to be "fringey" to be able to go up against some of these collectivized, vested systems of established belief. It's just like religion. You have to form a new sect, a new denomination and break away from the huge, corrupt mother church.

Some dinosaurs take a long time to die. Some ocean liners take a long time to steer in a new direction. Thinking and belief, whether scientific, or religious, also can shift with difficulty when so much has been invested in a prior mindset. People don't readily like to admit they've been dreadfully wrong. It scares the public, to reveal too much fallibility too quickly. It scares the people within the institutions who are hardly prepared to admit they spent the last four decades being proponents of a fraud. You don't think these things afffect how business gets done? And science is simply a business when it comes down to it. It has a bottom line, both financially, and self-protectively.

Things take time. Perhaps an old, vested generation has to die out for new ideas to be embraced. Scientists and their organizations are not less human or more inherently noble than any other. I am not commenting on any individual in that system. I am commenting on the nature of the system.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #94
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Sarcasmon:

of course sun cycles drive the climate. Things change over that short 12-15 year period, with oceans currents shifting and storm patterns changing.
There are many sun cycles, the 11 year sunspot cycle you described being the shortest known. There are other cycles ranging from 40 to thousands of years. These all in combination and particular strength have been correlated to much climate behavior in the past, the ice ages, etc.

To Ephesos: My concerns are not about aesthetics, and if you knew me just a bit better, you'd know that. I am concerned about welfare, our health, and the liberation that comes from truth. My concern about the CO2 scare is that we are very likely to impose truly onerous regulations worldwide in the near future based on it, in a time when we may not be able to afford sinking our national economies into a red herring. If we think post 9-11 loss of rights has been bad, I expect our resulting losses and burdens from the CO2 hysteria to be many times worse. Some western nations may be bankrupted, and that is not going to help us take care of all the other human concerns we need to live and flourish. It's not just a cute misdirection, if we are indeed wrong about CO2. There are huge sacrifices we are likely to soon be making based upon the belief, and I am not talking about oil companies.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #95
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Except when it's not
Ho ho!! I'm convinced!

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #96
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Am I to suppose that the experience of one barely beginning scientist in Australia is supposed to represent the experience of the average scientist all across the world?
You're the one pushing standpoint epistemology, bucko. What's the point of arguing with you when you don't believe that I exist?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #97
If you dig around with Google about this Y2K glitch story, the rebuttal by NASA's James Hansen comes up quite quickly. There was a glitch, but it had nothing to do with Y2K. Its effect on the data was about one thousandth of a degree — inconsequential against a warming trend of about a tenth of a degree per year.

The only reason 1934 made it past 1998 as a result is that the two years are extremely close in average US temperature; this was always clearly acknowledged. Global warming is about a slow trend underneath larger annual fluctuations, and occasional hot and cold years are irrelevant.

There is also a recent Nature article that seems to discredit the solar cycle theory (BBC piece about it).

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #98
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

The only reason 1934 made it past 1998 as a result is that the two years are extremely close in average US temperature; this was always clearly acknowledged. Global warming is about a slow trend underneath larger annual fluctuations, and occasional hot and cold years are irrelevant.
While discussing the four warmest years in the U.S., he makes an interesting point about the local vs. global problem, too: "Note, however, that the 1998 and 2006 temperature anomaly maps differ fundamentally from the 1934 and 1921 temperature maps. In 1998 and 2006 the world as a whole has become warmer, 1998 being aided by a very strong El Nino, but 2006 by only a very weak El Nino. In 1921 and 1934 the United States happened to be a relatively hot spot compared to the world as a whole. The next time that the U.S. temperature happens to be unusually high relative to the globe, it may be quite a barn burner."

In a discussion revolving around his response, someone else makes an interesting point regarding the idea that we shouldn't think of ourselves as so powerful that we can destroy the world. Some have said that it's arrogant to think that we are the cause of climate change, but have those people never heard of nuclear weapons? Of course we have the power to wipe out nearly all life on Earth. There should not be a gut-check response when we say that we could obliterate everything, because we know that we can.

[ Monday, August 20, 2007 08:37: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #99
I wonder how they are defining solar output in this study? It sounds like something different from sunspot cycles, etc. which have been at the center of the theories I am discussing.

Sunspots and flares have significant affect on our weather, magnetic field, and numerous things. Sunspot activity is at an 8,000 year high, and has been over the last seven decades. I believe the current extreme weather we have been seeing in recent years is likely largely attributed to more extreme sunspot activity. We are having a very unusual cloudy/rainy summer here in Seattle. I've never seen one like it in my life. Hurricanes have been growing in intensity and, I believe, also in frequency for some years. The south is blisteringly hot right now. Climate patterns have been shifting rather dramatically. Many say, ooh, global warming. I say, ooh, sunspots.

From this article on sunspot activity, which does not attempt to correlate climate and sunspots, yet nonetheless contains this quote:

"Previous studies have suggested cooler periods on Earth were related to long stretches with low sunspot counts. From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots."

The study also contradicts what the Brit study appears to be stating, that there has been no increase in solar output?

NASA study.

I especially don't trust the British on this matter. They are probably the most rabid proponents of global warming on the planet, and coined the term in the first place. It is claimed that Margaret Thatcher had British scientists manipulate their science in the 80's to support the new global warming concept in order to politically fight unions in Britain. Either way, who are you going to ally with? The British? NASA? Neither? You can't really trust anybody's science, because someone else is always contradicting you. Science is religion. Choose your faith. It takes a lot of time and weight and embarrassing hindsight to more conclusively piece together the realities of the universe. And then something new comes along to radically shift the perspective anew anyway. Why have we not learned pause and humility yet after millennia of this behavior and conceit?

I think a clear verdict is out, but that as our ability and motivation to study the sun improves, we will find more and more correlation between sun activity and earth activity, along with any other planet in the solar system.

-S-

[ Monday, August 20, 2007 08:56: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00

Pages