President Bush’s NeoCon War for Oil Even Wrecks Global Warming…
January 11th, 2008 at 09:53am Mark Noonan
Obviously, the Bush-Cheney Cabal has been working on a weather machine, and they are testing it out in Baghdad:
BAGHDAD - After weathering nearly five years of war, Baghdad residents thought they’d pretty much seen it all. But Friday morning, as muezzins were calling the faithful to prayer, the people here awoke to something certifiably new.
For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad.
Although the white flakes quickly dissolved into gray puddles, they brought an emotion rarely expressed in this desert capital snarled by army checkpoints, divided by concrete walls and ravaged by sectarian killings — delight.
“For the first time in my life I saw a snow-rain like this falling in Baghdad,” said Mohammed Abdul-Hussein, a 63-year-old retiree from the New Baghdad area.
“When I was young, I heard from my father that such rain had fallen in the early ’40s on the outskirts of northern Baghdad,” Abdul-Hussein said, referring to snow as a type of rain. “But snow falling in Baghdad in such a magnificent scene was beyond my imagination.”
Clearly, Haliburton must be about to get into the sweater business…
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
115 Comments
1. SEW | January 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Dubya is responsible for this. BushHitler/Cheney/Halliburton, axis of evil,are trying everything in their power to discredit the Goracle, FatAl Gore. He called upon the same power as when he summoned Katrina to New Orleans.
Well done, Dubya. No disrespect intended for using your middle name.
2. Bigfoot | January 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Dubya is responsible for this. BushHitler/Cheney/Halliburton, axis of evil,are trying everything in their power to discredit the Goracle, FatAl Gore.
This must be the doing of the axis of evil’s most insidious henchman, that faux-rapper known as M. C. Rove. Now we know why he quit his White House job, to devote his time to working that dastardly weather machine. We can only wonder where it will strike next.
3. SEW | January 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Bush and Rove are seeking revenge for not having won the popular vote, only the Presidency.
4. semby | January 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think the fact that snow is falling in Baghdad is God’s blessing on the country. I really believe that this is a sign from God.
“Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow”
5. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Mark,
One of the most inane things that climate-change deniers do is point out instances like this and conclude that “global warming” is bunk. The Earth’s atmosphere is an incredibly complex system that requires the largest and fastest of supercomputers to model. As such, a macroscopic change, such as an overall increase in global temperatures (”What? Only less than one degree Celsius? That’s nothing!”) affects the system as a whole which produces unexpected events like snowfall in Baghdad. I suspect you just threw this out, but it just makes people look scientifically ignorant when they chuckle about how foolish all those people who actually work with the math are.
6. NeoClown | January 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The ethnic cleansing outside is frightful,
But my AK-47 is so delightful,
And since we’ve no place to go,
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
The war doesn’t show signs of Pausing
And I’ve bought sniper rifle for popping,
The lights are turned way down low,
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
I killed a bunch of Sunni tonight,
See the bodies laying out in the storm!
But if you’ll really hold me tight,
All the way home I’ll be warm.
Iraq is slowly dying,
And, my dear, we’re still good-bying,
But as long as you love me so,
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
7. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Clown,
That was actually pretty good, however you must have a lot of down time on your hands.
It last snowed in Baghdad in the 1940’s. Climate change indeed.
8. OhioOrrin | January 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
maybe it’s not snow.
maybe it’s opium flakes blown from Afghanstan.
so it’s still bush’s fault!
9. SEW | January 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“The Earth’s atmosphere is an incredibly complex system that requires the largest and fastest of supercomputers” Diana
Wrong Diana. It’s as simple as plotting CO2 and temperature. Just ask the inventor of the internet, The Goracle, FatAl. What a math, computer and scientific genius he is!
10. DM | January 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“One of the most inane things that climate-change deniers do is point out instances like this and conclude that “global warming” is bunk.” Diana
Climate-change deniers? I’m not aware of ANYONE who denies that the climate changes. Why would you post such a thing? In fact I think you’ll find there are a number of people who agree there MIGHT be an overall “global warming” but are at great odds as to the cause. And let’s get to the point here with the term climate-change; is it the “warming” or “cooling” that I’m supposed to be concerned with? The term climate-change is so open to a variety of individual interpretations that it has very little use in arguing a point about what should be done if anything related to it.
Makes you wonder what the real “bunk” is.
11. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
SEW,
Gratuitous loathing of Vice-President Al Gore duly noted. I’m always entertained when you folks talk about the “hate-filled Left”. Next…
12. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
DM,
Okay, anthropogenic global warming-deniers, if that makes you feel better.
13. Rich | January 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Diane- You are talking about the genius mathemeticians that took alot of their temperature measurements inside major cities arent you? Ya , thought so.
14. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
AAR
15. SEW | January 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Computers—garbage in, garbage out. Al’s cult of “scientists” saw to it that garbage went in but his cult followers deny garbage came out. That would be you. No loathing, just facts. How bout them UN “scientists”?
16. DM | January 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
If we insert you new phrase into your original statement we get this.
“One of the most inane things that anthropogenic global warming-deniers
do is point out instances like this and conclude that “global warming” is bunk.”
At least we’ve narrowed it down to “warming” - thanks. But I think you’re making a huge assumption here. It appears you think that someone who denies anthropogenic sources as the primary cause of global warming also denies global warming in general.
17. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
SEW,
You’re right. Vice-President Gore, a man you obviously and fiercely hate (which you noble conservatives aren’t supposed to do, remember, it’s the evil liberals that do that), is so all-powerful that he commands all atmospheric scientists everywhere to follow his evil bidding. Run!
18. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
DM,
A fair criticism of my word choice. My hat (metaphorically speaking) is off to you. It is true that there are subsets of views in play that I failed to carefully draw a distinction on. Thanks.
19. SEW | January 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Diana, Certainly I don’t hate anyone. But Al is more entertaining and humoring than Al Franken! Al is good for Republicans; and I enjoy ridiculing his cult followers. Cult. Enjoy your group, take your medications.
20. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
SEW,
No hate here. “Just ask the inventor of the internet, The Goracle, FatAl. What a math, computer and scientific genius he is!” Not only engaging in gratuitous insults but parroting the long-discredited “inventor of the internet” line. Whatever you wish to believe. Can I call the President of the United States names now?
21. JHL | January 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Don’t let the circle jerk of ridicule get in the way, bur now we have tornados in January. More grist for the deniers to shake their fists at reality!
Reality! I smite thee in the name of my insistance that you are an illusion!
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071229/D8TR6ASG0.html
22. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Diana,
Okay, you global warming propagandist fear-mongers… keep repeating your disinformation, misleading information, half-truths, and quasi-scientific alarmist “theories” until enough morons fall for your “believable lies”!!!
And when it was argued that “global warming” (and then “man made global warming”) was caused more by the sun and natural cycles than by man, you Liberal propagandists switched over to “climate change” and “global climate change” — in your efforts to include, encompass, and “explain” abnormally cold and rainy periods into your otherwise faulty “theory”!
Now — in your attempt to confuse and mislead the average person even more — you come up with the term “anthropogenic global warming”. After all, why would you Liberals want to say in plain, understandable English something you can really confuse by fancy academic and scientific sounding, unintelligible words (to the average person) like “anthropogenic”!!!
Athropogenic: adjective (chiefly of pollution) originating in human activity; caused by humans: relating to or resulting from the influence that humans have on the natural world; relating to origin of humankind: relating to the origin and development of human beings.
The fact is, you Liberals don’t want the average person to understand the facts. You propagandists want to confuse and mislead people as much as you possibly can!!!
AAR
23. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Gosh, AAR, that sounds interesting. Can you provide any details on Sorokhtin’s study? I presume you can, because I assume you aren’t so shallow as to believe something without any data, or even any explanation at all. Right?
24. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
AAR: The fact is, you Liberals don’t want the average person to understand the facts.
What are the facts, AAR? You imply in your above post that climate change is caused by the sun and natural cycles. What natural cycles are you talking about? Certainly natural “cycles” exist (I put “cycles” in parentheses because some natural forcers weren’t cyclical while others were), but can you explain in some detail how? Have you ever even tried to put all of the information into some kind of cohesive whole? Or is it the case that because scientists don’t know everything they must know nothing?
25. Libsbane | January 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Rico,
I’m compelled to point out that AAR did not “imply” anything in his post. He stated, quite clearly that it his opinion that the intent of the “global warming propagandist fear-mongers” was to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.
He also did not “imply” that warming is solar nor cyclical; he stated, “… when it was argued that ‘global warming’ was caused more by the sun and natural cycles than by man, …” is bereft of any conclusion on his part regarding the nature of global climate change.
In short, AAR’s post was about clarifying the argument, yours, I feel is a challenge to that request for clarification.
26. JHL | January 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
AAR:
Why do you continually equate those whom are proponents of science (in general) with “liberals” “atheists” and “democrats”.
What exactly is it that you are afraid of? What are you trying to protect? Why do you insist that if a person is educated and understands the veracity and plausability of science that they don’t…by default… have a sense of or a belief in god? What is it about YOU that cannot correlate the two?
To continue to cling to arguements in the light of all that is contrary to them is an indication of either a physical disorder or the brain or a cognitive development shortcoming which results in a lack of recognition of facts and logic. (Usually preceeded by a derth of education.)
Get a grip. The words have changed to protect the innocent. Global warming, climate change, the results are all the same. To deny that human activity has had any effect upon the enviroment is ludicrous. Ever see what locusts do? Or strip mining? Or housing developments? Now imagine those alterations on a global scale over the past 100+ years.
Yeah, you maybe correct that human activity plays a smaller role in these expoential changes but (1) why take the chance and (2) younger people aren’t buying into this crap that you are selling. Don’t give me excrement and then offer a toothbrush.
27. FmrMarine | January 11th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
In the 1920s and the 1970s the “scientists” were all attiter about global cooling and the on set of a mini ICE AGE.
Predictions were, in the early 2000s england would be a cold ice clad barren wasteland.
Now fast forward 35 years and we are going to burn, until the giant wave gore shows enveloping us and we drown.
There have been 10 “scientific” theory’s of the creation of the universe since 1900.
It is JUNK science sold by a snake oil salesman, that humans are the blame for ANY climate change.
28. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Libsbane: He [AAR] stated, quite clearly that it his opinion that the intent of the “global warming propagandist fear-mongers” was to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.
In what way? He didn’t imply, but clearly stated that it is his contention that the “global warming propagandist fear-mongers” changed their semantics when it was argued that “global warming” (and then “man made global warming”) was caused more by the sun and natural cycles than by man. That clearly implies that the cause of the change in semantics was effected by a persuasive argument. And frankly, I’m skeptical of both the cause and the presumed effect.
You further say, “In short, AAR’s post was about clarifying the argument” when he made it on the heels of a previous comment cut’n'pasting a FoxNews description of the supposed conclusions of a study for which neither any data or context were supplied — or any links to the study, for that matter. Yet he wants to harangue against propagandists that intend to confuse rather than clarify the issue? Honestly, do you see a problem with that?
I do. And yeah, my comment most definitely was a challenge for clarification.
29. JS | January 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Global Warming. Ya, Right. Sure…
Is that like Godzilla?
30. JS | January 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
i always thought that microcosm was responsible for creating the macrocosm, and mismanaging them both is the causum for global warming
31. Jeremiah | January 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Mars Melt Hints at Solar:
Hmmm, who controls the Sun?
Be still, and know that I am God.
Ever heard o’ that one, Lefties?
~ Jeremiah
32. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
AAR
33. JHL | January 11th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
And Libsbane, you hit the target…AAR’s opinion.
And as much as I respect peoples opinions about issues and circumstances, opinons are usually predicated upon a contemplation of all facts and then combined with a dispassionate objectivity rendered into judgement.
Opinions are not valid when they reflect dogma or insistence in a fantasmagorical confaltion of bias and faith.
In an ironic sort of way, the thinking process of AAR is an example of one of the highlights of biological evolution and physcial human history.
Specifically that is, what portion of his brain stem is being used to insist that human activity has zero influence on external events and his reaction to evidence to the contrary.
I would say that it is more important to people like AAR to be convinced of their own mistaken factuality than to deal with the consequences of collective human behavior.
It is inconcievable to them to be mistaken about anything and this mode of thinking leads to a dead end.
34. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
OMG… MORE cut’n'paste junkies! Lol!
I guess it’s fine if some people do it, but not if others do. This is perhaps just one example of the “fine if I do it, not fine if you do” meme, but it is one that permeates partisan politics — on both sides.
35. JS | January 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
One would think that after months and years of rumors and gossip about Global Warming, the mass majority of people would have figured out that it was nothing but hot air (pun intended).
Yet, the UN has duped the world that it is hot air, coming from out exhaust pipes, that causes Global Warming.
Yet another flat earth project, courtesy of Al Gore. Yup folks, we been GORED!!
36. JS | January 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The way I figure, Americans elected Bush over Gore, so we arent total fools.
If Gore handled the USA like he handled GLobAl WarMinG, we would all be speaking Chinese today!!
37. Tractatus | January 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Hmmm, who controls the Sun?
Horus
38. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
1884 Feb. 19, Mississippi to North Carolina, Tennessee to Indiana
Series of 60 tornadoes caused estimated 800 deaths
1971 Feb. 21, Louisiana to Tennessee
Series of 10 tornadoes resulted in 121 deaths
1999 Jan. 17–22, Tennessee and Arkansas
A series of tornadoes left 17 dead; damages were estimated at $1.3 billion
How many more winter tornadoes have occurred through the history of North America, but gone unreported?
Tornadoes happen in the winter; although, not as often as the Spring and Summer. How many tornadoes happened throughout the history of North America when people were not there to observe, report, and record them on their digital camcorders for broadcast on the network news? How many tornadoes tore through North America, including in the winter, before there were houses, towns, and cities in their path?
Thunder snow occurs too! It’s interesting to be in a snow storm with lightening and thunder all around you. It’s not the norm, but it does happen… and it has been happening long before Liberals began their fear-mongering global warming, global climate change, “anthropogenic global warming” campaigns!!!
AAR
39. JHL | January 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Crazy Jerry pipes in again. It’s GODS fault. It’s GODS repsonsibility. Lets default to crazy Jerrys GOD that has conscious control over every nano gear and lever in the observable universe.
I besceech thee Oh gods of the Blogsforvictory universe. Please ban crazy Jerry. Or at least hold him accountable for these delusions that he suffers from.
How the guy functions on a daily basis and is able to cope is a mystery to me. (And I don’t mean the Fleetwood Mac album either.)
40. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
AAR
41. Libsbane | January 11th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
JHL,
You may want to back off of the autocratic hyperbole and read what I actually wrote; I never stated that AAR’ conclusions about climate change were based on “opinion” I said his conclusion regarding the reasons for confusing the issue with overly complicated and predominantly meaningless labels was based on his opinion of the intent of the advocates of AGW. Aside from the fact that he seems to have more than sufficient evidence to formulate an informed opinion.
Rico,
You’re skeptical of solar and cyclical climate change but accept anthropogenic? Isn’t that a little arrogant? Regarding AAR’s contention; I believe you are bringing a prejudice into the argument, he does imply the argument is persuasive, but didn’t ascribe personal credence to it. I on the other hand, do believe the argument is persuasive. The more I learn, the more persuasive it becomes; the sun doesn’t have alternate motives to it climate change; it just is what it is.
42. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
AAR (quoting AN ARTICLE ABOUT Sarokhtin): Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.
So, have you checked out the data? If you did I think you’d find that sunspots and solar flares are at a minimum right now. What are the implications if they restart? Why do you (or they) suppose they might or might not? What do others postulate? Do you even have a clue?
It’s kind of funny that you quote an article that quotes Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. Of course the sun is the primary forcer. Without the sun everyone agrees that earth’s entire atmosphere would condense onto the surface. So what?
Pardon me for saying so, but your viewpoint, whatever it is, appears to be largely formed in an intellectual vacuum. Then again, I really don’t know what your viewpoint is. I ask you (and everyone else) — how much logical and factual coherence does your viewpoint really have? What are you basing your opinions on other than the assumption that “if the concensus of scientists don’t have it completely right, they must be completely wrong”. Isn’t there some middle ground? Have you really thought about it? Or are you just taking pot shots at what you construe as the “scientific concensus”? If so, what do you see as the ramifications of that?
43. JHL | January 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Al Gore personally has nothing to do with the excaboration of how the climate on this planet is changing. Rant and rave all you want, it is changing and to this you all are forced to agree. (See AAR’s reference to solar activity)
The problem that AAR’s reference source has is that solar activity is short lived. It does not account for a steady increase in temps, only a rational for them. If our rock was a young planet in the solar system then it would be more plausable to adhere to solar activity being the source of climate change, but then that would force the crazy Jerrys of the world to admitt that the universe is old and that “god” has nothing to do with universal change, would it not??
The earths atmosphere, evolved over eons protects the life on our planet from solar acitivity; as far as this is possible in light of steady output of solar energy.
I think that those of you who insist at all costs that humans are not in anyway responsible for the change of our enviroment only make matters worse.
44. Jeremiah | January 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
If one wants to look at the cycles of indifference in the sun’s intensity all you have to do is look at one of the many examples of God’s Creation - A 200 year old tree. A tree has rings for each year of growth. If you notice, some rings are more narrower or slimmer than others, the widest rings are evidence of warmer than usual years, and the narrowest rings are for the coldest years. Take for instance in Canada, where they have brutal winters with some periods getting to -50 below zero, they trees their have tighter grained wood (which makes it stronger and better to work with) than say those produced in the southern united States where temperatures remain warm. It’s only in the temperate zones that this can be noted Virginia to Oregon.
~ Jeremiah
45. Libsbane | January 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Well Rico,
I can see it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with you regarding this subject. AAR has cited information he believes form a logical basis for discussion, and you have challenged his intellectual acumen as well as anyone else that may not buy into your AGW religion.
Sadly, I believe that Saturn is 1,321,416,800 kilometers from Earth although I haven’t re-proven the thesis mathematically; I must believe that the logical experts are correct in this measurement and the illogical ones that try to convince me that Saturn is really on a sound stage in Hollywood are not to be believed, by me anyway. That may be intellectually vacuous to you, but I’ll go right on believing that which I believe, and base those beliefs on that which I find most logical.
46. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
One does have to wonder just how long this debate will continue before the reasons for it change (without any action from mankind), and the Left latches onto some new “anthropogenic” crisis.
47. Kahn | January 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I believe firmly in the separation of church and state. That’s why I resent the Church of Manmade Global Warming trying to impose their beliefs upon us through legislation and regulation. Thousands of respected climatologists and meteorologists have spoken out against the precepts of this religion. It doesn’t matter to the faithful. And thats fine, they can believe what they want to believe. But I don’t. And I shouldn’t have to suffer their ignorance through crazy laws.
Don’t eat pork. Don’t eat meat on Fridays. Carbon Dioxide is bad - please don’t breathe.
48. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Dasein: You’re skeptical of solar and cyclical climate change but accept anthropogenic? Isn’t that a little arrogant?
Actually, I don’t dismiss either cause. I am driven by the data. To do otherwise would be arrogant. In that regard I have found no compelling evidence that solar and natural “cyclical” changes can explain everything about what is happening now. You seem to disagree. I invite you to present your case.
But I’ll go first, at least to a first approximation…
I am prepared to argue on the simplest of levels that the cyclic changes seen (or at least postulated on the basis of proxy measurements) over the last several hundreds of thousands of years are primarily the result of cyclic variations that have a lot to do with the sun. But saying that requires the assumption of many cascading mechanisms. Pure (black body) physics argues that the Malinkovich cycle, rotational eccentricities, or sun spot cycles cannot explain the magnitude of climate variations that have occurred in that time period. In other words, it isn’t just the sun. Nor is it likely to be water vapor in and of itself. If you are inclined to argue water vapor, you have to come up with a mechanism to explain why the current equilibrium point would be different in the past. Good luck with that.
Water vapor, although by far the most significant of GHGs, is also the most volatile. More to the point, there is no evidence at all that the worldwide concentration of water vapor has to do with anything besides average relative humidity. Period. If you have different information I’d love to hear it. Now, it’s possible that as global temperatures increase the nature and extent of cloud formations might change. That’s basically what Svensmark and Friis-Christensen suggest. It’s an interesting theory, and it indicates one of many ways that non-linear variables might contribute to the overall picture. But their postulate has not been demonstrated in anything other than a laboratory setting. Without going into detail, that’s a long way from demonstrating that their hypotheses have any status in a real world setting.
In any other less politically charged setting I suspect that Svensmark, et. al.’s work, and that of those like them, would be appreciated for what it is: speculative. But in a politically charged atmosphere it is uncritically touted as proof that every other facet of climate science is total BS. I also appreciate that in the same charged environment other results are likewise uncritically considered as proof that the worst case is inevitable.
What crap. I mean think about it… even if you think Svensmark, et. al. is absolutely accurate, what does their work imply about anything but cloud formation? Said in another way, even if their findings are absolutely true, how do they negate all other findings that don’t deal with cloud formation? Can you answer that?
I doubt it.
Assuming you can’t come up with a cogent answer, that speaks to an even bigger question… what does it matter? Stepping back a ways it becomes clear that we’re talking about issues a whole lot bigger than the chemistry of clouds — or any other variation (large or small) on climate science. Perhaps few have noticed yet, but the issue on both sides of the aisle has shifted from maintaining the status quo to how to most efficiently and effectively effect something different. My feeling is that legacy fuels (i.e., fossil fuels) have reached the end of their lives, and that there are huge economic advantages in pounding the last nail in the coffin. And it doesn’t just have to do with global warming (or whatever the PC term is). Renewable fuels has to do with a HUGE economic opportunity. Not only that but it has huge implications with regard to national security as well. Think about it.
49. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
AAR
50. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Libsbane: I can see it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with you regarding this subject. AAR has cited information he believes form a logical basis for discussion, and you have challenged his intellectual acumen as well as anyone else that may not buy into your AGW religion.
Actually, all I ask is that he — or you, or anyone else — show me the data. It’s not about religion, it’s about data. He didn’t provide any. And you didn’t help. If you construe that as a challenge to his (or your) intellectual acumen, so be it.
For the record though, I wouldn’t characterize it as such. It’s more of a challenge to your (and his) knowledge base. Isn’t that the same basis upon which you argue all the time?
51. Jeremiah | January 11th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Trends, Cylical Solar changes-
The remaining high-frequency record proves interesting (Figure 2.5). The first 47 years of record (1564 to 1611 A.D.) are only represented in one core and should be viewed with caution. Taken at face value, they imply a major cool period, that began in the mid-1500’s with the warmest years of the record and culminated in the early 1600’s with the coldest years on record (1603 being the coldest). Other major cold periods occurred in the late 1600’s, mid-1700’s, mid- to late-1800’s, and the early 1900’s. Periods of warmer-than-average summer temperatures occurred in the last half of the 1700’s, early- to mid-1800’s, and mid-1900’s. The record shows no major warming trend during the 1980’s. The largest and most abrupt periods of warming occurred from 1603 to 1635, 1754 to 1780, and 1910 to 1950.
———————————————————————–
As the data from the tree core samples is shown, there is clearly a pattern, and is evidence of the sun’s intensity that is constantly changing, and never stays the same.
What Global warming proponents have to remember, is that we are just a microscopic fraction of the earth’s and Universe’s make-up. So, what we do isn’t going to make any impact on this earth. It will affect our air quality, yes, but not the temperatures. Something you also have to remember, is that the Sun is an entire planet, and if you stand directly beneath the sun on a spring day it’s effects are noticably felt especially the longer you stand directly beneath it. LOL!
So far away, yet so powerful!!
The Love of God is the same, so far away, yet He shines right through.
We are His reflection if we will allow Him to use us, that His Love may shine through to others.
:)
God bless!
~ Jeremiah
52. js | January 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Global warming is “not” a fact.
There were dozens of errors in GORES movie. The UN and the handful of so called scientists that back them rely on the same errors. Its nothing more than scare mongoring, and its done for both power and money.
There are not enough facts for any scientist in the world to make the statement that Global Warming is real based on empirical science.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
Its not an arguement about science, nor is it an arguement about facts. Its an arguement of ignorance, and its mostly double talk by people who have “NOT REAL CLUE” what is going on.
53. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Ricorun,
So, have you checked out the data?
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin is a Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. Dr. Sorokhtin and many other qualified scientists have already researched and checked their data.
Are you saying Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin and those like him who disagree with the Algorians are incompetent and incapable of interpreting their own research data?
The Algorians pooh-pooh, down play, and refuse to accept the views, opinions, and conclusions of noted “experts” in the field who disagree with them. Are you saying the Algorians will more readily accept my research, analysis, and conclusions?
Pardon me for saying so, but your viewpoint, whatever it is, appears to be largely formed in an intellectual vacuum. Then again, I really don’t know what your viewpoint is.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion!
Isn’t there some middle ground? Have you really thought about it?
Yes. The solution to the Algorian’s problem (real or imagined) is the same as that for America — plentiful, inexpensive, renewable, and less polluting energy — not attacking the American lifestyle, more restrictions, more government controls, and more and higher taxes!
And while we are working toward the goal of plentiful, cheap, renewable, and less polluting energy, America will still need oil and gas, at least in the near future. Drill for and produce our own oil in ANWR and off our coasts… produce energy from our own oil shale and coal… build more refineries… build more nuclear power plants, etc. — none of which are acceptable to the Algorian Liberals (Democrats).
The alarmist Algorian’s solution is more “climate change” alarm, hype and fear-mongering so they can increase taxes, reduce the size of cars, outlaw SUVs — more taxes — reduce the miles driven, force people to use public transit, outlaw incandescent bulbs, lower thermostats — higher taxes — block drilling for our own oil, block new refineries, increase the cost of automobiles — more taxes — more restrictions, more regulations, more government mandated lifestyle changes… and more and higher taxes!!!
Unfortunately, we won’t get that middle ground until and unless the Algorians are discredited and Americans hear about the alternatives to the “global warming” hype and alarmist solutions!!!
AAR
54. AAR | January 11th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Plant “hairy” soybeans, feed the people, produce fodder for cellulosic biofuels, and cool the planet?
AAR
55. Jeremiah | January 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Amazing!
~ Jeremiah
56. Libsbane | January 11th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Rico,
Your position seems to be that unless we have the acme of expertise we are not allowed to have opinion. In a legal sense, you might be correct; when examined in a legal action, the only “experts” allowed to give expert testimony are those with credentials properly qualified as an expert. I don’t understand structural engineering, but I am of the opinion that my Volvo is a very safe car.
In the “politically charged” debate we find ourselves so engaged not one of us is thus qualified to have an opinion or even profess basic knowledge of the subject matter. We could, therefore quote our favorite source as if we have some symbiotic relationship with said expert. Could I marshal evidentiary analysis supporting cyclical justification? You decide; after all, you did it, why can’t I?
If your (or your symbiotic expert) maintain that relative humidity plays no part in atmospheric temperatures then I’d proffer that your expert is full of beans; any first year chemistry student knows the relationships between temperature, pressure and humidity.
Theoretic modeling is the basis for the AGW theory and is no more or less valid than the modeling you have presented as factual when you speak of the “magnitude of climate variations that have occurred in that time period.” We can easily establish that the magnitude of change was far more volatile in epochs past than in the 150 years we are currently using as the baseline. And, by the way, any first year chem student will also tell you that the system is always in equilibrium; no explanation of variations is necessary. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
Whereas I can agree that alternative energy is a worthwhile goal and one I fully support, (see: nuclear) we can, and do disagree that this or any other man-made proposal would have any effect on the current state of affairs. I personally believe that, although beneficial none of the alternatives will substantially impact the trajectory the earth is in. Global warming everywhere except Baghdad today.
57. Christian Wright | January 12th, 2008 at 12:38 am
How do we know it was snow and not pollution?
I seem to remember something about colored snow that later turned out to be poison from the result of a serious ecological disaster
58. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Ricorun,
Among the biggest problems with Liberals (Democrats) are their solutions!!!
AAR
59. SEW | January 12th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Christian, good point. Maybe your best yet! The same question should be applied to South American record snow falls and the INCREASING ice mass in Antartica! How do we know it was not pollution? Liberals are always ahead in these intellectual inquiries.
POLLUTION, not snow. Why didn’t I think of that simple answer? Oh, well.
60. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Christian Wright,
How do you know if you are drinking water or…
AAR
61. Ricorun | January 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Libsbane: Your position seems to be that unless we have the acme of expertise we are not allowed to have opinion. In a legal sense, you might be correct; when examined in a legal action, the only “experts” allowed to give expert testimony are those with credentials properly qualified as an expert. I don’t understand structural engineering, but I am of the opinion that my Volvo is a very safe car.
Why is that? Surely you did not come about your opinion on the basis of what you read in some holy book. I’m just guessing (because you haven’t indicated), but I presume you came about your opinion through a critical analysis of the results of crash tests and (dare I say it…) the experts’ “concensus opinion” of how they should be interpreted. Does that make how they rate the relative safety all the various makes and models of vehicles and how they will behave in real-life scenarios absolutely correct? Very unlikely. If they make a mistake somewhere along the line, does that mean all their conclusions are total BS? I would argue no. For example, when the Suzuki Samurai came out it did reasonably well in the various crash tests deemed necessary at the time to assess vehicle safety. Unfortunately, none of those tests at the time included an assessment of the vehicle’s propensity to roll over. Due to its narrow wheel base and high center of gravity, the Samurai was off the charts in that regard. But that didn’t negate everything that went before.
That’s my point: any criticism of the “concensus opinion” of global warming science, even if valid to some degree, is taken by many to be a complete repudiation of EVERYTHING that went before. Many will take that stand even though they have never even attempted to assess, in any logical way, how everything fits into everything else in the overall problem, nor attempt to assess the extent to which the new data are valid, nor attempt to consolidate the new data (assuming they determine it has some validity) into their overall viewpoint. And I argue that they don’t (at least in most cases) because they haven’t even attempted to put what they already know into any sort of coherent logical framework and build upon it in a critical way. Rather, many people (on both sides, mind you) have decided upon what they want to believe ahead of time and work backwards. Thus, purely on faith or ideology, they are inclined to accept only those studies that are nominally consistent with what they want to believe and reject those studies that aren’t. They don’t even bother to even try to assess the extent to which the findings of the study might be valid, or how the study fits into their overall logical framework — usually because they haven’t bothered to construct one.
As for your more specific criticism of my own point of view, I vehemently reject the notion that the justification for my logic is somehow cyclical. That’s ridiculous. As a case in point, you say, “If your (or your symbiotic expert) maintain that relative humidity plays no part in atmospheric temperatures then I’d proffer that your expert is full of beans.” Actually, what I’m saying is that there is no evidence at all that the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has anything to do with anything except the average temperature of said atmosphere (i.e., relative humidity stays relatively constant, and there is no identified mechanism available to change that). Thus, unless information is provided to indicate otherwise, water vapor must be considered a “passive forcer”, i.e., one that follows temperature, regardless of whatever other forcers might cause temperature to change. To suggest otherwise (especially without evidence) would be properly considered circular. And if you suggest otherwise… what’s your evidence?
I readily admit that I don’t have an inside track on the details of climate science or climate models. But I am reasonably savvy with respect to the analysis techniques involved. My biggest shortcoming is on the physical chemistry side. That’s not to say that I’m totally naive. I’ve taken quite a few chemistry (and physics) courses. But even so, I cannot claim that I understand how to evaluate isotope distributions in clam shells, ice cores, or what have you. In that respect, I have to take the basic data on a certain amount of faith. But even so, I am willing to listen to what “the experts” have to say about it and the controversies that may arise. In fact, I listen to the experts on both sides of the debate, about every facet of the debate. I don’t claim any superior intellect, but I do feel that I have exercised more due dilligence on the topic than most. In my case anyway, I don’t develop my logical framework on the basis of faith. I develop it on the basis of the available data, and my best efforts to understand them. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect that anyone who doesn’t to demonstrate that they can argue cogently, or at least demonstrate that they have actually thought about the issue in a fashion that suggests they are willing to adjust their opinion from the bottom up rather than the top down — i.e., in a fashion that suggests they are willing to consider facts and logic before their ideology.
Is that too much to ask? When you argue someone on economic issues, how are your requirements any different?
One of my new year resolutions was a promise not to discuss climate science, only solutions. Obviously I failed, lol! But I hope that people understand that what I have said here is more of a “meta-analysis” (i.e., a treatise on how to think about things in general) rather than a statement about how I think about specific things. And I do generally agree with AAR’s comment (absent the multiple exclamation points): “Among the biggest problems with Liberals (Democrats) are their solutions.” I’d say that, at least in my experience, it’s true. The libbies here (and elsewhere) don’t seem to be particularly interested in discussing solutions. Then again, the same is largely true of conservatives. Where libbies are concerned there seems to be an inordinate reliance on regulation and subsidies and a reluctance to consider the possible power of market incentives to stimulate the maturation of alternative fuels. Where conservatives are concerned there seems to be an inordinate reliance on legacy fossil fuels, apparently under the assumption that drilling in ANWR or in the eastern Gulf coast, or mining oil shale in Wyoming or oil sand in Alberta is a no-brainer. Well, is it? Convince me. As far as I can tell at the present time (and for any time foreseeable in the future), dollar for dollar, a 10-40 year commitment devoted to developing renewable fuels could reap far more benefits in a shorter time-period than trying to extend the lifetime of legacy fossil fuels. If you think otherwise, try to convince me otherwise.
62. FmrMarine | January 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Here is how RELIABLE the “scientists” are when it comes to the weather
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
63. FmrMarine | January 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ruskies Call Global Warming Rubbish - Prepare for Global Cooling
Moscow’s advice is “Buy felt boots and fur coats.” Oleg Sorokhtin of RIA Novosti says that the warming that has taken place is natural and unrelated to greenhouse gases. Scientists say that the Antarctic ice shields aren’t shrinking, but growing.
Researcher Habibullah Abdusamatov says that Earth has passed the peak of a warm spell which started in the 17th century. As early as 100,000 years from now, we will be in the throes of a “New Ice Age” with ice dominating Europe and glaciers south of Moscow.
The article goes on to say that the key players in what shapes the earth’s weather - solar activity cycles and terrestrial precession among others - make man’s impact on the atmosphere “A drop in the ocean” and that we can expect a cold spell by 2012.
64. Ricorun | January 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
FmrMarine, can you explain how things may or may not have changed in the 30 plus years since that Time article was published? Or do you simply assume no new information has been accumulated? Or if you acknowledge that new information has been accumulated, what do you think about it? I guess I’m asking why you put so much emphasis on 30 year old data, especially considering the progress in computing power in general since then as well as the progress in climate science since then.
I mean really… what’s your point?
65. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Ricorun,
Not necessarily to sound judgmental, but - Try to keep life in perspective!
Don’t sweat the small stuff. I mean really it’s all under control (Job 38).
Really, all it boils down to, is the scientists are saying that carbon dioxide is “degrading” the atmosphere.
It’s just a bunch of non-sense.
Look, C02 is what plants and trees breathe, it’s just a simple process, photosynthesis…and without photosynthesis, WE couldn’t breathe. So, there’s plenty to go around. The more C02, the more plants and trees have to survive on.
It’s all in good hands.
~ Jeremiah
66. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The cause of the Dinosaur extinction was “supposed” to be “settled science”.
Can the “concensus” of sciencists be wrong yet AGAIN?!!!
Sort of sounds like the “scientific consensus” on global warming…
It’s a compelling story, but plenty of scientists never completely bought it.
But… we are to believe that Al Gore and the Algorians got it right — THIS TIME!!!!!
(Could science also be WRONG on Intelligent Design???!
AAR
67. Ricorun | January 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
FmrMarine, could you explain to me the data and logic behind Oleg Sorokhtin and Habibullah Abdusamatov’s conclusions? I’m not saying they’re wrong, but their conclusions to seem rather far afield from many others. Why should we believe them instead of the many others? Can you elucidate?
68. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ricorun,
The answer is straightforward. It long ago became an unshakable article of faith among self-styled conservatives that Vice-President Al Gore is A Big Liar (they love to have a good chuckle as they regale each other with the long-discredited “invented the Internet” fable) and so they’ll grasp at any straw, however old, to justify their political faith with its tasty, but unsubtle seasoning of peripheral Clinton-hatred.
69. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I’m having trouble verifying this in any of the main stream media news outlets… but then it’s fairly new and not something the main stream media would want to publish. Just keep it in the noted and interesting category for now.
Little good it will do to notify the DIMocrats… it’s against their agenda… it’s against their religion!!!
AAR
70. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The long-discredited “invented the Internet” fable? Really?!!!
In a March 9, 1999 interview on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Gore stated…
I took the initiative in creating the internet.
How much clearer could Gore say “I invented the Internet”?!!!
AAR
71. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Ahh, yes the Space and Science Research Center which doesn’t have any agenda:
“Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is the leading science and engineering research company internationally, that specializes in the analysis of and planning for climate changes based upon the “Relational Cycle Theory.”
So, tell us SSRC, who developed this theory?
“Also called The Relational Cycle Theory or simply the RC Theory, this new solar physics theory was developed from the independent research into solar activity by John L. Casey, the Director of the Space and Science Research Center.”
Ahh, he must have some major educational credentials in the field then?
“He has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics and an MA degree in Management.”
Impressive. I’ll go stock up on thermal underwear right away.
72. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Oleg Sorokhtin and Habibullah Abdusamatov’s conclusions?
Ricorun,
Abdusamatov actually has it correct, there’s only one thing that he’s dismissing, as regards to why the sun is the cause. whether knowingly or unknowingly that’s not for me to decide.
But you already know what I’m going to say the answer is.
So, I rest my case.
~ Jeremiah
P.S.
73. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
AAR,
Okay, you can’t or won’t grasp the context of the discussion the Vice-President was having with Wolf Blitzer that you quoted, i.e., “During my service in Congress…I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives…” So, absent context, you change the word creating to inventing to satisfy your pre-packaged belief. Oh well, I guess you invented what he said.
74. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Al Gore should stick to inventing Space Alien movies on Sci-Fi channel. He would make an ideal outer-space character.
~ Jeremiah
75. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Diana,
Are you saying they are lying??? Where did you get your “doctorate” degree in solar physics???
Oh, that’s right… YOU don’t have one, do you?!
Or — since you can’t disprove their findings and conclusions — aren’t you just attacking them in exactly the same way you would attack an individual’s character or values in hopes “that” will somehow discredit their message in the minds of your Liberal minion followers? Attack the messenger in hopes of killing the message!
Why don’t you go stock up on another load of your propagandist theory books instead!!!!!
AAR
76. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Jeremiah,
Your hatred and disrespect for the former Vice-President (can I mock President Reagan now?) are duly noted.
77. SEW | January 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
AAR, Just in the nick of time to save the planet from man made Global Warming. The prayers of the secular Dims have been answered! Bush, Cheney and Rove have been trying to destroy the world with Global Warming and suddenly through prayer the Dims have saved us!
78. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
AAR,
Did I say I have a “doctorate degree” in anything? Feel free to quote me if I did. Did I “attack” Mr. Casey for his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and Mathematics? I just quoted from their own site. So, why are you so anxious to alert us to Mr. Casey’s “breakthrough” theory?
79. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
DIANA!! DIANA!!! DIANAAA!!!
You are proof of what the Left are best at…
You can’t take a JOKE!!
Which is only more proof that your hatred is taken to the extreme.
Look at the stuff that you and your liberal friends of thrown on President Bush!!!
Why, stuff straight from the pits of hell…What’s wrong with you people??????
Geesh!!!!
~ Jeremiah
80. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Diana,
Having a little trouble comprehending the English language tonight are you?!!!
Gore said: “I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
In ADDITION to “creating the internet”, Gore also said: “I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives… (IN ADDITION TO “inventing the Internet”)!
MEANING… he took credit for a “…whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.” –in ADDITION to “creating the internet”,
What part of that do you have trouble understanding.
Okay, Gore said he “created” the Internet instead of “invented” it — same thing!
Spin… spin… spin your spinning wheel…
Gore said: “I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
Even if you can’t quite understand the meaning, other readers can and will!!!
AAR
81. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
AAR,
I don’t recommend a career in the law for you.
Jeremiah,
Please free to quote any comparable things I’ve ever posted about the current President.
82. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Diana,
I don’t care what you recommend for me… I never wanted to be a lawyer!
The fewer lawers and judges we have, the better!
AAR
83. NeoClown | January 12th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
AAR, and Jeremiah,
It sounds like you boys choose to stand up and be counted with the Godless, Communists in Russia while turning your back on folks here in the United States.
Is that a fair statement comrades?
84. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Diana,
My, my, my… you are having trouble tonight.
I didn’t say you attacked Casey directly. You attacked the “Space and Science Research Center” as having an “agenda” and thereby “implying” that anything they say is invalid… and, by association, further “implying” that anything Casey says is invalid!
I even said: “…aren’t you just attacking THEM in exactly the SAME WAY you would attack an INDIVIDUAL’s character or values…” referring to the organization or group. Perhaps I should to be more specific and precise for you, but the meaning and intent of what I said is clear to anyone other than a Democrat or Liberal!!!
Anyone rationally thinking person reading your sarcastic post about the SSRC and Casey knows full well what you meant and intended!!!
I KNOW you don’t have a “doctorate” degree. That’s what I meat when I said “Oh, that’s right… YOU don’t have one, do you?!” I never claimed you said you had a “doctorate” degree; although, one might think that from the way you offer your “expert” propaganda!
AAR
85. Ricorun | January 12th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Diana Powe: Ricorun, The answer is straightforward. It long ago became an unshakable article of faith among self-styled conservatives that Vice-President Al Gore is A Big Liar…
Perhaps so. But it is equally obvious that many on the other side believe at least equally as “an unshakable article of faith” that everything Gore (or anyone else) espouses is necessarily some kind of unassailable truth. The fact is, it’s not. There are a lot of legitimate questions. The problem I see is that they are poorly considered — on both sides. That’s the issue I’m trying to address here. But more than that, questions about climate science are often considered in isolation of other considerations.
While I personally believe that global warming is a real danger, I don’t buy into all of the “hysterics” surrounding it. I also don’t believe that considerations related to global warming should be considered in a vacuum, i.e., unrelated to other considerations.
Pardon me for being reiterative, but it appears that if you don’t beat people over the head with a 2×4 you don’t get your point across. The immediate point is that many of the same solutions that ameliorate global warming also make sense on both a national security and on an economic level.
The more expansive point is that many renewable alternatives are available now — and at or near the cost of existing gas-fired or coal-fired plants. The only real impediment is capital investment. If that hump is smoothed (through regulatory and policy changes) we could very well see a significant shift towards renewable fuel sources in the time it would take to build, say, a nuclear plant, or a coal fired plant, or drill in AWAR and set up a pipeline. And with little or not impact on the economy. In fact, there is every reason to believe that such shifts would be overwhelmingly positive, at least in the long run.
I also believe that there are several more technologies which could make a major impact in the medium to long term, presuming an appropriate investment in R&D. If you’re interested in more information, contact me at richardlambert80@netzero.com.
86. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
NeoClown,
Who said those Russians were godless? Where did you get that information?
“The most widespread religion in Russia is Orthodox Christianity, dominated by Russian Orthodox Church. It has been the major religion of Russia for centuries, with about 25 million followers (15% of the total population).”
It’s nice to see you’ve converted. It’s nice to know that you now oppose godlessness and atheists. We will look forward to you defending religion and Christians against the attacks from the atheist Liberals!!!
AAR
87. SEW | January 12th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Create, Webster. 1. To produce; to bring into being from nothing; to cause to exist. from Webster. Create.
Denial, Webster. 1. An affirmation to the contrary; an assertion that a declaration or fact stated is not true; negation; contradiction. It is often expressed by no or not, simply.
Al “created” the internet [from Al’s mouth]. Diana is in denial.
88. Ricorun | January 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
AAR: I didn’t say you attacked Casey directly. You attacked the “Space and Science Research Center” as having an “agenda” and thereby “implying” that anything they say is invalid… and, by association, further “implying” that anything Casey says is invalid!
Be that as it may, explain to me why Casey’s opinion IS valid. A few months ago someone posted a comment quoting a NASA scientist that speculated that solar cycle 24 wouldn’t happen. It wasn’t an opinion shared by his colleagues, but that’s okay. More importantly, it appears he was wrong. Even more importantly, the predictions are cycle 24 is going to be a biggie.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
The good news is that cycle 25 is predicted to be less intense. Lucky us. Either way, I ask everyone… how do you evaluate this new information into your overall logical construct?
89. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Is that a fair statement comrades?
NeoClown,
It’s one thing for you Democrats to call us “anti-American” and then turn right around and oppose protection of the United States from Radical Jihadist Extremist Muslims.
Which opposes the very precepts that founded this country; as stated, and set forth in the Declaration of Independence:
Also, I note that you use the word - (Communist) Whew! Step back a minute, and look at that great big word.
Communist? Isn’t that the same as what YOUR party, as you put it, ‘Godless, Communism’ stands for?
Imposed taxes, “free” healthcare, incentivized to break the backs of WORKING Class American citizens?
Isn’t YOUR party, the same ones that don’t want Creation from the Bible and the good that it has for the children taught to them in schools?
Isn’t YOUR party, the same ones that want Christianity removed from the public square?
I’m afraid to tell you this, but, Yes, they are the same ones that want a Communist Dictatorship.
Don’t think so? Wait to Hillary Clinton gets in office. You don’t know how bad it is until you’ve experienced it.
~ Jeremiah
90. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Ricorun,
I can readily agree with your stance. The problem with much of the criticism that you can find so many examples of here is a failure to distinguish between Vice President Gore, trying to raise awareness for what could be dismissed as an esoteric concern, and those who actually work in the pertinent scientific fields. My sense is that the outright anger one can read has little to do with science and much more to do with hatred of the Vice-President and, tangentially, President Clinton.
91. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Ricorun,
Unless you read otherwise, that’s only part of the story… solar cycle 25 is predicted to possibly be one of the weakest in centuries!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
If the predictions are correct, we may be looking for some global warming to keep from freezing!
AAR
92. js | January 12th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Alot of the anger could be from all the lies Gore spread too, and the scientists with sense enough to know that Gore duped alot of kids and people with good intentions.
The people with good intentions have a right to be angry for being lied too.
Its got nothing to do with Bush, in reality, its all about deflecting the blame and redirecting the anger to subvert the US Government.
Some of the greatest conspiracy theories in the world are being hatched before our very eyes, and if we are not careful, we will become the pawns of the biggest fools parade the world has ever seen.
93. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
As I said…
94. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ricorun,
Here’s an expanded version of what Diana chopped up to use in her subtle, sarcastic back-handed attack against SSRC and John Casey…
The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity, called The Relational Cycle Theory, or simply the RC Theory, is a new solar physics theory developed from the independent research into solar activity by John L. Casey, the Director of the Space and Science Research Center. It forms the core of research on going at the SSRC and provides a foundation for future scientific research into the next and future global climate changes, which according to the RC Theory, are strictly determined by specific cycles of the Sun’s behavior.
AAR
95. Jeremiah | January 12th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Diana,
It’s really easy for you guys on the left to call Radical Islam a “bogus threat” from the safety of your own home, and then claim “global warming” as the “greatest threat” we’ve ever faced.
Just think of it this way - Can you harness the weather? What about the sun? Can you put it’s firey flames and immense heat out? Hahaha.
Pretty laughable, Huh?
As a sane people, we know we can’t do it, Right? Right!
So who’s Al Gore think he is anyway?
I think he’s a got a plan. As was discussed here before, it is nothing but one of many tricks in the Liberal trick bag to try and bring about a proletariet state, which leads to, a Communist state.
If Al Gore’s plan goes into effect, everything we do will be changed, what we eat, what we wear, where we go, how much gas we buy, how far we can travel, it would be enormous the stupidity he wants to put into effect.
It would be so enormous that life would almost come to a stand-still on this planet we know as earth. That’s teaming with activity.
And all for what? Nothing, absolutely nothing!
And yet, there are people out there dying every day at the hands of Terrorists, and you don’t want to help them.
Shame on you!!!
~ Jeremiah
96. NeoClown | January 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
AAR. Jeremiah,
I’m surprised you two know so much about religion and life in Russia.
Did you learn all that stuff when you were studying the Russian scientists reports?
Why you would choose to believe Russian scientists over American scientists?
You guys sure are brave for going on record at B4V with communist propaganda.
97. NeoClown | January 12th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Jeremiah,
How exactly does that work?
When you talk about “bringing about a proletariet state, which leads to, a Communist state.”
What exactly do you mean?
98. js | January 12th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Last time I checked, something that appears to be, or if something may be, that something does not qualify as imperial science.
What a theory is, is just a work in progress. As such, theory is more guess than science.
A concept is not a scientific fact. Relative theories on relative concepts often have substantial errors, which, over a period of time, tend to change considerably. Once such example is Global Warming, another is Evolution.
We can theorize that in the microcosm there was a scientists that caused the macrocosm through scientific error, resulting in the creation of the universe. Whille its always possible, its not a good thing to represent it as fact. Thats what Global Warming did.
99. AAR | January 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
NeoClown,
You shouldn’t be so surprised. I know about many things!!!
What do you have against Russian scientists? They aren’t all atheists, as you believe.
AAR
100. js | January 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
It’s really easy for you guys on the left to call Radical Islam a “bogus threat” from the safety of your own home, and then claim “global warming” as the “greatest threat” we’ve ever faced.
~ Jeremiah
There is only so much you can do Jeremiah. Your faith is bright, but you cannot continue to throw pearls to the swine when all they do is trample it before your eyes. They have been given over to a spirit of deciet, to engage is those abominations you argue against. They have been blinded, and cannot see.
101. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 1:15 am
NeoClown,
You think about it, if all production shuts down, steel mills, refineries, dry kilns, cleaning plants, and various other productions due to the need for fuel which is severely limited due to some foggy hair brained idea that we are all somehow going to “burn-up” then many of the job placements will become vacant so that those who retained the jobs may live. You see what I’m saying? People who run the factories can’t continue to pay their workers because they don’t have the necessary materials to keep their plants running, and so they can’t pay their employees. So everything shuts down.
Thus, the Democrats have more potential voters to pander too, “Hey, you want some welfare?” And they start handin’ out all these welfare checks, and then they start raising taxes on those farmers and small business owners who work on their own land, and don’t require a lot of help.
So what do you have, Big Government, shakin’ their Big Iron Fist at the world. Fattened up like Kings in a Royal Palace.
Where do you wind up in all this? Out on the street corner, beggin’ for coins.
Democrats….They’re dangerous!! Don’t vote fer ‘em.
~ Jeremiah
102. Jonathan | January 13th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Wow…..Jeremiah, you paranoid rants have never cease to amaze me.
103. Ricorun | January 13th, 2008 at 7:49 am
AAR: If the predictions are correct, we may be looking for some global warming to keep from freezing!
This implies that you believe the sunspot cycles to be dramatically important in driving global temperatures. This is what you’re trying to say, isn’t it? If so, you’d expect to see global temperatures vary with respect to the sunspot cycles. Moreover, to the extent that the sunspot cycles were the only thing that was important, you’d expect to see global temperatures rising and falling in concert with them, but with no longer term trend, either up or down. Right?
So now we have ourselves an hypothesis. Let’s check it. A record of the sunspot cycles was provided in the link you offered. A record of global average temperature can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
If you don’t like that representation, find another. But anyway, if you map the global average temperature data against the sunspot data, you do see an effect — global average temperature does ripple up and down with a frequency consistent with the sunspot cycles. However, there is a also a long term trend in the global average temperature data as well. Specifically, it’s going up, even as it oscillates with the solar cycles. That suggests to me that the effect of solar cycles, although detectable, is not the complete story. How about you?
Also, looking at the temperature data in relation to the cycle data, it doesn’t look like we’re going to have to worry about freezing anytime soon.
104. Ricorun | January 13th, 2008 at 8:41 am
AAR: Here’s an expanded version of what Diana chopped up to use in her subtle, sarcastic back-handed attack against SSRC and John Casey…
I checked out Casey’s spaceandscience.net web site. Apparently, the summary you provided about his “Relational Theory” is all he has up there. Nothing else. No details. It’s a nice looking building, though. Interestingly, the very same address is listed here:
http://www.intelligentoffice.com/list.html
It’s a virtual office. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But featuring a picture of the building prominently on the first page of your web site? Hmmm…
Here’s a little more info on Mr. Casey:
http://junkscience.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/john_casey.pdf
105. Ricorun | January 13th, 2008 at 8:42 am
AAR: Here’s an expanded version of what Diana chopped up to use in her subtle, sarcastic back-handed attack against SSRC and John Casey…
I checked out Casey’s spaceandscience.net web site. Apparently, the summary you provided about his “Relational Theory” is all he has up there. No details. It’s a nice looking building, though. Interestingly, the very same address is listed here:
http://www.intelligentoffice.com/list.html
It’s a virtual office. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But featuring a picture of the building prominently on the first page of your web site? Hmmm…
Here’s a little more info on Mr. Casey:
http://junkscience.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/john_casey.pdf
106. AAR | January 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Ricorun,
This implies that you believe the sunspot cycles to be dramatically important in driving global temperatures. This is what you’re trying to say, isn’t it?
Yes, that is one of the scientific theories!
In addition to previous quotes on this topic, here’s another…
AAR
107. AAR | January 13th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Ricorun,
What should concern people more is the very real threat of “the perfect solar storm”.
As the Discovery Channel put it:
Imagine the United States and the entire civilized world being without electricity for months or years! How long would New York City and the other major cities survive without electricity, food, water, sewer, and all the services and everything else which depends on electricity. Their online accounts and their money — which will be useless — will be inaccessible because computers will not be working. They will have no television, news, or cell phones to tell they what’s happening. There will be no working elevators and most people won’t even be able to get to their apartment in those skyscrapers. There will be no functioning hospitals or healthcare facilities to care for the hundreds of millions of sick and dying. Even burying the many millions of dead will be a problem.
Talk about deaths and disasters — that will be one of truly epic proportions!!!
AAR
108. Ricorun | January 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am
AAR, what was the source of your latest cut ‘n paste? If it was the original NASA news release (December 6, 2001) you left out some stuff, didn’t you? Like this part: “Changes in the sun’s energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution.”
I guess that explains the long term trend I mentioned. Lol! You didn’t leave that part out on purpose, did you?
Anyway, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. The Maunder minimum was a very unusual event. That’s not to say it won’t happen again, but so far it doesn’t appear to be likely. But the important point is that the Maunder minimum was characterized by a very low number of sunspots. As your most recent paste indicates, there were only 50 observed sunspots over a 30-year period. If the predictions about a weak solar cycle 25 are correct, they’re expecting it to peak out at about 70 sunspots per month. That’s low, but it’s not anywhere close to a Maunder minimum.
Another thing is that in the original NASA release, the author mentioned that during the Maunder minimum, “Global average temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite large.” The European winter temperatures over that time period were reduced by 1.8 to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1-1.5 Celsius). Through his model, the author attributes the much larger regional effect to weakened wind patterns that normally blow warm tropical air into higher lattitudes. So if a relatively small reduction in global temperature could have a much larger regional effect, what does that imply about a relatively small increase in global temperature?
109. Ricorun | January 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
AAR, in my last comment when I asked the source of your “latest” cut ‘n paste, I was referring to the one in your comment #104. I just wanted to clear that up. Now, on to the Discovery Channel.
Talk about deaths and disasters — that will be one of truly epic proportions!!!
Horrible. Just horrible. So how truly likely is such a scenario. And what does it have to do with global warming?
110. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Sunspot is harbinger of solar cycle.
~ Jeremiah
111. AAR | January 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ricorun,
“Changes in the sun’s energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution.”
The article was about the effect of sunspots and the theory that the reduced number of sunspots, were related to reduced solar activity, which is theorized lead to “the little ice age”.
The statement you referenced was included almost parenthetically with no explanation of what the author even meant by the statement… nor was there any discussion of whether the slight increase in CO2 and contribution to global warming from humans might or might not offset a portion of the cooling we are likely to experience as a result of reduced solar activity.
We do know that the sun is directly responsible for almost all of the warming on Earth — with or without any possible contributing effects from humans. If the solar activity decreases, as is expected in the near future, that may very likely offset or even exceed any contributions from humans.
If that is the case, then we have even more time to develop and convert to plentiful, inexpensive, renewable, and less polluting sources of energy — WITHOUT all of the tax hikes, restrictions, regulations, and the rest of the Liberal agenda!
And what does it have to do with global warming?
It is a related issue to sunspot activity… one that is not only possible, but highly probable… one that can happen any day, without warning… one that will likely exceed any disaster caused by “global warming”… and one that most Americans don’t even know about!
I first heard about it on the Discovery Channel, but they didn’t “invent” or “create” it — they were only reporting on it. Their quote happened to be the one I had handy rather than stating it in my own words as a target for the passing Lib propagandists (again, I do not include you and Casper in that group).
If the related theories are correct, the Maunder minimum is not an “unusual event”, but rather, a cyclic event that reoccurs and repeats over time.
AAR
112. Ricorun | January 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
AAR, the point I am trying to make here is that the theories you prefer are far more speculative than anything the IPCC is peddling. Moreover, you don’t seem to be paying attention to the magnitudes of the postulated effects, either. Let’s review:
1. You suggest that solar cycle 25, which won’t begin for more than another decade, will be on a scale similar to the Maunder minimum. Yet I have pointed out that the cycle, though predicted to be smaller in magnitude than previous cycles, is not predicted to be anywhere near that of the Maunder minimum. In the Maunder minimum there was an estimated 50 sunspots over a 30 year span. Solar cycle 25 is estimated to peak around 70 sunspots per month. Big difference. And it’s ridiculous to compare them.
2. The Maunder minimum, as extreme as it was in terms of the sunspot cycle, was estimated to have resulted in only about a .5 to .7 degree Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C) change in global temperatures. However, that change resulted in considerably larger regional changes in the northern lattitudes. That should at least suggest to you that if large regional changes in climate occured because the global temperature dipped by a relatively small amount, there exists the possibility that similar large changes in regional climate could occur if the global temperature rose by a relatively small amount. It seems to me you have to at least allow for that possibility.
3. There is solid, directly observed evidence for only one instance of a prolonged period of a dearth of sunspot activity — the Maunder minimum. Other possibilities rely on proxy data. And if you compare the proxy data with the sunspot data over the period of time that both are available, there is a correlation but not a 1:1 correspondence. That probably has something to do with the fact that the proxy data is thought to reflect global cosmic ray (GCR) intensity, not sunspot activity per se. The two are related but aren’t necessarily the same. At any rate, try mapping the GSR proxy data against global temperature proxy data. I think you’ll find that there appears to be an effect, but it isn’t very large. More importantly, it doesn’t appear possible to use that rationale alone to explain the global temperature trend that is happening now. It seems to me you have to appreciate that as well.
4. Even if a prolonged dearth of