Skip to comments.
Study: Sun not linked to climate change
AP ^
| 4/3/08
| AP
Posted on 04/03/2008 10:10:19 PM PDT by melt
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last

In a related study, it was found that human activity in Al Gore's carbon-eating house--- was more responsible for global warming than the Sun...
1
posted on
04/03/2008 10:10:19 PM PDT
by
melt
To: melt
2
posted on
04/03/2008 10:13:49 PM PDT
by
wastedyears
(The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
To: melt
In another study the researchers were unable to find a link between soy milk consumption and increased flatulation. Therefore they are correct in recommending that people not drink orange juice in order to reduce farting.
3
posted on
04/03/2008 10:15:54 PM PDT
by
Thickman
(Term limits are the answer.)
To: melt
OK then, global warming must therefore be caused by crappy dentistry.
4
posted on
04/03/2008 10:15:58 PM PDT
by
Attention Surplus Disorder
(We've checked, and all your zeroes are OK. We're still working on your ones.)
To: melt
Hmmm, no mention of peer-review or publication.
I wonder whether Gore paid for this as part of his $300 million PR blitz?
Cheers!
5
posted on
04/03/2008 10:16:57 PM PDT
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: melt
Then how do these “bright bulbs” explain the fact that there’s global warming on Mars and Venus as well. Is that Bush’s fault, too!??!
6
posted on
04/03/2008 10:18:06 PM PDT
by
Tamar1973
(Catch the Korean Wave, one Bae Yong Joon film at a time!)
To: melt
7
posted on
04/03/2008 10:18:12 PM PDT
by
rfp1234
(Phodopus campbelli: household ruler since July 2007.)
To: Thickman
In another study the researchers were unable to find a link between soy milk consumption and increased flatulation. Therefore they are correct in recommending that people not drink orange juice in order to reduce farting. Yeah, it pretty much sucks what passes for science anymore. If that logic were applied to a mathematical proof, it would get a well deserved F.
8
posted on
04/03/2008 10:20:12 PM PDT
by
Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
To: melt
"But we couldn't find the link they were proposing which means we are right to be cutting carbon emissions." It also helps not to even look for one as well. You'd be amazed how many connections you can't make if you don't do any "real" research.
9
posted on
04/03/2008 10:21:21 PM PDT
by
Bommer
(Hmmm who to vote for? A Far leftist? A Radical Leftist? Or a Republican that enjoys being a Leftist?)
To: melt
"This is of vast significance because if the skeptics are right, it would mean we're wasting our time trying to cut greenhouse gases," the researchers said in a statement. "But we couldn't find the link they were proposing which means we are right to be cutting carbon emissions." Uhhhh ... how about finding the link between CO2 levels and warming before we do that?
10
posted on
04/03/2008 10:22:21 PM PDT
by
jtal
To: grey_whiskers
To: melt
This just in.....
“And on the medical front: Human saliva has been found to cause cancer ...
but only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.”
Shamelessly ripped off from a VERY old SNL skit...
12
posted on
04/03/2008 10:26:47 PM PDT
by
50cal Smokepole
(El Conservo Tribal Name: Fishes with Dynamite. ------ (Noli nothis permittere te terere.)
To: 50cal Smokepole
Oh fiddle dee dee
Of course the sun is linked to climate change. Doh
13
posted on
04/03/2008 10:27:27 PM PDT
by
JaneNC
(I)
To: I got the rope
"I found the paper...'cosmic rays and cloud cover'...
Let's read it and report!" Don't need to read it,
it was less cloudy today than yesterday - so it must be true.
14
posted on
04/03/2008 10:28:19 PM PDT
by
norton
To: I got the rope
“...said their research finds no evidence of a link between the ionizing cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover.”
Okay. I’m pretty sure that is important to somebody somehow somewhere. But - to say that the Sun is not related to climate change assumes that its sole link is “low cloud cover”. How about high clouds? Medium clouds? Fog?! No clouds .....like Mars?
15
posted on
04/03/2008 10:30:43 PM PDT
by
21twelve
(Don't wish for peace. Pray for Victory.)
To: grey_whiskers; I got the rope
16
posted on
04/03/2008 10:31:43 PM PDT
by
melt
(Someday, they'll wish their Jihad... Jihadn't.)
To: melt
Based on funding percentages, the Global Warming industry is 95% politics and 5% science.
To: melt
“But we couldn’t find the link they were proposing which means we are right to be cutting carbon emissions.”
With logic skills like that on display, the rest of their arguments must be equally worthless.
18
posted on
04/03/2008 10:41:02 PM PDT
by
devere
(http://www.usmm.net/p2/thiswar.jpg)
To: melt
Although the misleading title says the "Sun not linked to climate change," the sole focus of this study's conclusion is the effect of
cosmic rays, a very small portion of the sun's total energy output, upon earth's climate.
The study does NOT say that the sun has no effect upon earth's climate, only that the cosmic rays have no effect.
19
posted on
04/03/2008 10:41:30 PM PDT
by
Rudder
(Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
To: melt
What an idiotic study? My question would be if the sun went out tomorrow it would have no effect on our climate. What a dumb ass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson