Who am I? I'm a self employed cartoonist and web designer living in Brisbane, Australia (although mostly my cartoons are sci-fi parody, in fact, just today I posted my first cartoon on
global warming science). I mainly got interested in the whole global warming thing cause I started "discussions" with my father-in-law and uncle-in-law who are both diehard skeptics. Yet the arguments they used were very lame and unscientific (the "they predicted an ice age in the 70's", "Greenland used to be green" variety). So I started researching all the various arguments (mainly by getting into discussions on blogs such as these) to see if there were any skeptic arguments that hold water. Still looking. Sorry I've only been posting for a day but I've just found this website. But I'm sure I'll be back - I've already had some great discussions with some of the regulars. Do I buy this contrived explanation of Mars warming? Which explanation do you mean? The one about the sun warming which is contradicted by direct observations of solar activity? Or the one about dust storms which is based on direct observations of a darkening surface and climate models of Mars. I'll go with the one that matches the empirical data.
“Do I buy this contrived explanation of Mars warming? Which explanation do you mean? The one about the sun warming which is contradicted by direct observations of solar activity? Or the one about dust storms which is based on direct observations of a darkening surface and climate models of Mars. I’ll go with the one that matches the empirical data.”
In one case you have empirical data and in the other you have an opinion tainted by ideology. Which is which?
Two views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm