Black Sunday April 14, 1935. The dust storm that turned day into night. Many believed the world was coming to an end.
Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
You forgot "climatologists".
APf
from the abstract
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
So what's your point? Who are you arguing with?
Hey! Don't try to confuse us with the FACTS, ole! ;-)
Yes, what weighting to give the various factors? If the best thing we have to answer the question is mere conjecture, then we are as well off saying we just plain don’t know. Otherwise we might as well BE professional astrologers, spending our whole lives repeating the horoscopes of the last twelve people we met.
Of yes. The biggest criminals of all.
OK, I will bite ... Question, what ended the last ice age 18,000 years ago?
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
There. That should take care of any objections raised by those ignorant laymen...
I'm doing no such thing. If someone brings you a garbled message what credence do you give to the rest of his message especially if the message claims to have dispositive proof of a cosmological fact based upon 25 years "evidence".
The idea that the suns radiance does not affect the earths temperature is "per se" ridiculous.
The fact that they're hanging their entire theory on a proxy indicator of insolation, and not on insolation itself - that doesn't worry me. You see, these Climate Scientists are making a better world.
As I've shown in an earlier post, the abstract can be ignored.
So whatcha got besides your dubious little "abstract", ll?
Got something we can all read and be assured that pieces of it aren't being changed behind the curtain? ;-)
There's far more to it than modeling. The study under discussion purports to show that certain contentions contradict observed facts.
Have they shown why the minuscule time scale doesn’t matter? Why we should not expect effects with much longer time constants to swamp this stuff out — especially the most new fangled measurements that were not even possible for most of the climatic history that we know? Great as journalism, horrid as science.
I'm sorry, I missed this. Point me to the correct post or repeat your argument. Thanks.
Post the whole study, or quit using it as a basis for a factual discussion.
There's far more to it than modeling.
These "professionals" are claiming that they basically are able to model the global climate with their "data". They're asking us to just say "Ave Maria" and have faith.
No peer review. In fact, the ‘researchers’ seem to be saying that peer review isn’t even necessary. That’s not science, that’s propaganda.
It's the TimesSelect argument:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1864090/posts?page=101#101
If you claim that X always increases when Y increases and someone shows you that X decreases when Y increases (during the period of the experiment) then either you're wrong (most likely), the experiment was poorly done (possible), or a miracle occured.
LL’s argument boils down to “Whom Do You Trust” and he’s in the temple of what for all we know are blind guides.
Environmentalists cause global warming.
Black Sunday April 14, 1935. The dust storm that turned day into night. Many believed the world was coming to an end.
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.