Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Nor are they granted "tenure".
But 2+2 doesn't equal 4 to those who have a _need_ to believe lies.
The Earth's field protects from cosmic rays. The Sun also has a magnetic field that deflects extra-solar cosmic rays. The galaxy also has a magnetic field that helps deflect extra-galactic cosmic rays, and the degree of protection we get from that varies as the sun orbits the galaxy (the sun's galactic orbit brings it deep into the field and peeks us out of the field on a long cycle)
Depending on how important each field is, we may see very complicated cycles
You're wrong.
He expects his experiments to be repeated and his conclusions questioned...and he expects the results to be replicated and the conclusions supported because the evidence is overwhelming and the conclusions obvious. He's a scientist and that's what scientists do.
What he doesn't expect or understand is unreasonable insistance that wrong is right, up is down, black is white.
Do you eat industrial garbage? No. Neither do I. It’s what’s called a “straw man argument”, like pretending that modern people and/or their chickens eat sewage.
Our society is inestimably richer than any other society in the history of the world. We produce more waste per capita than the people in Swaziland or Nuristan. But that’s because each one of us lives a higher energy life than the inhabitants of those countries. We have excellent diets, water supply and health prospects thanks to the high energy-consuming lifestyles we lead. So yes, the fact that we produce more pollution is linked to our high life expectancy.
Coming into direct contact with pollution is not good for anyone. But living a high energy, polluting lifestyle is extremely good for us.
Looks like He didn't tell you everything. I guarantee, He sure didn't have very much control over what they did with what he provided, after they ate it.
Enjoy your next chicken. Now that you know what you are eating.
That is a choice you can make.
Otherwise, sit back, relax, there isn't anything you are Al Goracle can do about Global warming.
And 'wrong' is any position other than his. That much is abundantly clear from his statement.
See post #245
Coming into direct contact with pollution is not good for anyone. But living a high energy, polluting lifestyle is extremely good for us.
Only as long as we can continue to dump the pollution in someone else's yard.
In a sense that's true. There's a whole tradition of what is reasonable in science, of how to reason, and how to test your conclusions. It's been well-tested, better tested than any other mode of thinking...and it's held up very well.
I'm sure I would because I enjoy informed speculation...and that's what that most likely is. Interesting conclusions which cannot be presently tested.
I read yesterday about how flawed the climate models are as well. They don’t take into account the oceans almost unlimited ability to absorb CO2. The models assume CO2 remains in the atmosphere almost permanently.
Here in Britain we use landfill: - land set aside for the purpose of storing low grade industrial waste. Am I to understand from your remarks that, in the States, people drop tonnes of industrial rubbish into other people's backyards? And, apparently, make them eat it afterwards? Because I can see how that might get annoying. Honestly, I had no idea things were so bad over there :0)
We've kind of gone off the point of the thread now. As a last remark: thanks for posting the article. Honestly, it's good that proponents of AGW like yourself are on FR: it raises the level of debate for all of us. FReegards.
Sorry to break it to you and Larry. But a chucken will pick through, and eat parts of any manure it can find. Even when raised in cages, there will be some manure that sticks to the wire.
I am beginning to believe, not any of you knows ....!LOL
Notice that I said sattelite data is more accurate, which it is, than ground station readings. I didn’t say it was perfect.
Yes, it's called air and water pollution. You're apparently surprised to learn that it's a favorite pasttime in your neck of the woods as well. :) China, Mexico, and other third world countries are much better at it, of course.
So I guess the science is again "settled."
Nothing to see here, just move along.
There's a limit to how much even a chicken can tolerate.
By all means. Be gone. The sooner, the better.
“so, does that mean we should close the universities, that they have not value?”
yes.
“i can show you plenty of crooked business men.”
who are they?
are there any crooked scientists?
Now that we have settled some ....! Regarding GW. I would support actual, not agenda driven research. To disregard that the Sun and Earth go through cycles would be to deny history. My beleif is that perhaps some lifestyle modifications may be neccassary...Or not!
Change will be very slow, and man adapting to his environment will probably be the answer. Developed countries will be better ready to handle that.
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.