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 ...
The reporters’ veracity has appeared to exceed that of these scientists.
No IPCC grant for you!
Me too.
I even questioned Erlich about his loss to Simon and his disagreement with his collegue Thomas Sowell. His response was that only his timing was wrong. An unpleasant character that Erlich...but I think he was correct.
As for global cooling and other scientific hypothesis which have been shown to be wrong...so what? If you're trying to say that all human knowledge is conditional and limited, you're right. If you're trying to say that science is always wrong, you're dead wrong.
You mean scientists who study climate? Gee, I don't know. Maybe they don't read the same comic books you do. What do you think?
Well, it does look rather ridiculous for these slyentists to peer at this forest through a mere 25 year wide drinking straw.
How so? Have you read the full report? I doubt it. I doubt you've even read the abstract.
Something we can all agree on. It's the poisoning of science with vast injections of government money that seems to be the problem.
There's no limit to your foolishness, is there? They're pointing out that correlations which held over long periods of time in the past do not apply in the most recent 25 years.
Hmmm... No, liberallarry, I think you are confused as to which persons are relying on comic book thinking.
“i’d hate to think so since your ability to reason is so poor.”
very strange. disagreement with a liberal brings condescension, denigration, insult. just like disagreeing with those fellows who broke all those windows so many years ago. (insufferable, global-warming goosesteppers, one and all, not to mention punks.)
Unfortunately, it costs a great deal of money to do modern experiments...there's no way around it.
D-—— if you do, d-—— if you don’t. Either that, or it seems to get hidden behind costly gates for the eyes of the elite (like this particular one). A field of study whose consequences are as profound as this deserves to happen in the public domain, where any Jane or Joe with Matlab or similar tool can crunch the equations and numbers and say either bravo or bunkum to the leading theories for themselves.
The tiny time period makes it impossible to answer the question of whether we are looking at a valid representative of a trend of centuries or a mere piece of noise.
You seem to be suffering from the same limitations as Levy, who began the denigration and insult (under the guise of wit). Look closely at my posts. I am not an equal opportunity insulter. I treat with respect those who deserve it...and they don't have to agree with me to deserve it, they just have to be capable of arguing well.
BINGO!
LLS
I just love to keep poking rabid wildcats with a stick.
Yummy graphs, contra, thanks. ;-)
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.