Slashdot: Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate

[PeterMP]

My point about nuclear winter was that any type of buffer will cause some effect on Earth. Whether it be CO2 or nuclear fallout, some type of consequence will result. That's not the (only) issue. The issue is HOW the CO2 got there. NO ONE has provided science worthy proof of any of this. At most, they rely on a ****ized theory lawyers call "res ipsa loquitur." If the CO2 is up there and causing climate change, well it HAS to be humans doing so.

As for proof, that's kind of asking how I'd prove a certain case. That really depends, but it should be, as you know, for scientific purposes, put in a testable format. If we could determine things like Absolute Zero and confirm the existence of a number of transuranium elements on the Periodic Table, some scientifically provable format for AGW should have been available a LONG time ago. I respect the Ph. D you have, and I submit that you ought to know this very, very well.

So your issue is where's the CO2 is coming?

You do understand that we burn fossil fuels, and in that process those fossil fuels are converted to CO2 for the most part, right?

While that's nice and simple, and any lay person can understand it, the nice thing is that scientists have even done more than that.

Scientists have used different approaches to measure long term historical CO2 levels, and while the exact level and the variation in the level is open to some debate, even people think there were relatively high amounts and relatively large amounts of variation don't see things matching current levels.

(e.g. a high variation; possible high level paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011, they see a max of about 330 ppm (Figure 2)). We are currently at just under 400 ppm, and have been raising at a non-linear rate over the last few decades.).

So we now have two pieces of information:

1. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. CO2 levels are at very high levels based on pretty long term historical means (if you go back millions of years, CO2 levels are believed to be higher than they are now) (and going up quickly).

But scientists didn't stop there. Because of things like kinetic isotope effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect) fossil fuels end up w/ different amounts different isotopes of C than other CO2 sources so scientists have looked at the ratios of different isotopes of C in the present atmosphere, AND we can measure CO2 coming from different natural sources and do some calculations based on our energy consumption and get some idea of where CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from (e.g http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-1000year-high-precision-record-of-d13c-in-atmospheric-co-2/ and http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/carbon_budget.htm).

And low and behold, both things tell us that a lot of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is because of us (and not just fossil fuel usage, but land use issues (IMO, land use issues is an underestimated aspect of AGW)).

You might think even all of that was enough, but it isn't. NASA is trying to launch a CO2 measuring satellite.

Now, things do get a little complex because increased temperatures do alter the release of CO2 from natural sinks (e.g. http://www.lter.uaf.edu/pdf/1319_Schuur_Vogel_2009.pdf) so an increase in CO2 (and other green house gases, like methane) from non-human sources is completely consistent with AGW and is in fact a critical part of the thinking of people that are predicting massive changes.

[Predicto]

Well Predicto, then act like one who can reason and understand things like burdens of proof.

Oh, I do. And I also understand things like paid expert witnesses with CV's as long as your arm who will say anything you want about any scientific issue as long as your check doesn't bounce.

If you made reasonable arguments like "the science on global warming is still in its infancy, and I'm not convinced that the current concensus is accurate for these specific reasons...." then I would be interested in listening to you.

But you don't. You claim the whole thing is a big scam, thousands of scientists deliberately lying to protect their precious government funding and their worship of Al Gore. That is a Glenn Beck bull :pooh: level of discussion, and it insults the intelligence of everyone on this board.

When you add in the fact that you troll around in every post touting your educational accomplishments while personally denigrating everyone who disagrees with you (even though you don't know a damn thing about them), then you have hit rock bottom.

[PeterMP]

IDK. I'm not a Republican because of things like AGW. I'm one because of issues like Social Security and Medicare, and Peter argues (particularly on the latter) for Dem positions regularly. He's entitled of course, but trying to pass him off as a Republican is disengenious, IMO.

I want to point out that I've NEVER once said I support going to a nationalized single payer health care system, and I don't. I admit that single payer systems have some advantages (e.g. lower over head), but I've also regularly mantained that I think many single payer systems "hide" their true costs (e.g. in France medical school is free, but paid for out of the general education fund). In the US, even at state schools, the costs are going up faster than inflation. In one place, that "costs" (to my knowledge) doesn't end up as a health care costs. In the other place (the US), because doctors are have to recoup that costs it shows up in healthcare costs. I am however also against the "free market" approach that the Republican party is pushing because there are a lot of studies that show that people don't make good decisions w/ respect to health care and it isn't a "good" market, and free markets only work when it is a "good" market.

I argue for specific positions based on my knowledge. Nothing more and nothing less. You want to claim that a free market approach is going to fix health care, I'm going to ask for evidence.

[Predicto]

On that SF thing, I thought that was Peter! My bad on that, but I thought that because he was from SF, he'd know something about Berkeley. And the other stuff is tongue-in-cheek. LOL. Too much time in the basement will do that to you.

Well, I may be living in San Francisco now, but I am originally from McLean. And I recall a hell of a lot of blowhard :pooh: flingers that lived there. :whoknows:

[Skadden]

So your issue is where's the CO2 is coming?

You do understand that we burn fossil fuels, and in that process those fossil fuels are converted to CO2 for the most part, right?

While that's nice and simple, and any lay person can understand it, the nice thing is that scientists have even done more than that.

Scientists have used different approaches to measure long term historical CO2 levels, and while the exact level and the variation in the level is open to some debate, even people think there were relatively high amounts and relatively large amounts of variation don't see things matching current levels.

(e.g. a high variation; possible high level paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011, they see a max of about 330 ppm (Figure 2)). We are currently at just under 400 ppm, and have been raising at a non-linear rate over the last few decades.).

So we now have two pieces of information:

1. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. CO2 levels are at very high levels based on pretty long term historical means (if you go back millions of years, CO2 levels are believed to be higher than they are now).

But scientists didn't stop there. Because of things like kinetic isotope effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect) fossil fuels end up w/ different amounts different isotopes of CO2 than other CO2 sources so scientists have looked at the ratios of different isotopes of C in the present atmosphere, AND we can measure CO2 coming from different natural sources and do some calculations based on our energy consumption and get some idea of where CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from (e.g http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-1000year-high-precision-record-of-d13c-in-atmospheric-co-2/ and http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/carbon_budget.htm).

And low and behold, both things tell us that a lot of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is because of us (and not just fossil fuel usage, but land use issues (IMO, land use issues is an underestimated aspect of AGW)).

You might think even all of that was enough, but it isn't. NASA is trying to launch a CO2 measuring satellite.

Now, things do get a little complex because increased temperatures do alter the release of CO2 from natural sinks (e.g. http://www.lter.uaf.edu/pdf/1319_Schuur_Vogel_2009.pdf) so an increase in CO2 (and other green house gases, like methane) from non-human sources is completely consistent with AGW and is in fact a critical part of the thinking of people that are predicting massive changes.

I could tear this apart, but see the FP article I posted. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 12:58 PM ----------

Oh, I do. And I also understand things like paid expert witnesses with CV's as long as your arm who will say anything you want about any scientific issue as long as your check doesn't bounce.

If you made reasonable arguments like "the science on global warming is still in its infancy, and I'm not convinced that the current concensus is accurate for these specific reasons...." then I would be interested in listening to you.

But you don't. You claim the whole thing is a big scam, thousands of scientists deliberately lying to protect their precious government funding and their worship of Al Gore. That is a Glenn Beck bull :pooh: level of discussion, and it insults the intelligence of everyone on this board.

When you add in the fact that you troll around in every post touting your educational accomplishments while personally denigrating everyone who disagrees with you (even though you don't know a damn thing about them), then you have hit rock bottom.

I did make reasonable arguments, too bad you don't care to see them that way. (And, the AGW science is in its infancy is just part of the BS you're throwing up here. It's not, and even if it was, it's still bogus and more importantly unsubstantiated. Get a clue, dude.) As for my creds, I needed to post something to prop up my cred on this issue, just like an expert witness would. Otherwise, like your garbage rejoinder on the other thread re the FP article, all I get is your BS that it's some self-proclaimed expert when in fact he's referring to the CERN study on the issue.

[PeterMP]

I could tear this apart, but see the FP article I posted. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

The Financial Post article talking about cosmic rays?

I'm giving you links to the peer reviewed scientific literature, and you are going to come back to a piece in the Financial Post from a paper that I've already discussed (and quoted from) in this thread that has nothing to do w/ CO2 levels?

Get a life.

**EDIT**

PLEASE PLEASE TEAR IT APART!!

PLEASE!!

[Skadden]

The Financial Post article talking about cosmic rays?

I'm giving you links to the peer reviewed scientific literature, and you are going to come back to a piece in the Financial Post from a paper that I've already discussed (and quoted from) in this thread that has nothing to do w/ CO2 levels?

Get a life.

**EDIT**

PLEASE PLEASE TEAR IT APART!!

PLEASE!!

I'm in a mediation now with some time to kill, but not nearly enough to produce links on this issue. I cited to the FP article because it's recent. And like Law Review articles, it's recency and the publication source is important. A newly minted article coming from Nature implicitly debunks those other studies predating the article, thereby strongly impugning the garbage you put up.

And here's a deal: I'll get a life if you get out of the basement?

[Predicto]

The Financial Post article talking about cosmic rays?

I'm giving you links to the peer reviewed scientific literature, and you are going to come back to a piece in the Financial Post from a paper that I've already discussed (and quoted from) in this thread that has nothing to do w/ CO2 levels?

Get a life.

**EDIT**

PLEASE PLEASE TEAR IT APART!!

PLEASE!!

In his mind, he already has.

You see, the burden is on you to prove every possible detail of AGW, to his satisfaction. The only burden on him is to claim that there is no evidence, and it's all a scam, over and over and over, and post a single right wing op ed piece.

That's fair, don't you think?

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 11:09 AM ----------

I'm in a mediation now with some time to kill, but not nearly enough to produce links on this issue. I cited to the FP article because it's recent. And like Law Review articles, it's recency and the publication source is important. A newly minted article coming from Nature implicitly debunks those other studies predating the article, thereby strongly impugning the garbage you put up.

Except that that new study from Nature doesn't debunk AGW unless you oversell it, and spin it really,really hard, like the Op Ed piece you posted did.

But why discuss the scientific details with a real scientist like Peter? The spin is all that matters to you anyway.

[Skadden]

In his mind, he already has.

You see, the burden is on you to prove every possible detail of AGW, to his satisfaction. The only burden on him is to claim that there is no evidence, and it's all a scam, over and over and over, and post a single right wing op ed piece.

That's fair, don't you think?

Wow, did you learn about the 200 series in the Federal Rules of Evidence governing presumptions? It's called argument and how arguments are presented. If you make a claim, support it. The person responding has no burden at all. For example, I disagreed with an ESPN article saying that the Redskins would win only three games this year. Burden's on me. I stated that in the first half alone, I can see us winning four games against some wretched opponents. That's the rub here.

You sure you're not in Big Law anymore because you couldn't understand basic things like this?

[mcsluggo]

Well Predicto, then act like one who can reason and understand things like burdens of proof.

i am not going to argue in this thread, but in an attempt to asses others' arguments... your arguments kinda come out as weak swill. (I must admit that you have clearly convinced YOURSELF of the brilliance of your arguments... convincing OTHERS is your next challenge )

[PeterMP]

I'm in a mediation now with some time to kill, but not nearly enough to produce links on this issue. I cited to the FP article because it's recent. And like Law Review articles, it's recency and the publication source is important. A newly minted article coming from Nature implicitly debunks those other studies predating the article, thereby strongly impugning the garbage you put up.

And here's a deal: I'll get a life if you get out of the basement?

Do you mean this Nature paper?

"Earth’s climate is warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature10322.html

[Skadden]

i am not going to argue in this thread, but in an attempt to asses others' arguments... your arguments kinda come out as weak swill. (I must admit that you have clearly convinced YOURSELF of the brilliance of your arguments... convincing OTHERS is your next challenge )

Well good for you, sir. If you don't understand how arguments work, I'm not sure what to say.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 01:23 PM ----------

Do you mean this Nature paper?

"Earth’s climate is warming as a result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature10322.html

Yes, I saw that. So what? Does it take issue with the CERN findings? That article simply sets forth the AGW orthodoxy that's been around for years. Does Nature wish to publish something contesting the CERN study? And apart from that, your article is simply part of the bogus "consensus" argument we've discussed previously. YOU have the burden and if you want to simply line up articles spitting out this position, I can too. In the end, you've proven ZIP.

[mcsluggo]

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

guesss what... NO DUH!

this is a simple statement that every single person alive agrees with. It is also meaningless to this discussion.

Heredity is also the dominant controller of life expectancy in humans.... that does NOT mean that having unprotected anal sex with with gay Haitian heroin addicts won't affect an individual's life expectancy.

It honestly requires a real lack of basic comprehension of the concepts of reasoning and burden of proof to IN ANY WAY think that that statement had any compelling value.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

Well good for you, sir. If you don't understand how arguments work, I'm not sure what to say.

coming from you.. this one is actually kinda cute

its is akin to seeing those five year old fire and brimstone preachers, singing to the world about the evils of fornication and adultry

[Skadden]

guesss what... NO DUH!

this is a simple statement that every single person alive agrees with. It is also meaningless to this discussion.

Heredity is also the dominant controller of life expectancy in humans.... that does NOT mean that having unprotected anal sex with with gay Haitian heroin addicts won't affect an individual's life expectancy.

It honestly requires a real lack of basic comprehension of the concepts of reasoning and burden of proof to IN ANY WAY think that that statement had any compelling value.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

coming from you.. this one is actually kinda cute

its is akin to seeing those five year old fire and brimstone preachers, singing to the world about the evils of fornication and adultry

Well, sir, I'm glad you agree with that statement. You just agreed with me. Thanks.

[Predicto]

Wow, did you learn about the 200 series in the Federal Rules of Evidence governing presumptions? It's called argument and how arguments are presented. If you make a claim, support it. The person responding has no burden at all. For example, I disagreed with an ESPN article saying that the Redskins would win only three games this year. Burden's on me. I stated that in the first half alone, I can see us winning four games against some wretched opponents. That's the rub here.

1) This isn't a court of law.

2) Even if it were, you do not have the presumption of correctness on your side. There are innumerable studies that support AGW. Peter keeps trying to discuss them. You are the one who is making all sorts of affirmative claims that those studies are all false and part of a big industry-wide fraud, but you never back up anything you say with any substantive scientific discussion.

You sure you're not in Big Law anymore because you couldn't understand basic things like this?

I wish I had more time to respond to your infantile jabs, but I have to go back to drafting the legal opinion I am currently writing for the Justices that employ me.

Good luck with your passive-aggressive trolling.

[Wrong Direction]

I want to point out that I've NEVER once said I support going to a nationalized single payer health care system, and I don't. I admit that single payer systems have some advantages (e.g. lower over head), but I've also regularly mantained that I think many single payer systems "hide" their true costs (e.g. in France medical school is free, but paid for out of the general education fund). In the US, even at state schools, the costs are going up faster than inflation. In one place, that "costs" (to my knowledge) doesn't end up as a health care costs. In the other place (the US), because doctors are have to recoup that costs it shows up in healthcare costs. I am however also against the "free market" approach that the Republican party is pushing because there are a lot of studies that show that people don't make good decisions w/ respect to health care and it isn't a "good" market, and free markets only work when it is a "good" market.

I argue for specific positions based on my knowledge. Nothing more and nothing less. You want to claim that a free market approach is going to fix health care, I'm going to ask for evidence.

In my opinion, you fail to appreciate the negative effects of government run healthcare. The entire industry has been so heavily lobbied and regulated that it's current state of being is a gross distortion of what a good healthcare system would look like, and much of that is due to government. But that's for another thread.

[Skadden]

1) This isn't a court of law.

2) Even if it were, you do not have the presumption of correctness on your side. There are innumerable studies that support AGW. Peter keeps trying to discuss them. You are the one who is making all sorts of affirmative claims that those studies are all false and part of a big industry-wide fraud, but you never back up anything you say with any substantive scientific discussion.

I wish I had more time to respond to your infantile jabs, but I have to go back to drafting the legal opinion I am currently writing for the Justices that employ me.

Good luck with your passive-aggressive trolling.

No this isn't a court of law, but those presumptions apply any time an argument is laid out. And I don't assume anything, in particular a presumption of correctness. I'm just saying that if you're going to make an assertion, prove it. The fact that you line up one study after another that's disagreed with plenty of others on the other side is hardly proof of anything.

I was hoping that clerking involved some level of comprehension. (I clerked too. ) But hey, I guess misrepresentations like yours can be deemed affirmative trolling, right?

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 01:39 PM ----------

In my opinion, you fail to appreciate the negative effects of government run healthcare. The entire industry has been so heavily lobbied and regulated that it's current state of being is a gross distortion of what a good healthcare system would look like, and much of that is due to government. But that's for another thread.

OMG, this guy supports that? LOL. That explains a lot. If you want a social experiment on that, go to the UK and sign up for NHS.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 01:44 PM ----------

Well, it's been real again people. I've got to read another proposed settlement agreement. Of course, I'll be "pwnt" just like Predicto, right?

Anyways, thanks for the time. I appreciate it, and Predicto and others sound like smart characters. We just disagree.

And please don't have such a thin skin. LOL

Peace all and to Redskins Nation.

[PeterMP]

The fact that you line up one study after another that's disagreed with plenty of others on the other side is hardly proof of anything.

What study disagrees w/ the work of Arrehinus?

[Skadden]

What study disagrees w/ the work of Arrehinus?

Doug Kammerer's. You don't know who that is? You're incredibly misinformed.

[Wrong Direction]

OMG, this guy supports that? LOL. That explains a lot. If you want a social experiment on that, go to the UK and sign up for NHS.

Nah. It's a discussion for another thread.

I don't particularly like the way you're arguing this AGW stuff. Saying that something with as much scientific backup as AGW is completely false is just a step too far. I hope you're right, but I would sure love to see the evidence continue to be refined in either case.

[laxpck]

Instead of borily rehashing the science, how about looking at philosophical questions based on global warming?

1) Is not climate change and the succesful adaptation to it the reason man is the dominant species on earth?

2) Is it Man's responsibility to move to zero climate change, therebye ensuring current species on earth will always be around?

3) Do you believe the 1-3 degree aggregate rise over the last 100 years is worth the medical and agriicultural advances that cheap energy and the petro chemical industry have provided in that same century? What would the hockey stick graph look like for life expectancy over the last 100 years? How about the ability to yield more food out of an acre?

4) If the earth does warm by 3-5 degrees wont more land become available for food production. (ie limited mass of actual land at equator and low yield of those areas, vs the expanded growing season that would spread to the landmasses of Canada and Siberia to name some areas?

Like I said, I am sick of debating the science, or lack thereof or whatever and find the philosophical and evolutionary questions of climate change much more appealing.

I am no denier. I am a put in contexter. I am an anti freak outer who believes the general ablity for mankind to overcome obstacle. Humanity has faced much bigger calamity during its existence of riding an explosion, circling around an explosion at thousands of miles an hour. How our ancestors ever got out of bed without knowing what the day would bring I will never know....but they did.

[Skins24]

*sigh*

So again, nothing new has been brought to the table in years, and we've had numerous threads about GW, so I'll just respond to some of this then...I don't know...leave I guess. There's relevant weather to track that is actually happening.

Are you saying that it was warmer 2000 years ago than now?

Yeah, as far as we can tell. Up until what? Around 900 or so?

Please cite something that says that changes in solar output are expected to cause a change in our climate in the next few million years or have in the last few million years greater than Milankovitch cycles (which are believed to cause ice ages and deglaciation).

I'm talking about the sun period. How it's energy is distributed on the earth IS climate! We have the climate we have, because the sun is at a certain angle at this latitude at this elevation. Any changes in how that energy is distributed will cause the climate to change, be it changes in wind or ocean currents. Or the plates moving.

The cycles are bumps. After a bump, for the most part things may return to "normal" (depending on how long the bump is.)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=despite-climategate-ippc-mostly-und-10-02-22

http://news.discovery.com/earth/sea-level-climate-change-110603.html

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html

Oh and how about OVERESTIMATES that likely will end up underestimating the effect of CO2:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0707/full/climate.2007.15.html

How's that?

None of those address anything I was talking about. Those are talking about the possible impacts of global warming (and until those impacts actually happen - which it could very well NOT - then even those links can be an overestimation about the impacts of global warming.)

I was talking about humans contribution to global warming.

The rest we have gone over before...many times...so I'll just address this.

Except there isn't much evidence that solar output realistically (again, if you want to ignore what we know about stars you can create scenarios where the sun just shuts down, but that would be just a made up scenario that has no basis in real information) can change enough to drastically affect climate. There is no evidence that the mid-20th century global cooling was caused by changes in solar output (Part of the mid-20th century cooling fear actually came from the pattern of previous ice ages, which if you don't know much about Milankovitch cycles seems like it should be ending soon.)

The most drastic changes in the Earth's climate are believed to be tied to changes in the Earth's positioning w/ respect to the sun (by changes in the Earth not the sun) that affect northern hemisphere insolation, which than drives changes in CO2 levels and northern hemisphere vegatation, which further affect climate.

What are you talking about? Yes, Milankovicth cycles relate to changes in earth's positioning and are more drastic, but we certainly see changes in solar activity which change and affect our climate! Hence minimums and maximums, which can last decades.

They're saying currently that solar activity is not enough to change our climate, but no one can predict the future. Who knows if the next cycle is the beginning of a new minimum? Or maximum for that matter?

And yes I know the current ice age we are in is coming to an end

Hence why the earth is warming....

[Skadden]

Nah. It's a discussion for another thread.

I don't particularly like the way you're arguing this AGW stuff. Saying that something with as much scientific backup as AGW is completely false is just a step too far. I hope you're right, but I would sure love to see the evidence continue to be refined in either case.

Wrong, did I say that the AGW was false, much less completely false. All I've stated for this particularly issue is that the burden is on the proponents of AGW to make their case, and they simply haven't. The only support they've had is some supposed "consensus" of scientists that agree, and this is hardly proof sustaining their burden, much less one to a scientific certainty.

That's my point about AGW in this thread. (Proving it false would take way too much time, so I settle on the lighter point of failure to meet a burden.)

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 02:02 PM ----------

*sigh*

So again, nothing new has been brought to the table in years, and we've had numerous threads about GW, so I'll just respond to some of this then...I don't know...leave I guess. There's relevant weather to track that is actually happening.

Yeah, as far as we can tell. Up until what? Around 900 or so?

I'm talking about the sun period. How it's energy is distributed on the earth IS climate! We have the climate we have, because the sun is at a certain angle at this latitude at this elevation. Any changes in how that energy is distributed will cause the climate to change, be it changes in wind or ocean currents. Or the plates moving.

The cycles are bumps. After a bump, for the most part things may return to "normal" (depending on how long the bump is.)

None of those address anything I was talking about. Those are talking about the possible impacts of global warming (and until those impacts actually happen - which it could very well NOT - then even those links can be an overestimation about the impacts of global warming.)

I was talking about humans contribution to global warming.

The rest we have gone over before...many times...so I'll just address this.

What are you talking about? Yes, Milankovicth cycles relate to changes in earth's positioning and are more drastic, but we certainly see changes in solar activity which change and affect our climate! Hence minimums and maximums, which can last decades.

They're saying currently that solar activity is not enough to change our climate, but no one can predict the future. Who knows if the next cycle is the beginning of a new minimum? Or maximum for that matter?

And yes I know the current ice age we are in is coming to an end

Hence why the earth is warming....

Well, you'll just be branded some type of loo-loo with most of this bunch, man. And another inconvenient fact, among thousands of others, is that the Earth warmed substantially in around 900. I guess all those Volvos those Norsemen were driving around contributed to the spike in climate temps.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 02:04 PM ----------

Like I said, where's this all taking us? The UN wanting us to contribute $160 billion a year to poor countries. Draw your own conclusions, but signing a treaty that will force richer countries to pay poorer countries is my definition of socialism.

[JimboDaMan]

Doug Kammerer's. You don't know who that is? You're incredibly misinformed.

I am unfamiliar with Doug's scientific research, can you link to some of it please?

[Skadden]

I am unfamiliar with Doug's scientific research, can you link to some of it please?

http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/about-us/Doug-Kammerer-101316634.html