| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 10:05:07
Question: Have you heard of this recent news? If you have, where did you learn of it?
I have snipped a few paragraphs from this article. The link is to the entire article.
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)
Link
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.
He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.
Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.
"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
edit: fixed my mangled question at top of post
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 23:36:16
Yeah, tho i find that kinda thing annoying..hehe
 Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 07:22:57
Yeah, they're way ahead of everyone with the solar technology... ever heard of TV-PV?
Translucent photovoltaic cells that can also display images. Imagine a building made out of these instead of plain old glass - it generates power, still looks pretty, can be seen through, and could display stuff either on the side of the building or in the lobby. They're also more efficient than standard PVs.
 "When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 16:00:11
Hey Dean - Japan is doing this right now.. They're going nuts on solar cells, sticking them on every roof, and are focused on the R&D of course..in a few years they will likely totally dominate the market....
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 13:19:50
The study erebus quotes suggests that the suns influence on global warming can be measurd by taking the various factors involved into account solar irradiance/magnetic fields/sun spots and that the current period of global warming we are undergoing is a man made one rather than a solar affected. It shows that the global temperature has increased sans the aid of the sun since the start of the industrial age, surely thats not a coincidence!
In it's research stags it also talks about the mini ice age as an example of ways the sun does affect global temperature but states this isn't the case now. I'm not suggsting this is the authority on the matter, I've been too lazy to look further
And the companies have the technology to improve the situation, it just wouldn't be cheap so is blocked by consumers not getting the choice in many respects and by the consumers general unwillingmess to fork out that little bit more, the age old bullshit of it's not our generation that'll feel the affects anyway. Depressing.
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 15:05:50
Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs are still pretty high, aren't they?
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 09:43:48
They certainly have the clout to make things difficult, no doubts there, but in the end, I think it's consumers that will make that decision. The major auto companies have their share of clout as well, and if the consumer is more likely to buy an environmentally friendly car than a gas guzzler, then you can count on some significant funds for alternative energy research. Government also plays a roll by creating emissions penalties/standards so that car manufacturers are forced (even if not by consumer will) to examine more efficient engines and alternative.
The interesting thing, to me, is how the oil companies are actually aiding the cause unwittingly by limiting production and allowing prices to skyrocket. Sure, they'll make more money in the short term, but all they're doing is encouraging people to purchase less and consider alternative energy and alternative transportation. Were I running the cartel, my strategy would be to invest heavily in either companies like Ballard (fuel cell pioneer in BC) or in internal research and keep consumers complacent with gas prices staying roughly in line with inflation. That way, you not only slow the progress of your competitors by removing the immediacy of need (and therefore research funding for alternative energy), but you are quietly developing it on your own or with what is essentially a subsidiary so that when a feasible replacement for the internal combustion engine is ready, you hold either the rights or significant stock, placing your company at a huge advantage over others and standing to reap some lucrative rewards, all the while maximizing the time that you can still make money from oil.
"When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 20:43:35
It's definitely a worthy cause. Will the fossil fuel corporations ("Use them and nobody gets hurt!") allow such research, though?
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 07:46:58
In my mind, recognizing that we have to do something about the tonnes of CO2, CFC, and other emmissions and pollution being released into the atmosphere is independant of whether it's causing global warming, whether global warming is a natural cycle, or whether there is such a thing as global warming/greenhouse effect. The only thing really affected by this is the urgency with which we apply ourselves to reducing and perhaps some day almost eliminating them.
The more we put an urgency on it, the more we'll pump into research, which, while it hasn't hit the mark we put on the wall in the 80's, is coming along quite well. No, cold fusion hasn't been achieved (nobody's sure it's even possible) but we've managed to produce a hot fusion reaction and contain it with a Tokamak reactor. The energy output from one larger experiment was enough to power Los Angeles for half a year, though sadly it took nearly that much to start it, but we're getting closer. We're seeing far more alternative energy sources being developed and improving. Wind power has been around for thousands of years, but in the last 25, we've made huge gains in efficiency and cost effectiveness. We've derived power from plain old water and implemented hydrogen fuel cells in cars as well as made great strides in making cars more efficient.
I could go on, but the point is that all of this research came from an exigence to reduce pollution and our negative effect and from moneys that industry and government put into programs with the goal of keeping our little green and blue home green and blue. And I don't think there are many out there that would say that's an unworthy cause, global warming or not.
I'm not sure where this all came from, but it's Friday morning and it's more fun than working. :)
"When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 02:17:05
You know, I was going to use a large timescale like that, but it would've messed up the forum width, heh! It's indisputable that the change in global climate over the last, say, 150 years is somewhat unprecedented compared to any other known changes in earth's history, and there is no indication of the warming slowing down. I don't deny that natural fluctuations occur, I don't think they 'just happen' though.
|
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 00:38:24
But is it a good idea to wait 50yrs to see if it's just 'natural' climate change, or human induced?
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| benji |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 08:04:11
i don't deny that humans are having a significant impact on the earth, but i think you need to look at the bigger picture, utilising much longer time scales to understand the relationships more clearly.
sorry for the big piccy - only one i could find in short notice.
i think the "little ice age" is fascinating and is likely to be closely connected to our current period of warming....
but i have no evidence to back that claim up...it's been a year since i've had to think "scientifically" and it's tough work..
 Join the Cult of Cartman! Respect my Authoritaah!!! |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 06:05:40
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
even the effects of humans are natural effects
I like that. I agree. It doesn't mean it's good though! Heh.
|
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 06:03:29
Even within natural fluctuations of the climate, it is indisputable that the climate over the last 100 years has changed due to human impact.
Although I don't deny there are natural fluctuations, I do not believe them to be quite as significant. You can see that since the late 1800s, a near exponential climate increase is taking place, with no apparent change in nature, the Sun, etc.
As for the Sun, I wonder if there is any correlation between temperatures and it's 11 year cycle. Does anyone know?
|
| benji |
Posted - 08/05/2004 : 02:51:54
the biggest difficulty with the current climate change debate is distinguishing human impacts from that of mother nature.
the earths climate has fluctuated wildly forever with no humans to have made any impact, so how do you determine where we become the big bad guys and where mother nature does?
but then you can also argue that it's irrelavent because it's obvious that we are having negative impacts on earth, so we should undertake remedial programs stopping such activities even before we can properly quantify 'em.
Join the Cult of Cartman! Respect my Authoritaah!!! |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 22:58:51
hehe - just read this in 'Even Cowgirls Get the Blues':
'Like attracts like...why else do you think the penguins are all in Antarctica?'
=)
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 17:17:04
But what about all the cute little penguins?
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 12:26:10
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I believe the White House listed the melting polar ice as the biggest potential threat to national security.
"That's it, Colin, declare war on Antarctica."
I apologise, but I could not resist.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 11:37:49
Still haven't read all the stuff Tre points to, but I capitulate. Seems I was naive, definitely not for the last time, to take the Telegraph article at its word. That said, I do think the sun is up to something, given effects on other planets that have been suggested by other, hopefully valid, stories that I have read. But I agree with those who say this in no way frees us from doing more to limit the human impact. Then again, I join VoVat in suspecting warming is not the big, bad immediate threat, at least to humans. We could do with some threats anyway, in my opinion. However, to continue this string of caveats, I am most concerned about what warming could do to other species via relatively rapid change of their eco-systems. Then again, this is not the first time the earth will have seen large-scale species depletion, and even the effects of humans are natural effects, so I guess we and other species will have to deal with it. (I know Noisy will love that.)
Regarding the legitimate observation that most warming skepticism does seem to come from the right, two points. I'm certainly not well off and in fact live modestly compared to the vast majority of Americans. Secondly, my own skepticism derives from a deep distrust of media and the left in general. I've taken to reacting to every chicken little by exclaiming "Afghan Winter! Afghan Winter!", out of recollection of the litany of alarms sounded over every American foreign policy implementation. OK, CoF, you can now close this thread, quickly. |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 11:37:29
I dunno Vo - if it's a 'snowball' sorta thing, and there's a point where it's irreversable and rather terminal, i think it's a serious consideration.
I believe the White House listed the melting polar ice as the biggest potential threat to national security..or something like that..and there's no doubt they're melting right now.
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 20:51:53
I don't know if global warming is necessarily as much of an immediate threat as some people seem to think it is. It's still something that should be avoided as much as possible, though.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:14:23
why for nothing? I read your post and followed your link and was much interested and learned new things.
Thankyou Mr Noisy
[edit] I should add I thought most of it was interesting and informative but some of the links to within the site did make me roll my eyes a bit I have to confess
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:10:12
hehe - dangerous ground Vovat. =)
Damn tho, i feel like i wrote all that for nothing..poopies.
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 20:04:10
quote:
Outta curiosity, why is it that more often than not it's right-leaning folks who argue that humans aren't having an impact on climate change, or like to redirect it?
Well, I think it goes along with the tendency of the conservatives to 1) only care about the bottom line, and not about the children or the future or any of that; and 2) support and/or run companies that cause a lot of pollution and Earth-ruining. This is simplifying things a bit, of course (reducing anything to the views of the Right and Left generally is), but it seems to follow.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 10:04:23
sure no problems, It's all sub-links within the main page you linked for the research group. From re-reading the site again it seems the site is primalirly for a group of researchers looking at the various factors affecting solar temperature (sun spots/irradiance/magnetic flux) and the climate change seems to be a bit of an aside.
I didn't have much luck with the web of science 'cos my computer is shite and I think my access is limited outside of universities but this has sparked my interest so I'll try other journal sources.
But like I said, gleening through this is what I pulled from the site and those quotes as a stand alone entirely contradict the telegraph's account. Just goes to show how two people can read the same thing and find draw two entirely different conclusions.
There is mention of the sun having affect on climate change, but not current climate change, it'll make more sense when you read it yourself. But the research group is associated with the max planck people, and try as I might, I can't dig any dirt on them, so it seems sound, just innacurately portrayed in the press.
anyhoo.. you can follow the pages on the site (through the research group home page link) but if you'd rather the direct link is as follows:
http://www.linmpi.mpg.de/english/projekte/sun-climate/group/glchange.html
then follow the page via the intra-site links at the side
[edit] for shite spelling
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 09:49:36
Tre, thanks for looking into this further. It could well be that the Telegraph is guilty of the same type of distortion I find so rankling elsewhere in the press. Certainly I took the Telegraph more or less at its word. Unfortunately I have been unable to navigate the project site from my home computer (which is old and feeble) and so will have to wait till tomorrow to look further in it. Could you provide the precise page link(s) from which you quote above? I'd like to read for myself before I respond. Thanks. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 02:21:13
I did apl, but I think erebus needs it pushing into his brain a bit
( )
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 19:52:13
Some places are getting colder...like Canada! |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 19:19:37
Not sure if anyone noticed, but I mentioned at the top of this thread that the article did not substantiate its opening claims. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 16:24:16
Ok Erebus I followed your link 'cos I can't sleep tonight and I'm bored. I thought the pictures were very pretty.
Ha, no, but seriously! Here's a few snippets I screened from the web link....
Climate can vary for many reasons. In particular, human activities can lead to radiative forcing through changing the atmospheric concentrations and distributions of greenhouse gases and aerosols
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by more than 25% in the past century and since the beginning of the industrial revolution
There is no doubt that this increase is largely due to human activities, in particular fossil fuel combustion
suggests that solar variations have an effect on the Earth's climate, although chance correlations cannot be ruled out. This is particularly strong caveat since a priori neither the number of sunspots nor the cycle length are expected to directly influence climate
Site suggests solar irradiance has affect on climate temperature, looking at pre 1980's it would seem the magnetic flux/solar irradiance had a profound affect on climate change but then says...
It is highly likely, however, that after 1980 the Sun has not contributed in any significant way to global warming
Reading the website and re-reading that article at times reads like two entirely different storys, The website states often that the methods of research were inacurate at best because of a lack of usable data due to a difficulty in tracking the suns activity in relation to global changes. It's very apologetic this site. The final graph and concluding statement both say that it isn't likely the sun is the main reason for current climate change.
So I guess the story got largely ignored 'cos it's largely crap!
I'm reading the associated papers linked on the site and I'm using WoS to find a review at the moment, nothing I've read yet is convincing me though I have to say.
I think you can pull what you like from this site to make the story what you want it to. I guess you're gonna have to embrace that consumer guilt all over again!
[EDIT] ok tired typing so I had to word bits so they made more sense, I'll look tomorrow after having sleep and find I've written more wrong probably
[EDIT 2] Ok, looked at the papers at the bottom, one isn't even a paper for christs sake, it's Solanki's lecture, the others are just about solar changes, not so much climate change, sigh
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 14:25:30
[Edited original post's link so it wasn't widening the screen.]
Two problems with this article as i see it:
* 'global warming' is inaccurate, a number of places are actually getting colder. 'Climate change' is the accepted term by those in the know.
* CO2 levels are higher than they've been for approx. 20 million years (according to 3 mile deep ice-core samples.) CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty well accepted as a significant contributor to climate change.
Considering these two items, it might explain why this hasn't gotten any attention..
A friend of mine, Guy Dauncey, is pretty well known in the climate change arena, and sent me this a while back:
"The global level of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, at 379 ppm, is almost
100 pm higher than it has been for at least 420,000 years, according to the
ice-core work that drilled down deep into the Antarctic core at Vostok, to
examined CO2, methane, dust and heat levels over this time period. Climate
scientists estimate that it may be 20 million years since the levels were
this high.
It is accepted science:
* that burning fossil fuels release carbon, which forms CO2 in the
atmosphere,
* that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere,
* that CO2 levels have been rising since we started burning fossil fuels in
large quantities during the industrial revolution,
* and that the global temperature has been rising, and continues to rise.
Human activities are adding 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon and carbon
equivalent into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels, flaring
gas and producing cement. We are adding a further 1.7 billion tonnes from
land-use changes and net forest loss, over and above the emissions which are
part of the natural carbon cycle from such things as forest fires, wetlands,
termites, and dying vegetation.
Analysis of the Earth's forests shows that they are absorbing an additional
1.5 billion tonnes a year, on top of their normal 100 billion tonnes; and
that the oceans are absorbing an additional 2.4 billion tonnes, on top of
their normal 90 billion tonnes. If the remaining 4.3 billion tonnes are not
remaining in the atmosphere, where they will trap heat, where are they
going?"
His site is www.EarthFuture.com , and a group he's recently started is the BC Sustainable Energy Association: www.BCSEA.org . Fun fun! =)
Outta curiosity, why is it that more often than not it's right-leaning folks who argue that humans aren't having an impact on climate change, or like to redirect it? I find that quite odd..
 www.frankblack.net/images/icon-flyingpig.gif" border="0"> Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 08:11:11
begeegs, I do understand that the legit left would consider corporate media to be to the right. I mean that in the sense that there are two benchmarks, that of the legit left and that of the Dem left. So I think I get your point. In a sense I would say that there are also two benchmarks for the right, that of the principled right and that of the Repub right. And I think that you are correct that the right, the Repub right, has gained ground in recent years. Bully for them, at least from my perspective. Journalistically speaking, all points are out there on the media spectrum if you seek them out. So, I should have said that I was speaking about the mainstream network news and the average urban daily papers, which, to my eye, do routinely support the Dems over the Repubs, and which I fear still provide the only source for news for too many voters. However, as I said, to those on the legit, principled left, those corporate media outlets must indeed seem to the right. Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. |
| begeegs |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 04:11:46
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
The second reason has to do with how little attention this story received. As someone who devotes way too much time to issues of liberal/Dem bias in the media AND in academia, I am convinced that the press deliberately buries stories that contradict their own preconceptions. It's all blame America, Whitey, Republicans First. My home page, through Yahoo, is customized to show what they regard as the top science and health stories from AP and Reuters, and both frequently offer stories on global warming, ALWAYS fear-mongering in someway. This past week it's been the spread of malaria, and concern in the low-lying lands of Holland. So it's not like they ignore global warming. But with these sun stories there's nothing. If anything these stories are much more important precisely because they MIGHT call into question the "concensus", but we get nothing, and when the Telegraph reports it, Tre assumes it's dubious because it's in the Torygraph. I'm not making this up and I'm not being alarmist. I agree with those who have posted to the effect that regardless of the validity of this research, humans can and should do something, but all of us need to notice the omissions of the propaganda ministry, especially when it confirms left-wing assumptions.
I really dispute your 'left-wing' tilt of the media in the US. It is just simply not true, unless you listen to the talking blips on Fox or Rush.
If there was a left-wing tilt, wouldn't you think that Bush and the neo-cons would have had a much more difficult time with his adventure in Iraq as well as more in depth analysis of his policies that he has passed. There would have been more of an uproar with regard to the Valerie Plame?
When I was back in the US this summer, I was absolutely shocked at how it has changed so much in the past year. In bookstore after bookstore, media pundits dominated the non-fiction element and they certainly weren't 'lefties'. In fact, I can't even really think of any really lefty radio stations that have syndication like Rush,Hannity, etc outside of NPR, which is even disputable that it is lefty anymore.
I think that the political spectrum in the US has been shifted alot to the right in the past 4 years where what was once considered right-wing is now considered moderate.
As far as Global-Warming is concerned, it should be written in a fear-mongering way because it will be disrupt alot of under-water ocean currents which will have major climatic implications whether its due from carbon-emmissions or from the sun getting hotter. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 03:48:50
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Nah, it's the burglers breaking through the window that you wanna be scared of.
_________________________________________________________
Live every day as if it were your last. Eventually you'll be right
Thats not nice! You know I'm jittery! Grrr! *checks all the windows*
Erebus, maybe it's a good thing this story was buried, the last thing we need is an excuse to carry on polluting and using and abusing this planet. And I don't assume anything, but I am suspicious of science portrayed in the popular media, I prefer to get my factoids from scientific sources, I'll read that link with interest when I have a bit more time
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 13:48:15
I posted this story for two reasons. First, the simple face value of the information and its potential relevance to global warming. It reminds me of two other stories I've seen in recent years, one on how a Mars research team was surprised at how fast "ice" was melting on Mars, with suggestion of a solar connection, and another about another planet (I forget which one) which seemed warmer than researchers expected.
The second reason has to do with how little attention this story received. As someone who devotes way too much time to issues of liberal/Dem bias in the media AND in academia, I am convinced that the press deliberately buries stories that contradict their own preconceptions. It's all blame America, Whitey, Republicans First. My home page, through Yahoo, is customized to show what they regard as the top science and health stories from AP and Reuters, and both frequently offer stories on global warming, ALWAYS fear-mongering in someway. This past week it's been the spread of malaria, and concern in the low-lying lands of Holland. So it's not like they ignore global warming. But with these sun stories there's nothing. If anything these stories are much more important precisely because they MIGHT call into question the "concensus", but we get nothing, and when the Telegraph reports it, Tre assumes it's dubious because it's in the Torygraph. I'm not making this up and I'm not being alarmist. I agree with those who have posted to the effect that regardless of the validity of this research, humans can and should do something, but all of us need to notice the omissions of the propaganda ministry, especially when it confirms left-wing assumptions.
Anyone concerned about the credentials of this research group can visit this link and check out the record of past publication, which refers to highly reputable journals. Don't think the research discussed in this thread has been published yet.
http://www.linmpi.mpg.de/english/projekte/sun-climate/ |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 12:53:15
Nah, it's the burglers breaking through the window that you wanna be scared of.
Seriously though, I agree with Tom, we have to stop the amount of pollution we are releasing. We have been warned for long enough now, but are we really doing enough? Individually are we doing enough? I know I am not.
_________________________________________________________
Live every day as if it were your last. Eventually you'll be right
|
|
|
