Says differences of opinion are generational. That young people "get it", but that y'all Crusty Old Farts are basically too stupid to grasp the idea. 

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdnzVrVrnz 

Wouldn't it be horrible havin' that guy jump out at ya in a dark alley?

so, his argument is that they won a nobel prize for discovering climate change.  it's not a small award, it's a big deal.  you cannot dispute it after that.  to dispute that would be inappropriate an unpatriotic. 

Does that actually work?  Do people actually get convinced of anything with a message like that?

To thing is I love nature.  I am all about care for the ground, the water and the skies.  I spend entire weekends or in the case of this past weekend 4 days submersed in nature.  some building, much time in the trees.  During deer season I spend nearly every free available time away from the city.  I hate litter, I try to make responsible choices about the products I buy, the energy I use, and how I interact with the earth.  I love those qualities about the climate change argument.

Its the batshit crazy science, the hiding and obscuring of data, the mostly the sweeping taxation and hugely invasive regulation for others to get hugely wealthy from -- without actually correcting a observable problem that I have an issue with.   

If you want to talk science, people are still debating newtons theory of gravity.  and that is a good thing, that is science, ask questions until new things are learned. 

I guess I am just one of those old people who don't get it. 

Climate Change is a conspiricy theory.

The theory is the gods have conspired to make Al Gore look stupid by creating the worst winter in 100 years.

I don't get it either.

How does a 30-year winter disprove climate change? 

Climate change is no longer a science but a theology.

Maybe because we crusty old farts were taught all about "global cooling" when we were young.  I can remember being told the next ice age was coming.  Makes you skeptical the second time around.

Also, the tactics and methods of the global warming crowd make me wonder about the motivations of them...

Saw Bill on the "Living with Ed" show on Discovery, or whichever channel it's on, and Ed was talking about having his wife fix Bill up with some of her actress friends because, shockingly enough, Bill has trouble getting dates. Go figure. He's a smart guy, to be sure, but he's a scientist, so he is naturally going to defend his vocation and peers. There's also tons of research money at stake.

Our planet is always changing, and that includes the climate. The real question is; how much of the climate changes are resulting from human activity?

A Nobel prize means nothing, they gave one to Yassar Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez.

Quote from: pagancelt on February 12, 2010, 10:32:38 AM
A Nobel prize means nothing, they gave one to Yassar Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez.

Actually, PC you couldn't be more incorrect.  Besides demeaning an Arab and two Israeli patriots - to be clear here - from the POV of many Arab people and many Israeli people, not necessarily from others, and to say that the Nobel means nothing because the Peace Prize was awarded to these three shows not only your glaring prejudice but lack of understanding on how science actually works, especially when it relates to the most prestigious award for science achievement that mankind has.  Here I leave out the Peace Prize as that is subject to opinion and not facts.

All scientific awards that >>>I<<< am aware of must be thoroughly peer reviewed and agreed upon.  Peer review is a generally a slow process.  It might be 2 decades before a hypothesis proposed today will be widely accepted as true, whether as proven fact or accepted as a working theory.

Reputable scientists - those without connections to personal financial gain or political connections to satisfy - universally agree that earth's climate is changing.  Most agree that it is changing very rapidly.  Most also agree that man plays a significant role in this rapid change.  Measurements from all over the globe distinctly and clearly show that the global average temperature has been and is rising.  The global average is warmer this past decade than it was even 50 or 100 years ago.

There can be no debate that there is a difference between climate and weather.  

All of us that are reasonable thinking adults will agree that in general the SW United States is a desert.  That's its climate.  Dry.  Desert.  

All of us that are reasonable thinking adults will agree that within that general dry climate there occur weather events where it might snow or rain - even to the point of a flash flood.

Even though it might rain in some specific area that rain does not change the general climate - it is still desert.

The point of climate change - and the outdated and too narrow term global warming - is that whatever weather we experience most likely will be more pronounced.  Droughts will be dryer and longer.  "Normal" spring rains might not be as prolific as they once were.  Winter storms might dump record snows in some areas unused to much snow.  Other areas might not get their normal allotment.  It could be much colder in a region than normal - see Great Britain this winter as but one example.  

And for anyone to suggest that these snow storms of late are any indication that climate change is fake or somehow not real is disingenuous at best and more likely borne from listening to too much fear mongering on a certain faux news network.

And if y'all that have posted in this thread will open your minds for a moment or two you might see the Mr. Nye >>>COULD<<< be right about climate change deniers being unpatriotic.  How, pray tell, you might ask?

In My Opinion... we - the USA - are at risk economically from those peoples and countries that move toward recognition that climate change is happening.  Why?  How about this link for starters - http://forward.msci.org/articles/1205nolonger.cfm

This details just a few things that the USA once lead the world producing that are no longer "Made in the USA".  

How about:

• GYM SHOES by Nike and Converse
• BRAS - 56% of its product in China, 36% in Thailand and 8% in the Philippines.
• GUN TRIGGER LOCKS - More than 90% of all trigger locks on the market today are made in Asia.
• Neodymium-iron-boron magnets - Using Pentagon grants, General Motors developed a new kind of permanent magnet material in the early 1980s, and began manufacturing the magnets at its subsidiary's, Magnequench, factory in Anderson, Indiana. Over the past few years, Magnequench moved virtually all its U.S. production operations—and soon its headquarters and research facilities—to Mexico, Singapore and China. In 2004, when Magnequench moved its production facilities to China, it marked the end of U.S. production of the world's most advanced permanent magnets, tiny but crucial components in computers, automobiles and consumer electronic products—as well as cruise missiles and the Joint Direct Attack Munition bomb.
• RADIOS - the vast majority of AM-FM radios are manufactured overseas
• BLUE JEANS - In 2004, Levi closed its last two sewing plants in the United States. Right here in San Antonio - thousands of jobs gone!
• MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALLS
• SEMICONDUCTORS AND MICROCHIPS - Asia's share of production in 2005 was 65% - The USA - 20%  And Shockley et al invented the damn things

China now leads the world in large windmill production and soon in installed capacity.  Same for solar panels.  China is investing heavily in electric cars.  So is India.  The list goes on and on and on.

Prominent climate change deniers are the current vested interests - oil, coal, autos, banking, Wall Street and others that have bought and paid for - bribed - politicians and other mass media outlets and 'personalities' to keep us - the sheeple of the USA - distracted by the latest 'celebrity gossip' or who's Dancing with the Stars - or heaven forfend, the latest threat from some obscure minority in some mid-east sheikdom.  

As an aside, did you happen to notice that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi's?  And we've invaded their country to bring all those radical mullahs to justice when?  Ah... Too much oil dependency and too many green backs being held to do something silly like that don't ya think?

Back to those countries that are preparing today for the effects of tomorrow's climate change.  They are going to be the the world leaders and we're gonna be sucking hind teat because of the vested interests in today's technologies and today's economic interests can only see far enough to grab the last penny out of your pocket and mine.  We're being bled dry by these unpatriotic thieves.

As of September of 2009 the USA OWES the rest of the world $3.428 trillion dollars.  China held nearly 24% of that amount - about $800 billion.

If we here in the USA choose to believe the vested interests and their bought and paid for lackeys that climate change is not real and we do not prepare for its effects, my youngest grandson will reach his majority living - maybe - in a third rate country behind China, India and the oil exporters.  We'll be as broke as Russia was 20 years ago but without the vast oil, gas and mineral wealth of Siberia to bail us out.  We'll be like Iceland - broke.  Like Greece - broke.  Like Ireland - broke.  Like Spain - broke.  Like Argentina was a few years ago - broke.

But if we do the true patriotic thing and invest now in both technologies and societal change we can remain a major player on the world stage and not just another failed super power like those that litter history's annuals.

But the current PTB - here and abroad - have too much of a strangle hold through their bought-and-paid-for lackeys for there to be any significant change of the status quo.

So if you want to be part of the deny-er sheeple herd, go on letting someone else do your thinking for you.  Go on believing that faux news if "fair and balanced".  Go on believing that 'Rush is Right' and O'Reily's rant about there being a war on Christmas is real.  Go ahead and believe that New Orleans was destroyed by Katrina because of the promiscuity of the whole city. Go on and believe that the nation of Haiti has been devastated by a large earthquake because, as Pat Robertson said, its people "made a pact with the devil." Go believing that you're not being manipulated and used.  Go on believing that climate change ain't real.  Go on believing that short-term weather is just the same as long-term climate.  

Go ahead and be on that river to nowhere - the de-nile.  But don't diss science and its prestigious prizes for outstanding achievements and advances just because you don't understand it or the results don't fit your preconceived prejudices.

Interesting post. I'll take a different look at this. But a few questions need to be answered.

Why is the data kept secret?
Who collected the data?
Do they have a conflict of intrest?
Why is any debate or discussion attacked?
How does CO2, which makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere cause so much of the change?
The weather can not be predicted a month in advance. What makes these people so sure they can predict the climate 100 years in advance?
Why are some people being set up to make huge profits from new regulations?
Why are members of the public not being considered for a share in carbon credits?
How will new taxes solve the problem?

Unless these questions are answered honestly I can not be expected to belive the propaganda being force fed to us every day.

Leo,

I love a good rant, and that was one.  We dont agree on some of the statements you made, but I sincerly appreciate you taking the time to convey them.  Cheers to you on that. 

I don't want to argue with anyone here, and I'll leave it at that.  If you are interested in honest and civil discussion of the details you posted I think it might be a lively and good discussion.  It's up to you, again, cheers and thanks for your view of this.  An angle on our economic situation I had not even considered. 

To everyone else, let's keep the focus on what makes this site great and not get into anything that detracts from it. 

Leo

I have to say that that C&P was just plain illogical and silly

For starters, if you had read much of the so called Copenhagen draft agreement you would know that the results of that agreement would impoverish the US and devastate our economy

even more 'jobs' would leave the US because we would not have the energy to produce virtually anything

Like it or not the economy runs on energy

Please explain how our economy will prosper using 20 to 40 % less energy than we did in 1990 while paying hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries in the form of 'carbon credits'.

That author had some real fuzzy thinking.........















us

I'm at the local bar enjoying a Shiner draft. I said nothing about any political "deal" of any sort. IMO they're all ruses to once again fleece us of our money and transfer it to the same tratiors the have screwed our country for the X number of years.

I'll go into more detail after I'm once again sober - suggesting that this will not be my only beer of the evening.

 Well, Leo... I owe you a beer.

Okay, a sixpack of your favorite for that post.

But...

The Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature are still valid measures of achievement, and really mean something, but the Peace Prize is clearly and primarily influenced by leftist European politics.

It was the Peace Prize awarded to Gore and the IPCC, and so, to me, despite the views of The Science Guy, is irrelevant to the question of climate change.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

Quote
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE
Last updated at 1:51 PM on 14th February 2010

◆ Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

◆ There has been no global warming since 1995

◆ Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.

The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of 'scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph' which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said 'his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be. 'There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.'

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no 'statistically significant' warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. 'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled 'until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4's Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made. But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were 'significant' because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

please explain why is it that the primary dogma of climate change is that "There can be no debate". 
It is in your post above as well, there can be no debate. 

Why is that, and how is that in any way conductive to actual science?  That is the mindset of religion, not science.  There is always room for debate and questions in science.  Science is built on questions, science is never about blind acceptance.   

 I don't know about any scientist claiming that "There can be no debate". On its face that would be a very silly statement indeed. Perhaps the context is missing. There can be no intellectually honest scientific debate, for instance, with those who use people like Rush, Alex Jones, or Glen Beck as their primary source of scientific data.

Professor Phil Jones puts it like this:

Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

A: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
_________

Speaking to the Daily Mail article linked, the author somehow comes to almost exactly the opposite conclusions from the words of Phil Jones than what was actually said.

If you reference the actual Q&A referenced between the BBC's Roger Harrabin and Professor Phil Jones you'll see the full quotes, without the cherry picking, snipping, and quoting out of context that this author does. I suggest taking Jonathan Petre off the short list of examples of fine journalistic integrity.

Oh wait... he was never on it. The Daily Mail is is a British daily tabloid newspaper. A gossip rag.

Here's the BBC Q&A, for context:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

________

I'd recommend this video, which debunks several very common false claims made by climate change skeptics, tracking them back to original sources and showing the deceptive tactics used by the denial industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc

 Oh, looky what I just happened upon, without even trying:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html

Journalism at its most irresponsible. There really ought to be a law. At least there ought to be consequences.

The BBC interviews Phil Jones:

   B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

   Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

The Daily Mail headline:

   Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Right.
___________________________

And another:

Daily Mail caught in another lie.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php

If I may comment.  Why is it that the majority of those who oppose this idea of global warming have no sceintific background yet for the most part spend every availible minute in the outdoors.  Those that support Global warming tend to stay inside all day stare at a computer screen and only go outside when the computerized instruments flashes blue, reads "ERROR" and need to be reset.

Just wondering


  The fact that all these "experts" spent 100s or maybe thousands-I have no idea the exact amount except that airliners are not cheap to operate-of gallons of fuel to fly to some conference to tell all us "common folk" to reduce our footprint for the sake of our kids,  It does not do a very good job of convincing me.

Sod Breaker.

Quote from: Sod Breaker on February 14, 2010, 08:57:17 PM
If I may comment.  Why is it that the majority of those who oppose this idea of global warming have no sceintific background yet for the most part spend every availible minute in the outdoors.  Those that support Global warming tend to stay inside all day stare at a computer screen and only go outside when the computerized instruments flashes blue, reads "ERROR" and need to be reset.

Just wondering


  The fact that all these "experts" spent 100s or maybe thousands-I have no idea the exact amount except that airliners are not cheap to operate-of gallons of fuel to fly to some conference to tell all us "common folk" to reduce our footprint for the sake of our kids,  It does not do a very good job of convincing me.

Sod Breaker.

Wow! That certainly wins first prize for the most non sequiturs within the fewest words.

Congratulations!

 

So you're not even going to bother to adress the obvious?

rainndog.

the man, and in fact damn near the entire science of climatology is a disgrace to the "scientific method".   I'm sorry we do not agree on this. 

Quote from: muldoon on February 14, 2010, 10:30:19 PM
rainndog.

the man, and in fact damn near the entire science of climatology is a disgrace to the "scientific method".   I'm sorry we do not agree on this.  

Oh, I'm not sorry we disagree. Keeps the world spinnin', y'know.  

I do agree that Jones seems, at least to my reading, to be a pretty wishy-washy character and a weak link. However, I've seen plenty of disgrace to go around on both sides of the issue.

Between the hysterics of the doomsaying left, and the deceptive tactics of the right (and vise versa), the whole thing has become so politicized and twisted that I have a difficult time imagining a calm reasoned inquiry into the premise of climate change at this point or in the foreseeable future.

It's really too bad.

Quote from: Sod Breaker on February 14, 2010, 09:25:35 PM
So you're not even going to bother to adress the obvious?

I honestly don't know what it is you want addressed.

Truly.

Is it the broad-brushed stereotypes you presented? That people who spend a lot of time outdoors are under-educated, or that proponents of AGW are pencil-necked computer geeks?

Well... I think that's preposterous.

Or is it that someone like Al Gore's behavior has any bearing on anything other than Al Gore's behavior?

Seriously. I'm not following your logic.

Or perhaps the fact that with Global warming (not unlike most everything)  the people who are actauly "on the ground"  almost always have a diiferent oppinion of a subject then those sitting behind a desk writting up theories about the same forementioned.

Okay. Yes, people who specialize in any given study are in a position to know more about the subject than people who don't, though it doesn't necessarily follow that there's disagreement.

In this case, people "on the ground" and untrained in climate science (read you and me), are being influenced from both directions by persons and groups with political, social, and financial interests and agendas in dishonest fashion.

I don't expect anyone to be particularly following my posts on this subject, but just to make myself clear once again, I'm an equal opportunity hater. I'm pissed at both sides of the aisle on this one.

Peace, and g'night. 

Oh how did I miss this one?

This is a pet peeve of mine and I've spent countless hours debating some pretty smart folks about -- those smart folks are so deep into the Theology of AGW (I like to call it MMGW just to piss them off) that they can't see the obvious.

I think the reason though, is becuase they have a genuine fear for the planet and think this is the way to protect it -- at least that seems to be what I can get out of them just before they start speaking in tongues.

Sorry if I offend (well not really) but I've yet to have anyone in that camp actually have a serious debate -- they are like 911 Truthers (sorry to those who are in that camp actually, since there is some strange stuff surrounding 911 but the Truthers are so narrow minded they can't hear anything other then Alex Jones diatribes)...anyway, I digress, the point is, when a MMGWer (what would Al Gore do) can explain how Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, the moons around Jupiter and other bodies within our solar system ALL experienced Global Warming at the same time the Earth did (for indeed we did but more on that later) and how those celestial bodies were impacted by the CO2 levels on earth, well, lets just say I put them in the 'The Aliens really did abduct me' category.

Seriously, anyone unwilling to consider solar cycles in the grand scheme of things is just a religious nutjob or a very ill informed zombie.  Currently we've been in a cooling period (since 2001 actually) and have dropped nearly as far as we went up in the last 100 years!  But then, that's if you believe the Berkley crowd anyway.

Current studies have shown so much nonsense in the IPCC that it's downright pathetic, I even used to post links but don['t bother since I don't fine many who worship the Goreacle who actually both to read them.

So let's see -- the polar bear population has risen, the glaciers aren't melting, the ice caps have grown, the satellite was broken, the documents used were a scam, the weather stations are in bad places -- the list goes on and on and on -- the sun is very inactive (since 1998 it began to drop in solar flares which happens to directly correlate with the lower temps -- hmmm)...more cars are driven yet it's getting colder, worst winters in decades over and over in fact, record snow...mars is cooling again too...hmmmm...wait, Mars got warmer too?  Ya, they noticed the polar 'ice' caps had melted a bit -- so too on the moons around Jupiter and oh the eye grew some buddies...ya, folks it just aint that simple.

But you see, it never was about warming anyway, it was about cap and trade, control, regulation, socialism and the progressive agenda.

now that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

But let me ask you:

1.  Did you learn the Fabian society was cool?  Did you know they were socialists?
2.  Did you learn Shaw was a great guy in school?  Did you know he wanted to gas people BEFORE Hitler?
3.  Did you learn Nazi's were bad guys (yup they were)?  Did you also learned they got it from American Progressives?

You see, it's not always so simple.  So back to AGW:

In 1300 AD the earth was warmer.  -- check it out, it's true.

So, let me get this right, discounting all of the above stuff, if the earth was warmer in 1300 then um, why all the fuss now?  After all, it was very good for the northern hemiphere when it was warmer in 1300.  In fact right up until 1350 the north of Egland was growing better grapes then France!  It was great for the English and they were producing great wines...amazing eh?  In fact, the Irish were growing wheat and other grains that needed a warmer climate too..hmmm but aren't the Irish known for Potatoes?  Nope -- Idaho is though right?  Ya, that's interesting isn't it?  So where did the spuds come from?

Do you know?  The America's!  So think about that for a minute will ya.  Why did the Irish start to grow potatoes?  Becuase they were starving because around 1350 the temps dropped and continued to remain cold!  It wasn't until spuds were brought back from the America's that they began to grow them in the now colder Irish country side....ya few know that it seems.

The Little Ice Age as it was called (is called) reached it's lowest point at the Maunder Minimum in around 1645-1715...but then something happened....the sun woke up!  The Maunder Minimum was a period of abnormally low solar flares/sunspot activity (like we have today) and when it ended the activity cranked up, the cycles returned and the sun warmed the earth....the Little Ice Age was called OVER in 1850 but um, the earth was still cooler then it had been 500 years earlier.

Interesting huh?

It is still cooler but the sun has gone dormant again....

Some think the cycle will kick back in soon and warm us all back up again, maybe even to levels around 1300 or so -- and oh boy will the global warming religionists have a hay day then! 

Fact is, discounting the sun is like discounting a gun shot to the heart in a cadaver as the cause of death when no other sign appears but some foam at the mouth.  It's stupid actually.

Anyway, it's a sham.

Oh and before I sign off, let's not forget this little tidbit (snicker) leave your beer out in the sun   And leave another one in the freezer -- but make sure you opened both.  The hot one last.

Now answer me this:  Which will go flat first?

Ya, I thought so, we all know the hot one will.....why?  CO2 is released by the beer into the atmosphere -- faster, much faster, when it's warm....hmmm....so let me get this straight, the sun warms the oceans right?  Which contain CO2 right?  Which then release it right?  and um, the cycle for that is reportedly about 8 years after the solar peak.  So, around 2006 which should have had a steller CO2 level increase.

So, to conclude, AGW is a farce.