Euro ToMoCo Cancels Land Cruiser, Raises Price of RAV-4. Whither Bugatti?

Well, I did find one of the two articles I was looking for re: global warming PCness/falsehood. Canadian Climatologist Says Sun Causing Global Warming By Dennis T. Avery MichNews.com Jul 9, 2007 Another scientist has added his voice to the Global Warming debate. Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth’s climate changes—and Earth’s current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun’s irradiance. Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada’s West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson’s research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land. Patterson’s fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun’s 87 and 210-year solar cycles—and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen. “Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators is not unique,” says the climatologist from Carleton University. “Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.” But there was a problem. By themselves, the variations in solar irradiation were too small to account for the big variations his research team found in the Canadian fish catches. “Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century’s modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered,” says Patterson. “In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies . . . varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system. . . . These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet.” “When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth’s atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools. . . . This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere . . . was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age.” The Canadian expert concludes, “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.” Instead, Earth’s sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index. Patterson says climate change is the most complex field we’ve ever studied. He notes that a 2003 German poll of 530 scientists from 27 countries found two-thirds of the respondents doubted that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” Attempting to stop global warming with the Kyoto Protocol, he warns, could be as useless as King Canute commanding the tides to cease. Copyright by Dennis T. Avery

You guys seem to be missing the point on GW. Most science today is questioned because no one with any skepticism really believes in academia anymore. Academia started digging this hole for themselves fifty years ago, and if anyone is to blame its them. They have become the same medieval church that they denounce for attacking Galileo. I haven't seen a believable study since grad school. Many of the stupid little studies we did to learn how to do studies were honest inquiries. Most of the ones published today, are not. Seriously, no one publishes or makes available enough information to truly discern their studies. Reporters aren't asking tough questions either, just reporting and quoting as if digging for truth wasn't part of their mandate. Then, the government takes all of this and uses it to line someone's pockets at the expense of someone else by mandating a solution even though we KNOW FOR SURE, that we are better off not all using the same solution. Seriously, what major initiative has government taken that has really ever worked?

glenn125, Don't you google your sources? Do you think I won't? When Dennis T. Avery writes, "Another scientist has added his voice..." are we supposed to presume that "added" implies a conversion? A new recruit who abandons the witchcraft of a liberal coven of those who would enslave us via worship of Anthropogenic Global Warming Religions to join the forces of Reason and Light? Patterson is not a new recruit, that's for sure; he's been noisily rejecting AGW for years. But I can see why Avery would like to give the impression that things are tilting away from AGW when, in fact, they are not. I see he also references the Heartland's survey, too. It surely would be interesting to know more about it. By the way, fron an ad on the Hearland site, I see that Vaclav Klaus will be "debunking" AGW (the ad makes it look like it will be a debate - that ad is misleading. I see Mr. Klaus likes to to play the "political correctness card," a sure mark of a loser). I also note the ad's caption warns us that "Freedom, Not Climate, Is At Risk." Funny... if freedom's their main concern, I would think they should get on down to the DOJ and protest the current Administration's practice of holding people incommunicado and indefinitely without trial. Climate change can be resisted with tax policy. Shifting taxation and economic incentives is hardly going to erode our freedom in any significant way, as it's already an established practice. Buy a giant, gas-sucking SUV - get a tax deduction for your support of Detroit and Exxon-Mobil! Does that put my freedom at risk? And before I forget... you used "falsehood," in your post, to refer to AGW theory and its supporters and you've referred to lies before. Got any proof of any of that? We *know* that Martin Durkin used a variety of delightfully erroneous charts in TGGWS, when there was no reason, whatever, to do so. He could have gotten up-to-date information right off a NASA web site but chose, instead, to use a 1988 journal from a field having little to do with climate science. I'm still waiting for someone to explain, why would Durkin do that?

so Porsche gets with VW and you've got your CO2 problems solved.