More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[billvon 3,116]

>I'll be happy to trade 20 of our rainy days for 20 of your sunny days.
>I am only willing to trade the rainy saturdays or sundays though.

OK! I'll trade you 20 sundays any month from may to september. We'd have real trees!

[rushmc 23]

OK, we all pick out single stories or items that support our position. I admit I have done that here. But I do it in the context of "the ice is melting the ice is melting" GWing claim.
Kilimanjaro was one of the GWing stories but now a group of researchers say not so fast.......

Found on Newsmax but a reprint from

© Reuters 2007.



Kilimanjaro Ice Melt Due to Radiation, Not Global Warming




The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania have been diminishing for more than a century but probably not due to global warming, researchers report.

While the retreat of glaciers and mountaintop ice in the mid-latitudes - where much of the world's human population lives - is definitely linked to global climate change, the same cannot be said of Kilimanjaro, the researchers wrote in the July-August edition of American Scientist magazine.

Kilimanjaro's icy top, which provided the title for an iconic short story by Ernest Hemingway, has been waning for more than a century, according to Philip Mote of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

Most of the retreat occurred before 1953, nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available, they wrote.



"It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years," Mote, a climatologist, said in a statement.

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Unlike mid-latitude glaciers, which are warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summer, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro's ice is driven by solar radiation, since the air around it is rarely above freezing, they wrote.

Kilimanjaro, an extinct volcano near Tanzania's border with Kenya, is the highest peak in Africa at 19,563 feet (5,963 metres) and attracts hordes of tourists and climbers for its spectacular views.

The researchers attributed the ice decline to complex interacting factors, including the vertical shape of the ice's edge, which allows it to shrink but not expand.


Decreased snowfall, which reduces ice buildup and determines how much energy the ice absorbs, also plays a role.
Much of Kilimanjaro's ice is vanishing by sublimation - where ice at very low temperatures converts straight to water vapor without going through a watery phase - rather than by melting, the scientists said.

Fluctuating weather patterns related to the Indian Ocean also could affect the shifting balance between the ice's increase, which might have occurred for decades before the first explorers reached Kilimanjaro's summit in 1889, and the shrinking that has been going on since.



© Reuters 2007.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[speedy 0]

Quote

>I'll be happy to trade 20 of our rainy days for 20 of your sunny days.
>I am only willing to trade the rainy saturdays or sundays though.

OK! I'll trade you 20 sundays any month from may to september. We'd have real trees!

Can we start with this coming Sunday please?
It's looking pretty grim out here. Maybe if I suck all the clouds into a plastic bag and send them via UPS. You can send me a big box of sunshine.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[speedy 0]

Quote

>I'll be happy to trade 20 of our rainy days for 20 of your sunny days.
>I am only willing to trade the rainy saturdays or sundays though.

OK! I'll trade you 20 sundays any month from may to september. We'd have real trees!

Today Bill, you were a little late with the sunshine, too many clouds but at least not rainy.

How did it go with you? Did you get my clouds and rain?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,116]

>Did you get my clouds and rain?

Nope! Zero rain and almost no clouds. Damn.

[rushmc 23]

A different kind of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has a different conclusion

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4


Underlining and bolding are mine.


Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

Read the Post's series on Climate Change: The Deniers

Forget warming, beware the new ice age



View Larger Image
(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)
Andrew Barr, National Post

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****They call this a consensus?



Dire forecasts aren't new


The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.


Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.


In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. 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.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, 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 change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs 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 more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. 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, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.


In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."


R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Is canada.com a peer reviewed scientific journal? Is Financial Post a peer reviewed scientific journal?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Is canada.com a peer reviewed scientific journal? Is Financial Post a peer reviewed scientific journal?

thanks for staying consistant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.nserc.ca/funding/funding_opp_e.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Is canada.com a peer reviewed scientific journal? Is Financial Post a peer reviewed scientific journal?

How about " International Journal of Marine Geology"?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Is canada.com a peer reviewed scientific journal? Is Financial Post a peer reviewed scientific journal?

How about " International Journal of Marine Geology"?

this one has got to hurt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

An interesting political article from a Canadian newspaper. A few comments:

>Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
>its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
>unusually cool conditions on Earth.

I expect we will hear a lot about this until shortly after 2020, at which point the deniers will conveniently forget about this prediction - just as they forgot about their prediction that the IPCC forecasts would be wrong.

> By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our
> planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

Completely incorrect. See below.

[NCclimber 0]

How much have global temps risen in the last five years?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

An interesting political article from a Canadian newspaper. A few comments:

>Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into
>its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
>unusually cool conditions on Earth.

I expect we will hear a lot about this until shortly after 2020, at which point the deniers will conveniently forget about this prediction - just as they forgot about their prediction that the IPCC forecasts would be wrong.

> By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our
> planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

Completely incorrect. See below.

So you are disputing thier findings? It seems based on the same type of research you like to quote.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>So you are disputing thier findings?

I think on occasion you may misunderstand the point of an article, as evinced by a recent article you linked to that supported the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing warming (but which you believe supported the denier position.) So to avoid the same sort of problems we had last time, could you state what you believe their findings to be? That way we're talking about the same thing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So you are disputing thier findings?

I think on occasion you may misunderstand the point of an article, as evinced by a recent article you linked to that supported the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing warming (but which you believe supported the denier position.) So to avoid the same sort of problems we had last time, could you state what you believe their findings to be? That way we're talking about the same thing.

Alright, I understand

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Alright, I understand

?? Huh? What findings are we discussing here?

[rushmc 23]

I think the post is pretty clear. You don't want to answer so you take an off handed shot at me and my comprehesion. You seem to know me better than my wife or than I know myself OK? that is what I understand.

If you really want to know what I took from the articel refer to the start of the post where I stated I highlighted and underlinded different parts. Maybe that will give you more insite into your complete understanding of me, a type II denier

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>refer to the start of the post where I stated I highlighted and underlinded different parts.

OK:

"Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue . . ."

The usual political speechifying.

"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. 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."

Solar output does indeed influence climate. When the sun's output increases, the planet warms up correspondingly. Not much debate over that.

"However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, 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 change."

Also quite true. The "amplifier" he talks about can take the form of Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, meteor impact, methane releases etc.

"Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more."

This is a topic of much research lately. Cosmic rays cause nucleation particles (or so the theory goes) - this enhances cloud formation. A "gotcha" here, though, is that we've put so much aerosolized stuff (read: nucleation particles) in the atmosphere through our own activities (coal burning, jet exhaust, rocket launches etc) that that effect probably isn't as significant as it would be in a non-industrial age. In other words, we're doing what cosmic rays did 10,000 years ago.

We saw this effect pretty dramatically after 9/11. When all those aircraft were grounded, cloud formation slowed down and the daily temperature swing increased. (Clouds cool you during the day and warm you at night.) Once they started flying again, their exhausts went back to nucleating clouds.

Another problem with this theory is that cosmic rays create very small nucleation particles that are not large enough to begin cloud formation. So there's another step they would have to take before you can start to take it seriously.

I would also note that it's not really groundbreaking; there are papers on this going back to 1996.

That's not to say it's not something we should study. To show that it does indeed influence climate, we have to demonstrate the following, none of which have been demonstrated yet:

1) Show how cosmic ray nucleation particles (tiny) turn into cloud nucleation particles (large.)

2) Show how these nucleation particles are better at cloud formation than the nucleation particles that are floating around from our activities, and from natural sources (like the oceans.)

3) Show that the cloud formation that might result cools instead of warms the planet. (Clouds during the night warm the planet.)

4) Show that average cosmic ray intensity has indeed been increasing (or decreasing) over the years. We haven't been measuring them for very long, but the data we have doesn't show much change. (See below.)

5) Show that the sun is causing this change, and that it's not due to the solar system's slow passage through the galaxy, where cosmic ray fluxes vary dramatically due to local environments.

Hopefully further research will shed some light on these issues.

"By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Incorrect as I demonstrated earlier.

" . . . halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of 'stopping climate change.' "

Speechifying again.

[rushmc 23]

Not incorrect, you just do not agree.

I will take his thoughts as I know his research qualifications. (not saying you don't have any but I do not know them) There are others with high qualifactions that do not agree with you either. At this piont, I think you are the incorrect one and I side with them.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>
That's not to say it's not something we should study. To show that it does indeed influence climate, we have to demonstrate the following, none of which have been demonstrated yet:

1) Show how cosmic ray nucleation particles (tiny) turn into cloud nucleation particles (large.)

2) Show how these nucleation particles are better at cloud formation than the nucleation particles that are floating around from our activities, and from natural sources (like the oceans.)

I find it hard to believe that cosmic rays are at all relevant - the particles they nucleate are well below critical size (2*gamma/(delta Gv), and will tend to shrink and disappear even in a saturated atmosphere (not only theoretically, we see it easily in a cloud chamber where the short lived nucleated droplets are used to make radiation tracks visible). Pollutants with low surface energy are far more likely as heterogeneous nucleation agents.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,116]

> Not incorrect, you just do not agree.

His statement that there is little correlation is incorrect; again, see the graph. You yourself have claimed that there IS a relationship between CO2 and temperature, and that CO2 lags somewhat. (Remember that?) Can't have it both ways.

>At this piont, I think you are the incorrect one and I side with them.

It's hard to say what side you're on. Your political position remains constant but you keep changing your mind on the science. Now there's little relationship between CO2 and warming - will you later claim that there IS a relationship, but CO2 lags? I have a feeling you will.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Not incorrect, you just do not agree.

His statement that there is little correlation is incorrect; again, see the graph. You yourself have claimed that there IS a relationship between CO2 and temperature, and that CO2 lags somewhat. (Remember that?) Can't have it both ways.

>At this piont, I think you are the incorrect one and I side with them.

It's hard to say what side you're on. Your political position remains constant but you keep changing your mind on the science. Now there's little relationship between CO2 and warming - will you later claim that there IS a relationship, but CO2 lags? I have a feeling you will.

When the shit gets deep you start changing the subject and making acusatsion but, just to help you out and clarify. My current position, based on what I am learning is, CO2 lags temps not preceeds it. In either case, CO2's impact on temps is neglible at best. (more and more new research is starting to support that) You my friend are on the political side (IMO) and you want to push change based on bad science. To push eco morality just because is, well, silly and dangerous

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

> My current position, based on what I am learning is, CO2 lags temps
>not preceeds it. In either case, CO2's impact on temps is neglible at best.

?? Not long ago you said that mankind was NOT causing the increase in CO2! Do you now not believe that? Or are you just plain denying everything that has to do with climate science?

>You my friend are on the political side (IMO)

I have zero doubt that if the above research proceeds, and it turns out that manmade nucleation particles have a much greater effect (and are causing warming) you will immediately flip-flop again and decide that clouds cannot possibly have any effect. Thus far it has been pretty easy to predict whether you will post an article and say something like "interesting, and to bad the amalrists have no anwser!" - if it agrees with your political position, you post it. This has gotten you into trouble a few times, as with the article that confirmed greenhouse gases were causing a temperature rise; I suspect you just overlooked that part.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> My current position, based on what I am learning is, CO2 lags temps
>not preceeds it. In either case, CO2's impact on temps is neglible at best.

?? Not long ago you said that mankind was NOT causing the increase in CO2! Do you now not believe that? Or are you just plain denying everything that has to do with climate science?

>You my friend are on the political side (IMO)

I have zero doubt that if the above research proceeds, and it turns out that manmade nucleation particles have a much greater effect (and are causing warming) you will immediately flip-flop again and decide that clouds cannot possibly have any effect. Thus far it has been pretty easy to predict whether you will post an article and say something like "interesting, and to bad the amalrists have no anwser!" - if it agrees with your political position, you post it. This has gotten you into trouble a few times, as with the article that confirmed greenhouse gases were causing a temperature rise; I suspect you just overlooked that part.

Heck, I guess you are right. I should be ashamed of myself posting and denier articel because we all know that the consensue should not be messed with.

(now to take a page from your tactic book)

You have to have "zero doubt" I susspect because you have framed your lifestyle around your belief that man is destroying the planet. To change your mind or evern think about differing research conclusion would upset your world viewpoint and we can't have that now can we?

(to follow up, I really have know idea but I thought it would be fun to pull the same crap and tell somebody else about themselve...........as has happened to me so many times in this discussion)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln