Well well, there are smart courts

[billvon 3,120]

>Other studies (again to my understanding) have shown a closer
>correlation to solar activity and temperature . . .

Are you referring to insolation or cosmic ray cloud nucleation? Two very separate issues, both influenced by the sun.

Insolation is just how much energy we get from the sun. All the recent studied I've seen are pretty definitive in that the sun is not putting out more energy over the middle term (decades.) A recent study from the Royal Society:

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD AND CLAUS FROHLICH

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

One caveat is that the sun has an 11-year sunspot cycle, and outputs more or less power in a sinusoidal fashion over that period. It has been decreasing over the last 5 years and we are now in a trough (solar activity is low.) We expect to see it increase over the next six years, then drop again. Not much of an issue overall since this has been going on for at least thousands of years.

The second issue is cosmic ray modulated cloud nucleation. Greater solar output -> more solar wind -> more 'shielding' from cosmic radiation -> less cosmic rays -> less nucleated particles -> fewer clouds. This assumes that clouds have a greater albedo effect than they have a greenhouse effect. This possibility was described in Svensmark's recent paper.

So taken with the above study, Svensmark's paper would seem to indicate that the cosmic radiation thing is now a forcing towards COOLING, and the planet would be even warmer without it. You could change some of the assumptions in the study (namely that high altitude clouds have a warming instead of a cooling effect) but that's really reaching, given that the cloud-nucleation step has not even been demonstrated yet.

>CO2 lagging temperature, historically.

Right. CO2 is historically an amplifier of climate change. We're the first ones to be able to put billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere without the sort of devastation you get with a massive amount of volcanism or an asteroid impact.

So it doesn't come as a surprise to me that CO2 doesn't usually cause the start of a warming trend. Dinosaurs didn't have SUV's or coal fired power plants.

>Am I saying that it's more likely that solar activity is the main driver
>of the current warming trend . . .

Unfortunately for that theory, every study done on the issue over the past few years shows solar activity not increasing (beyond the periodicity of the solar cycle.) A few others:


http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/#scientific

[rushmc 23]

Refering back to the thread title here are the 11 inacuracies the court found about ALGORES production. Fun stuff. the part underlined has been covered many times on this site

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

"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]

It doesn't matter if it's bogus propaganda.

His heart's in the right place.

[billvon 3,120]

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Very nice billvon, very nice

"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]

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

You are getting quite rank in your attacks sir. You must need a break or maybe better data just to try and back up the assertions you are making

"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]

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Oh, I did not realize you called the BBC or some of the UK newpapers "rightwing.com" I will remember that in the future

"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]

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Oh, and since you are calling me out, refute my post. Show the court DID NOT say what I posted! I do not think I will hold my breath

"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 2,150]

Quote

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

And your point to my posts to billvon is related somehow? Once again, cant invalidate the point so divert. Smart? Maybe desperate is the correct term

"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 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

And your point to my posts to billvon is related somehow? Once again, cant invalidate the point so divert. Smart? Maybe desperate is the correct term

Pheasant cooked in wine is very tasty.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

On another tangent, the courts are the abriters of truth are they not? I seem to remember your comments to let the system of law run it's course?

Oh but, that can't be the case here now sir, can it.

"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]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

And your point to my posts to billvon is related somehow? Once again, cant invalidate the point so divert. Smart? Maybe desperate is the correct term

Pheasant cooked in wine is very tasty.

Too much wine tonight? Is that what you are saying? You should really cut back. Cutting back can help one make more inteligent responces

"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 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

And your point to my posts to billvon is related somehow? Once again, cant invalidate the point so divert. Smart? Maybe desperate is the correct term

Pheasant cooked in wine is very tasty. Too much wine tonight? Is that what you are saying? You should really cut back. Cutting back can help one make more inteligent responces

Helps with spelling too.

Courts are not arbiters of truth in science.

...

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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An unattributed cut-and-paste directly from a website called www.rightwingnews.com. Somehow I am not surprised.

Now, can you tell us your objections to Gore's film in your own words, without using any control-C's or control-P's? (i.e. thinking up objections yourself, not doing the ditto thing)

Can't invalidate what the court said so you attack the poster..

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

On another tangent, the courts are the abriters of truth are they not? I seem to remember your comments to let the system of law run it's course?

Oh but, that can't be the case here now sir, can it.

Don't confuse a legal decision with good science.

...

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

[billvon 3,120]

Once again - can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is? Not www.rightwingnews.com's point - YOUR point?

[speedy 0]

Quote

Once again - can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is? Not www.rightwingnews.com's point - YOUR point?

errr, his point is .....read the title of the thread

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Courts have not been arbiters of science since Galileo's time.

And rightfully so. That's the Church's job!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Once again - can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is? Not www.rightwingnews.com's point - YOUR point?

It seems you can not address the fact that a court has stated that positions you hold to are not true and can not be backed up with science or fact. Fine

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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Once again - can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is? Not www.rightwingnews.com's point - YOUR point?

It seems you can not address the fact that a court has stated that positions you hold to are not true and can not be backed up with science or fact. Fine

And you seem to be having trouble with the notion that courts don't validate or invalidate science.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Once again - can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is? Not www.rightwingnews.com's point - YOUR point?

It seems you can not address the fact that a court has stated that positions you hold to are not true and can not be backed up with science or fact. Fine

And you seem to be having trouble with the notion that courts don't validate or invalidate science.

But the courts to have a say when "the science" is manipulated in a deceptive to manner to promote an agenda.

A classic example is the EPA's 1992 study on secondhand smoke.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Once again - can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is? Not www.rightwingnews.com's point - YOUR point?

It seems you can not address the fact that a court has stated that positions you hold to are not true and can not be backed up with science or fact. Fine

And you seem to be having trouble with the notion that courts don't validate or invalidate science.

But the courts to have a say when "the science" is manipulated in a deceptive to manner to promote an agenda.

A classic example is the EPA's 1992 study on secondhand smoke.

Ya, maniputlated science. Just like the GWing claims and the CFC's and Ozone depletion claims. Time for the courts to shut this shit down

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

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It seems you can not address the fact that a court has stated that positions you hold to are not true and can not be backed up with science or fact. Fine

Ah.. so what we have here is your support of activist judges.. legislating from the bench..

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

But the courts to have a say when "the science" is manipulated in a deceptive to manner to promote an agenda.

A classic example is the EPA's 1992 study on secondhand smoke.

Sure, I'll go along with that. I hope they continue and I wish they'd do the same with the EPA and biosolids but that's another thread. But it looks like the court said that there's political and emotional content in the movie. I'll agree with that too. Regardless, it doesn't invalidate the science. Sure, to be accurate, the Gulf Stream won't shut down. It will just move. But they've got me confused on the coral bleaching claim that there's no evidence that increased temperatures cause it. That's just plain nonsense. You can prove that one in the courtroom with fish tank and a heater.
Overall, what seems to be missing from the debate is common sense.

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>>can you explain, in your own words, what YOUR point is?

>It seems you can not address . . .

I will take that as a no.

If, in the future, you have a point to make, I will be happy to respond to it. Until then I will refrain from replying to the cut-and-paste du jour from right winger sites.