Wednesday September 2, 2009, 2:02 pm
hi thanks cher , though cant sighn like most of them think its my uk post code .

Wednesday September 2, 2009, 5:46 pm
noted & signed

Wednesday September 2, 2009, 6:22 pm
GLOBAL WARMING AND THE SUN

Assuming there are no sunspots today, a 96-year record will have been broken: 53 days without any solar blemishes, giant magnetic disruptions on the sun's surface that cause solar flares. That would be the fourth-longest stretch of stellar solar complexion since 1849. Wait, it gets even more exciting.

During what scientist call the Maunder Minimum -- a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 -- the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

Of course, it could have been a coincidence. The Little Ice Age began before the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Many scientists think volcanic activity was a more likely, or at least a more significant, culprit. Or perhaps the big chill was, in the words of scientist Alan Cutler, writing in the Washington Post in 1997, a "one-two punch from a dimmer sun and a dustier atmosphere."

Well, we just might find out. A new study in the American Geophysical Union's journal Eos suggests that we may be heading into another quiet phase similar to the Maunder Minimum.

Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that a study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather, increasing temperatures more than the increase in solar energy should explain. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of the climate.

Scientists have known for centuries that sunspots affected the climate; they just never understood how. Now, allegedly, the mystery has been solved.

Last month, in another study, also released in Science, Oregon state researchers claimed to settle the debate over what caused and ended the last Ice Age. Increased solar radiation coming from slight changes in the Earth's rotation, not greenhouse gas levels, were to blame.

What is the significance of all this? To say I have no idea is quite an understatement, but it will have to do.

Nonetheless, what I find interesting is the eagerness of the authors and the media to make it very clear that this doesn't have any particular significance for the debate over climate change. "For those wondering how the [NCAR] study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn't -- at least not directly," writes Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor. "Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says. ... This study attempts to explain the processes behind a periodic occurrence."

This overlooks the fact that solar cycles are permanent "periodic occurrences," a.k.a. a very long-term trend. Yet Meehl insists that the only significance for the debate is that his study proves that climate modeling is steadily improving.

I applaud Meehl's reluctance to go beyond where the science takes him. And for all I know he's right. But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don't, it's a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

No, I'm not denying that man-made pollution and other activity have played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that's a distraction. Don't you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but feel free to pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky -- it's just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in total darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.

What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.") What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to "solve" a problem we don't understand so well.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/editorials/4953-global-warming-and-the-sun

Wednesday September 2, 2009, 7:06 pm
Signed Thanks Cher

Thursday September 3, 2009, 9:57 am
Thanks Cher.

You signed this petition on Aug 26 and emailed the following representatives:

Barack Obama

Thursday September 3, 2009, 9:18 pm
Climate Change Frauaf is a denialist BLOG - and as noted Judy is posting and EDITORIAL - both indicating this is NOT SCIENCE she is posting ... here are PEER REVIEWED FACTS on the sun subject:

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

and of course Judy is against clean energy since this runs counter to her pro fossil fuel agenda :)

Thanks for your continued efforts to make a positive difference in the world Cher - keep up the good work!!!!

Thursday September 3, 2009, 11:04 pm
Done Tx Cher

Friday September 4, 2009, 6:23 pm
Chris that's the same old piece from 2007 you have been pedaling as authoritative and the same used cow food from the unknown Australian that you think can pass for science.

Even the Scientific American is starting to dump AGW.

How Sunlight Controls Climate
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sunlight-can-control-climate&sc=CAT_ENV_20090901

New computer models begin to suggest how changes in the sun's strength might change weather patterns

Small changes in the sun's brightness can have big impacts on our planet's weather and climate. And now scientists have detailed how that process might work, according to a new study published August 28 in Science.

...and you know BOO about me.

My "agenda" is to expose a scam...which you push ...knowing full well that it is one.

Friday September 4, 2009, 6:32 pm
Obviously you can't count (or read) - I provided THREE sources ..and there are MANY LINKED PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES in each ...

and you are still MAKING UP CONCLUSIONS that are not supported by the Scientific American Article ... yes, the sun plays A ROLE in WEATHER (which NO ONE HAS EVER DENIED) but that DOES NOT mean that green house gasses are not a player ALSO - the article DOES NOT SAY THAT GREEN HOUSE GASSES can be discounted - YOU MAKE UP THAT CONCLUSION ...

and YOU know BOO about me as well (miss doubble standards LMAO!!!!)...and your agenda is quite clear from your posts :)

Saturday September 5, 2009, 9:42 pm
You provide junk written by someone without credentials....it doesn't matter how many reference he provides, he isn't qualified to evaluate them

How come it is always the same bloke off in Australia...aren't there liars any closer to home?

"THE IPCC REPORTS
The whole IPCC exercise was set up in order to accumulate "evidence" that the "globe" is undergoing
"global warming" as a result of increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
There was never any intention to provide a balanced, or an unbiased scientific assessment of climate
science.
From the beginning there have been scientists who disagreed with the theory that increases in greenhouse
gases are harmful but their views have not been included in the IPCC Reports and comments made by
them have been comprehensively rejected, to the extent that few now bother to comment at all. Some
recognised experts have resigned or expressed their opposition to the entire exercise.
This deliberate bias was made clear in Appendix 4, of the first IPCC Report, "Climate Change 1990" in
an introduction to a list of Reviewers, with the statement:
"While every attempt was made by the Lead Authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these
formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus."
The Governments who signed the FCCC (which included New Zealand) have accepted the
FCCC definition of "Climate Change" as legally binding. This means that the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has the function of seeking to provide evidence to support this definition. The 1995 and
subsequent reports however had, as a footnote on the first page, a disclaimer, as follows:
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural
variability or as the result of human activity”.

Even in this disclaimer, only greenhouse gases are allowed to "change" the climate. "Natural" climate
phenomena are only "variable"

Despite the disclaimer, the IPCC still retain the term "Climate Change" in their Title, to make their real
objective plain, and throughout the report, "natural" climate influences are only considered in order to
rule them out, marginalize their importance, or even recruit them as greenhouse effects.
The "Summary for Policymakers" arises because the Governments that have sponsored the Report wish to
authorize it and ensure that it corresponds with their "Climate Change" policies. It is agreed line-by-line
by Representatives of the Governments. It is drafted mainly by selected scientists from the main Report,
but it is sometimes not understood that they are acting on orders, not as independent scientists.
The "Summary for Policymakers" is actually a "Summary BY Policymakers" as it is not just advice to
other policymakers, it is a summary approved by the policymakers themselves. It is also a genuine
consensus of their views, agreed by all of them, and it does not necessarily coincide with the views of any
single Government, or of the scientists who participate in the Report. The Government Representatives
who control the Reports are never named."
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Spinning_the_Climate.pdf

Saturday September 5, 2009, 10:24 pm
"You provide junk written by someone without credentials....it doesn't matter how many reference he provides, he isn't qualified to evaluate them ..."

Then I guess it does not matter how many "references" (cut and paste posts) you provide since YOU have no credentials to evaluate them LMAO! He has a background in physics - you have a background in NOTHING!!!!

I Love My Carbon Dioxide is a UNREVIEWED DENIALIST BOG - which provides NO REFERENCES - so I rest my case regarding your INABILITY to evaluate "articles" LMAO!!!!

so now, post your next cut and paste of a completely unrelated denialist bolg entry (without thinking, just filling up threads with SPAM)...