Sunday May 25, 2008, 6:27 am
Disclaimer: Someone already cited this article from its original location, so please if you are going to spread your lies and deny these facts, please also do it on the original post,

Sunday May 25, 2008, 10:31 pm
Are these the truths that you fear so much Binky...

I guess your gona call me names now ROFL

How not to attribute climate change

From the author: "There are some reasons to think that solar activity may have played some role in the past (at least before 1940), but I must admit, I'm far from convinced by this paper because of the method adopted."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/

Sunday May 25, 2008, 10:37 pm
BTW - 2008 was a cold year...that's called weather (climate is decades long)...

Sunday May 25, 2008, 10:43 pm
This is halarious...from the article:

"Bill Gray, dean of hurricane forecasters, attributed short-term climate change to slow-moving deep ocean currents that result from variation in the salinity of water sinking near the poles and ultimately welling up again along the coast of South America. These fluctuations account for the comings and goings of the familiar El Nino/La Nina cycles and the longer Pacific Decadal Oscillation that stretches over a large area of the eastern Pacific."

There is NO MENTION of the sun anywhere in the article other than the title ROFL!

Sunday May 25, 2008, 11:57 pm
You are the one who likes simple explanations....like CO2, a beneficial trace gas at 0.0387% is responsible all by itself..

This cold winter after a 10 year period of no increase in warming and cooling from the 1998 peak is more significant than you would allow.

Prof. Gray points to another mechanism which may be involved. Tsonis et al. showed that synchronization of ocean currents caused climate change.

We also know from over 200 years of continuous observation at the observatory in Armagh that sunspot cycles are connected to climate changes.

It is your model that is too simplistic to be believed.

Monday May 26, 2008, 12:04 am
Same old..same old..it would be great if you got new material..I never stated that there was counter information (and I am not going to discuss your falicies above yet agin). That is why there is ONLY a 90% chance that human caused warming is correct - there is a 10% chance that it may be proven incorrect. Only dogma is 100%...

Monday May 26, 2008, 12:05 am
and your changing subject still does not negate that the article presented above is bogus (that's prision planet for ya)

Monday May 26, 2008, 12:08 am
and that would be that I never said that "there was NO counter data" - of course there is counter data...