<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is global warming solar induced?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:39:23 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: noguy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-246823</link>
		<dc:creator>noguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-246823</guid>
		<description>Solar induced global warming bad science?  Clearly, I must be older than everyone else here who has commented.  I can specifically recall sitting in my middle school science class in the 1960&#039;s and my science teacher reading us a NASA article about how solar activity will increase over the next 50 to 100 causing the earth&#039;s temperatures to increase.  Keep in mind there was no such thing as &quot;man caused&quot; global warming &quot;theoritsts.&quot;  In fact, no one from any side of the table was talking about &quot;global warming&quot; back then.

So, can anyone intelligently explain to me how is that during the &quot;pre-global warming chicken little&quot; era scientists were writing about the future of increased solar activity and now, all of a sudden, those scientific reports are incorrect??????  Mind you, when scientists back in teh 60&#039;s spoke of future increased solar activity, they weren&#039;t rebutting any other scientific opinion - they weren&#039;t trying to persuade public opinion.

And now we learn of how Al Gore has controlling interest in firm that the current government administration would contract with to administrate the &quot;CO2 mitigation.&quot;  This would make hundreds of millions of dollars for the Gore owned company through commissions.  Huh, goes to prove what my father taught me as a boy - &quot;dig deep enough and you will always learn that money is the root motive behind all things.&quot;  Turns out this just a big money-making scam by Al Gore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Solar induced global warming bad science?  Clearly, I must be older than everyone else here who has commented.  I can specifically recall sitting in my middle school science class in the 1960&#8217;s and my science teacher reading us a NASA article about how solar activity will increase over the next 50 to 100 causing the earth&#8217;s temperatures to increase.  Keep in mind there was no such thing as &#8220;man caused&#8221; global warming &#8220;theoritsts.&#8221;  In fact, no one from any side of the table was talking about &#8220;global warming&#8221; back then.</p>
<p>So, can anyone intelligently explain to me how is that during the &#8220;pre-global warming chicken little&#8221; era scientists were writing about the future of increased solar activity and now, all of a sudden, those scientific reports are incorrect??????  Mind you, when scientists back in teh 60&#8217;s spoke of future increased solar activity, they weren&#8217;t rebutting any other scientific opinion &#8211; they weren&#8217;t trying to persuade public opinion.</p>
<p>And now we learn of how Al Gore has controlling interest in firm that the current government administration would contract with to administrate the &#8220;CO2 mitigation.&#8221;  This would make hundreds of millions of dollars for the Gore owned company through commissions.  Huh, goes to prove what my father taught me as a boy &#8211; &#8220;dig deep enough and you will always learn that money is the root motive behind all things.&#8221;  Turns out this just a big money-making scam by Al Gore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Solas</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-223169</link>
		<dc:creator>Solas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-223169</guid>
		<description>I think its all mute. if in fact we are causing it 100% the fact of the matter is at our current technology lvl we can&#039;t afford to fix it. it would require us to regress to a nearly primitive pre-industrial state (across the globe not just the US) and even then it would take 50 years to see an effect. alternately it would require a leap in energy technologies of almost 50 years before we could convert to a 100% clean energy grid (again globally not just in the US), the costs of which in man power, raw goods and processing are impossible. and as others have pointed out that&#039;s still a big assumption to make. the vast majority of the scientific community still think of even basic concepts like gravity under old and rapidly outdated formulas. theirs proof coming out of observatories in Germany as well as us naval observatories that gravity is not instantaneous as previously conceived under Newtonian physics but act at the speed of light more in line with an einsteinian universe. and that the theory of lunar-solar progression is also a misunderstood system and that in fact our solar system is apart of a larger system of stars and that or local system of stars imparts small yet significant gravitational, magnetic and electromagnetic forces upon at predictable intervals. Even though the data supporting this revolutionary idea is far more well documented and in fact astrological data that supports this theory dates back to ancient Egypt. the scientific community is slow to adopt such a change if theirs no societal pressure to do so. however in contrast as we are seeing enough societal pressure can turn corollary evidence such as the temperature data and carbon data from a selected range into scientific fact pointing to a single conclusion, normally this is known as pseudo-science.  In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. &quot;Pseudoscientific&quot; arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant. personally i think everyone would benefit from a more complete and larger view of the issues, as much as people don&#039;t like to put a price tag on the environment the simple fact is as fragile as our environment is our economy is just as fragile, and a collapse of our economy is far more likely than a Venusian like environment on earth. the recent carbon cap bill is set to cost the average American 100$ annually in direct energy costs increases alone, add to that the increase cost of goods and services and you have a significant burden to a already beleaguered economy, and thats only one carbon bill we all know that many more are to come before this is over. and since our economic and technological prowess is solely responsible for more than 75% of our population we&#039;ve got to ask ourselves: &quot;is it worth risking 3 out of 4 of our family members lives to pursue that happy feeling you get when you denounce big oil and embrace the green bandwagon?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think its all mute. if in fact we are causing it 100% the fact of the matter is at our current technology lvl we can&#8217;t afford to fix it. it would require us to regress to a nearly primitive pre-industrial state (across the globe not just the US) and even then it would take 50 years to see an effect. alternately it would require a leap in energy technologies of almost 50 years before we could convert to a 100% clean energy grid (again globally not just in the US), the costs of which in man power, raw goods and processing are impossible. and as others have pointed out that&#8217;s still a big assumption to make. the vast majority of the scientific community still think of even basic concepts like gravity under old and rapidly outdated formulas. theirs proof coming out of observatories in Germany as well as us naval observatories that gravity is not instantaneous as previously conceived under Newtonian physics but act at the speed of light more in line with an einsteinian universe. and that the theory of lunar-solar progression is also a misunderstood system and that in fact our solar system is apart of a larger system of stars and that or local system of stars imparts small yet significant gravitational, magnetic and electromagnetic forces upon at predictable intervals. Even though the data supporting this revolutionary idea is far more well documented and in fact astrological data that supports this theory dates back to ancient Egypt. the scientific community is slow to adopt such a change if theirs no societal pressure to do so. however in contrast as we are seeing enough societal pressure can turn corollary evidence such as the temperature data and carbon data from a selected range into scientific fact pointing to a single conclusion, normally this is known as pseudo-science.  In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. &#8220;Pseudoscientific&#8221; arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant. personally i think everyone would benefit from a more complete and larger view of the issues, as much as people don&#8217;t like to put a price tag on the environment the simple fact is as fragile as our environment is our economy is just as fragile, and a collapse of our economy is far more likely than a Venusian like environment on earth. the recent carbon cap bill is set to cost the average American 100$ annually in direct energy costs increases alone, add to that the increase cost of goods and services and you have a significant burden to a already beleaguered economy, and thats only one carbon bill we all know that many more are to come before this is over. and since our economic and technological prowess is solely responsible for more than 75% of our population we&#8217;ve got to ask ourselves: &#8220;is it worth risking 3 out of 4 of our family members lives to pursue that happy feeling you get when you denounce big oil and embrace the green bandwagon?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dylan Leggo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-216066</link>
		<dc:creator>Dylan Leggo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-216066</guid>
		<description>Anyone claiming certainty of anything in this on a point-by-point, or this-point or that-point basis is also guilty of delusion and cherry picking.

Solar behaviour, weather prediction, geological activity and hurricane patterns are just a handful of the known systems that we have only the barest (our best) grasp on.  Drawing any solid conclusion from the data we have is akin to making precise extrapolations on a theory we&#039;ve only heard rumours on or a single report we have only second hand account of.

None of those systems, thought to play a role in climate, is understood with any real predictability beyond the most obvious basis.  We recognize some of the patterns in each, yet still don&#039;t recognize how they all will work together in combination with what we don&#039;t know to give us reliable medium and long-term predections.  We compound these error rate when we attempt to overlap the patterns, essentially multiplying the rate of error.  We do this using each field we apply to the equation and then multiply the error rate out over a time scale that basically no single component can predict on and actually believe the result can be MORE predictable?  

It is more akin to faith, not science, to believe that this sort of mathematical adventure could be reliable.  If that were the case, we could eventually build perfect weather predicting systems based on those of the set of &#039;old wives tales&#039; that bear only &#039;grains&#039; of truth.  Or, that we could fix a leaky water main merely by multiplying its length.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone claiming certainty of anything in this on a point-by-point, or this-point or that-point basis is also guilty of delusion and cherry picking.</p>
<p>Solar behaviour, weather prediction, geological activity and hurricane patterns are just a handful of the known systems that we have only the barest (our best) grasp on.  Drawing any solid conclusion from the data we have is akin to making precise extrapolations on a theory we&#8217;ve only heard rumours on or a single report we have only second hand account of.</p>
<p>None of those systems, thought to play a role in climate, is understood with any real predictability beyond the most obvious basis.  We recognize some of the patterns in each, yet still don&#8217;t recognize how they all will work together in combination with what we don&#8217;t know to give us reliable medium and long-term predections.  We compound these error rate when we attempt to overlap the patterns, essentially multiplying the rate of error.  We do this using each field we apply to the equation and then multiply the error rate out over a time scale that basically no single component can predict on and actually believe the result can be MORE predictable?  </p>
<p>It is more akin to faith, not science, to believe that this sort of mathematical adventure could be reliable.  If that were the case, we could eventually build perfect weather predicting systems based on those of the set of &#8216;old wives tales&#8217; that bear only &#8216;grains&#8217; of truth.  Or, that we could fix a leaky water main merely by multiplying its length.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Solar Cycle and global warming? &#124; Moonage Spacedream</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-209239</link>
		<dc:creator>Solar Cycle and global warming? &#124; Moonage Spacedream</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:12:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-209239</guid>
		<description>[...] I mean, this same guy previously had stated: Of course it’s possible. There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up th.... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I mean, this same guy previously had stated: Of course it’s possible. There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up th&#8230;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: General AGW discussion thread - Page 52 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-195219</link>
		<dc:creator>General AGW discussion thread - Page 52 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-195219</guid>
		<description>[...] The </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: General AGW discussion thread - Page 52 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-195196</link>
		<dc:creator>General AGW discussion thread - Page 52 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-195196</guid>
		<description>[...] The </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sun not affecting Global Warming - Page 2 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/comment-page-4/#comment-184369</link>
		<dc:creator>Sun not affecting Global Warming - Page 2 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/#comment-184369</guid>
		<description>[...] Posted by parejkoj   Not really.    I wouldn&#039;t be so quick to dismiss Pluto&#039;s warming. Folks wanted New Horizons out there ina hurry [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Posted by parejkoj   Not really.    I wouldn&#8217;t be so quick to dismiss Pluto&#8217;s warming. Folks wanted New Horizons out there ina hurry [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
