Climate change was affecting Earth long before there were humans around to call it climate change and it will probably still be affecting the Earth long after humans are gone. It is only fairly recently in recorded human history that climate change has been recognized. The Vikings who settled Iceland and Greenland and even established a brief foothold in Newfoundland near the end of the first millenium did not know they were benefiting from a preceding warm spell that was starting to cool. Their descendants who starved in place or abandoned their colonies several hundred years later also did not know they were the victims of climate change in a cooling now called the Little Ice Age and it took several hundred years more before the idea that climate might vary started to enter into human knowledge. Now the warnings of CLIMATE CHANGE are ubiquitous as are the exhortations TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But when did it all start...human knowledge of climate change that is...what is causing climate change and can something be done about it?

Probably the first Climate Scientist, although this title was not used, was William Herschel around 1801 when he documented a connection between sunspot activity and wheat prices going back a couple of centuries. He speculated that changes in the sun's output with different levels of sunspot activity caused temperature differences affecting wheat yields: He was ridiculed. However, neither the wheat price/sunspot activity correlation nor additional observations that the coldest period in recorded history, the Little Ice Age, also coincided with an extended period of low sun spot activity known as the Maunder Minimum could be ridiculed away. But finding a convincing mechanism that could cause the global climate to change with sunspot activity was difficult; solar output does change with sunspot activity but by an amount that is so small it was not credible that it could cause a temperature swing on the earth of a maybe degree Celsius.

So climate change was observed but not recognised; in particular the biggest climate changes of all, Ice Ages in which vast areas of the world were glaciated had not even been conceived of. It was not until around 1837 that Louis Agassiz postulated that in the not too distant past, geologically speaking, vast icefields had covered Northern Europe. Agassiz was lucker than Herschel, he was not ridiculed, and the idea of significant climate change arose, however there were complications. Once the evidence for ice ages was recognised it became clear that they had occurred on a regular cycle going back millions of years. This presented a problem because the known variation in solar output was (supposedly) too small to realistically account for even little ice ages never mind the real thing. It was almost a hundred years before a mathematician proposed that cyclic changes in the Earth's orbital path, which varied its distance from the sun matching the glacial cycles, were responsible for the ice ages. These 'Milankovich cycles' are the best explanation currently available for Ice Ages.

But the problem of smaller shorter changes still existed; what causes them? Through the early to a bit past mid 20th century THE EARTH WAS COOLING! Then things changed and it seemed to be getting warmer and suddenly a CULPRIT WAS IDENTIFIED. Various gases or vapors in the Earth's atmosphere act to retain heat energy; the so called greenhouse effect. The most significant is water vapor H2O, the next carbon dioxide CO2 and the third methane CH4; of these three both CO2 and CH4 were increasing at the same time as global temperatures were increasing. OBVIOUSLY the cause of global warming was the increasing level of CO2, oh... and CH4 and these are produced by human activity; to paraphrase Pogo 'the culprit is us'. The complication that H2O is a much more significant greenhouse gas than either of the others was glossed over. Water is too difficult to deal with because if it is a vapor it is a green house gas but water droplets, when they are above a certain size, form clouds which can act like a sun shade and cause cooling. So ignore the water, ignore clouds, make nice simple climate models that show temperature rising in synchrony with CO2 levels and THE PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED. Actually it is more a case of nice complicated climate models so nobody can figure out what you did so of course they cannot pick things apart.

But the sun is still there, still getting sunspots and interestingly enough for the last three or four decades has been very active sunspotwise; much more active than in the first half of the 20th century and throughout recorded history high sun spot activity has always correlated with higher global temperature. However, the direct change in solar output due to sunspot activity was simply not large enough to account for the temperature changes but in recent years other avenues of investigation have opened up. High sunspot activity increases the solar wind, the flow of charged particles emitted by the sun past the earth, causing enhanced aurora, sometimes power outages in northern latitudes and damage to communication satellites. And also interacting with another flow of charged particles that strike the earth and that are know as cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are very high energy particles and occasionally interact with other atoms transmuting them into unstable isotopes. Two such isotopes are Carbon 14 of carbon dating fame and Beryllium 10 of very little fame at all: Except to the scientists looking at ice cores and tree rings, dating them, doing analyses for Beryllium 10 and finding that back through history when sunspot activity was high beryllium 10 was low. And as an aside showing that sunspot activity does not always follow a nice regular cycle and shows variation over and above the long recognized 11 year cycle; with one of the periods of variation apparently being the past four or so decades.

So the climate story over the past three or four decades has been increasing temperature, the exact amount of the increase being debated and re-adjusted but still an increase, with rising CO2 levels the only accepted mechanism. While above everyones' heads the sun's enhanced sunspot activity, which in the historic record has always correlated with increasing temperature IN THE ABSENCE OF INCREASING CO2, this time is not responsible at all. The reduced cosmic ray flux is not causing a reduction in high level atmospheric haze or cloud because it it impossible to prove that cosmic rays, when present, cause clouds.

So the surreal conclusion is that a cause, human generated CO2, that did not exist during earlier periods of global warming is now the only cause of the current global warming, while a mechanism that did cause earlier periods of global warming, even though it may not be fully understood, now does not exist. This would make me just shake my head except that sunspot activity can go down. When it goes down temperatures will stabilize or fall slightly; past experience predicts that. If the envirofreaks and their tame politicians do push through MEASURES AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING they will take the credit!!!

P.S. I deliberately did not provide links. There are plenty of words to put into Google if someone wants to dig deeper.

That's interesting. I'll try to find the time to dig up some of the references and sources. Thanks. You da man.

The reduced cosmic ray flux is not causing a reduction in high level atmospheric haze or cloud because it it impossible to prove that cosmic rays, when present, cause clouds .

Sorry, Dr. Bluster....but Giles Harrison and Dave Stephenson are going to be real disappointed to find out you haven't read their paper.....damned empirical evidence anyway.

P.S. I deliberately did not provide links. :banana:

The tremendous amount of radio frequency radiation being continuously emitted into space by all kinds of radio transmitters since the 1930's has caused a modulation the electromagnetic field of the sun. This distortion increases the probability of magnetic storms on the sun's surface, which are known as sunspots. These sunspots in turn affect the plasma stream which interacts with the earth's magnetic field. As the temperature rises, the amount of information transmitted about global warming causes further increases in radio frequency radiation. It is a positive feedback mechanism which will continue to accelerate until something is done to stop it.

Emergency funding to research this imminent threat to the universe is needed immediately.

If we got rid of all the reality TV shows, would that help?

....And read the journals instead of the IPCC reports.

*Bill Nye, the Science Guy you ain't....

1. "Rising CO2 levels as the only accepted mechanism" is true for those who believe it is the only accepted mechanism, which many qualified atmospheric scientists, climatologists, oceanographers, glaciologists, etc. disagree with. Strong correlations with methane levels have been presented recently in peer reviewed journals.


2. The statement that "the historic record has always correlated with increasing temperature IN THE ABSENCE OF INCREASING CO2" simply isn't true.
Sun spot activity, while generally well correlated with increasing temperature over long time scales (the Milankovich Theory), has shown anti-correlations at times, over shorter time scales, pointing to other causes for short term changes ("short term" involving multi-decadal to century time scales). For example, between approximately 1930 and 1960, sunspot activity increased dramatically, as did CO2 emissions (due to WWII and post war reconstruction), while the temperature significantly dropped until the early 1970's, leading to the response by some climatologists in the 1980's (like James Hansen) that emissions would soon cause an ice age.


3. It is not impossible to prove that cosmic rays can encourage cloud formation. Svensmark and the team at the Danish National Space Center just did experiments that yielded compelling results in favor of a cosmic ray role in cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) formation, which needs to be studied further. Thats how science works. And oh yeah, the journal paper on that study passed_ peer review_ for the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a proanthropogenic global warming (AGW) journal. So real scientists give it credibility.

*..which is good too, since Richard Lindzen chewed him up and spit him out on Larry King Live... :)

..3. It is not impossible to prove that cosmic rays can encourage cloud formation. Svensmark and the team at the Danish National Space Center just did experiments that yielded compelling results in favor of a cosmic ray role in cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) formation, which needs to be studied further. Thats how science works. And oh yeah, the journal paper on that study passed_ peer review_ for the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a proanthropogenic global warming (AGW) journal. So real scientists give it credibility....

Yes I had seen accounts of the Danish study also the anti-correlations. It was a Brief History for goodness sake.

You should really try to learn the English language. How anyone can get the idea I support the AGW side from what I have written is beyond me. My sentence about the impossibility of proving cosmic ray promoted cloud formation was an ironic paraphrasing of the AGW side because this was the stance taken; maybe still is. If you want to be picky statements like this are correct; nothing can be proven in science one can only fail to disprove.

No go back and get your finger out, you can even move your lips, read it carefully again and try to understand the nuances.

"nothing can be proven in science one can only fail to disprove"

Is that a scientific statement?

--97T--

"nothing can be proven in science one can only fail to disprove"

Is that a scientific statement?

--97T--

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was taught that the scientific method was to make observations, formulate a hypothesis and design an experiment to test the hypothesis. The design of the experiment should be such that it endeavours to show that the hypothesis is false or wrong. By this method no hypothesis is ever proven correct; it is only possible to say that it has not been proven wrong.

Are you trying to be helpful or just awkward?

Mostly just trying to be awkward.

What you describe as the scientific method is a much narrower context than the original phrasing.

I would contend that "science" consists of much more than hypotheses alone. Taken out of context, your phrasing could be interpreted as a blanket statement that perhaps you did not intend.

--97T--

Mostly just trying to be awkward...--97T--

Pity, it is obvious you have the potential for better than that.

I got it now.
You were right, even though you were wrong, and I was wrong, even though I was right.

Starting to see the pattern now....

Geof,

I don't like smileys, so the comment was meant to be humorously self-deprecating, an attempt that obviously missed the mark. Was it necessary to jump at the chance to be condescending?

Since you didn't answer the explanation of why I brought it up, shall we assume that you consider "science" to consist wholly of observations, hypotheses, and disqualifying experiments?

Or did you intend your original statement to literally mean, "nothing can be proven in science"?

--97T--

Geof,

I don't like smileys, so the comment was meant to be humorously self-deprecating, an attempt that obviously missed the mark. Was it necessary to jump at the chance to be condescending?

Or did you intend your original statement to literally mean, "nothing can be proven in science"?

--97T--

Since you seem to take my comments absolutely literally I think it is not reasonable to take exception if I respond in kind. And I never jump at a chance to be condescending; they occur so frequently I only need to stroll around.

But I realise you do have a point; my statement; "nothing can be proven in science"? is not totally accurate and I did contradict myself when I said that experiments could prove a hypothesis wrong. This is a proof of a disproof I suppose. Somewhat like Aristotle's (or Plato's, I forget which) all men are liars statement.

By the way fizzy I take as a compliment that the only things you have taken exception to (so far) in my 'history' are two points which do not appreciably detract from my message that climate change has been and is occurring and that ascribing it solely to anthropogenic greenhouses gases is not completely accurate. Keep trying, you are still amusing.

By the way fizzy I take as a compliment that the only things you have taken exception to (so far) in my 'history' are two points which do not appreciably detract from my message that climate change has been and is occurring and that ascribing it solely to anthropogenic greenhouses gases is not completely accurate. Keep trying, you are still amusing.

At least we're on the same page on the AGW issue, and at least we're still amusing each other.

At least we're on the same page on the AGW issue, and at least we're still amusing each other.

At last!!!! Now maybe you will stop trying to convert me. Not that it makes a d******d bit of difference which side we are on. Do you seriously think anyone is going to stop the juggernaut. Re-read my last paragraph: If there is any credence to be put in the sunspot/cosmic ray stuff, and I think there is, there is a good chance global temperature change may reverse in the next decade or two. If carbon emission controls are put in place I defy anyone to convince the envirofreaks that it was a natural change; they will prattle on about how successful their efforts are and redouble them with virtue. If sunspot activity does go down and there is not a corresponding levelling out or decline in global temperature then society is in deep doo doo because this could imply human activity has thrown a real spanner in the works.

I am a layman and don't care to get into the nitty gritty of citing papers...

Scientists will 'prove' whatever gets them funding.

Right now Global Warming is in the, at best, hypothetical stage as no one has proven it. Saying that the temp is trending up is an observation. Saying that cars emit CO2 which blah blah blah is a nice lab test, I'm sure I can breath into a beaker and increase the co2 levels.... should we all stop breathing?

Didn't scientists say that the ozone layer was gonna erode away? And that man was to blame? And we all were gonna die from increased skin cancer?

Replace ozone with global warming and a new round of money grabbing has begun!

If CO2 emissions are to blame then we should stop planting trees and clear cut whatever forests are left because plants are the NUMBER ONE producer of co2, not man.

What will Al Gore and the ecofreaks go after next? SO far they got the Ozone Layer and Global Warming wrong.

Geoff

It is time for you to leave.

Fizzissist and Niner7Tango are Internet Trolls.

In Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology), a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum) and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Check out all the threads in the global warming area and you'll find they come out with the same contrarian argumentative bullying BS in all the threads. They stifle all intelligent discussion of the topic. When they become involved the thread dies or goes off topic.

I am very sad to had to say this as you have spent a great deal of thought and time on your initial post and subsequent posts.

Geoff

It is time for you to leave.

Fizzissist and Niner7Tango are Internet Trolls.

In Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology), a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum) and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Check out all the threads in the global warming area and you'll find they come out with the same contrarian argumentative bullying BS in all the threads. They stifle all intelligent discussion of the topic. When they become involved the thread dies or goes off topic.

I am very sad to had to say this as you have spent a great deal of thought and time on your initial post and subsequent posts.




Go back and re-read their posts. While they do play around, a lot, they also make very good points. In fact, I'd say they've brought more usable information to these discussions than most people including YOU.

Besides, it's not up to you to decide who stays and who goes.;)

Geoff
It is time for you to leave.
Fizzissist and Niner7Tango are Internet Trolls.
In Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology), a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum) and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Check out all the threads in the global warming area and you'll find they come out with the same contrarian argumentative bullying BS in all the threads. They stifle all intelligent discussion of the topic. When they become involved the thread dies or goes off topic.
I am very sad to had to say this as you have spent a great deal of thought and time on your initial post and subsequent posts.


I suppose I should say it before someone else does....by that definition I could be called a troll in some circumstances.

And I think the troll definition does not totally apply with regards to 'incorrect, inaccurate, absurd' but maybe some of the other perjoratives do apply, and to me also. Although I think a lot of people might want to include absurd in my case.

I do agree however, that often things drift or are pushed off topic but again I am also guilty of that.

Basically my philosophy is don't dish out anything you are not willing to accept.

EDIT:
From the tone of your post I get the suspicion you are one who believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Geoff

It is time for you to leave.

Fizzissist and Niner7Tango are Internet Trolls.

[/FONT]Check out all the threads in the global warming area and you'll find they come out with the same contrarian argumentative bullying BS in all the threads. They stifle all intelligent discussion of the topic. When they become involved the thread dies or goes off topic.

I am very sad to had to say this as you have spent a great deal of thought and time on your initial post and subsequent posts.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Care to back up your claim with some specifics?

Contrarian? Uh, as opposed to, uh, LEMMING???
Bullying? You mean, like, calling people contrarians or telling people it's time to leave a forum that doesn't belong to you? If I'm asked to leave by those that OWN this forum, I'll gladly do so.

BS??? For example? You'd care to provide some actual proof that what I've posted is not scientifically sound?

No, Rancherbill, you'll resort to name calling (that's a reference to the troll statement) simply because you have.....well, nothing of substance.

i like points of view that differ from my own, especially when they come from people who are clearly intelligent and have a usefull point of view and experience to bring to a question. like most, nearly everything i have read about global warming or heard about it is from NPR, AP news, or other sources that are, at best 'a mixed bag'. it is interesting to see an experienced technical persons take on his own reading and research. it is also neat to see other similar people challenge his point of view, even if they are playing devils advocate to further a didactic conversation.

I think devils advocacy to further understanding is noble. So consider that your own desire to see a topic discussed from multiple angles may be similar to some of the reasons polliticians adopt certain points of view. you would prefer that they use better reasons, but i doubt they do.

.....it is interesting to see an experienced technical persons take on his own reading and research. it is also neat to see other similar people challenge his point of view, even if they are playing devils advocate to further a didactic conversation....

If you are staying within the context of rancherbill's diatribe you are referring to 97T, the spelling challeged physicist or me; who are the hises (is that the plural of his?) and theys.

Geoff

It is time for you to leave.

Fizzissist and Niner7Tango are Internet Trolls.


Obviously I am asleep. Or I was asleep; I just realised that Fizzisizt and Niner7Tango are accused of being Internet Trolls but I am the one told to leave?????

Now I have woken up I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind this.

Go back and re-read their posts. While they do play around, a lot, they also make very good points. In fact, I'd say they've brought more usable information to these discussions than most people including YOU.

Besides, it's not up to you to decide who stays and who goes.;)

I reread their posts prior to posting my message. I stand by my statement that they are interent trolls.

On my initial statement of leaving, you are right. I was not as clear as I should have been. I was not implying that he should be banned or whatever.

I was recommending that he consider not posting to this thread. He has spent a great deal of time and thought expressing his opinion.

These two posters spend a great deal of time to attacking the individaul that opposes their philosophy. Once these two become involved in a thread, posts by others trail off to very low levels. I would expect these interesting topics to continue, not to fizzle.

Useable Information ????

In my mind there are three type of scientists - Hard Scientists, Observers and Literature Surveyors.

Hard scientists conduct experiments that are controlled. They have told us the chemistry and physics involved in global warming. Greenhouse gases increases the temperature of the earth and that there are no other chemical or physics effects that might conteract warming from increased greenhouse gases. These facts are FACTS.

Observers look for evidence to support their hypothesis. Some times they are right and and they can be wrong. Starting from the concept that the hard scientists are correct then a great number, perhaps most, of these observers are right when they say that they can see the effects of global warming.

Literature Surveyors are just readers of the work of the previous two groups of scientist and they pick and choose the data to support whatever they are trying to prove.

These two posters are literature surveyors, they pick and choose what they want. They are not qualified to make any hard science statements. To make hard science statements they would have to have post doc qualifications in a relevant area and be working in the field at the cutting edge. Given this is a maching BBS is suspect they are at the cutting edge of an end mill. The people who have the qualifications make their statements in journals and conferences etc. The hard scientists are in agreement global warming is happening.

I do not post links to information that I have found. I do not have the professional quaifications to evaluate whether the information is valid or relevant and whether the source is a good source.

As an example when I was researching a different topic I found this site

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm (http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm)

but, I was always hesitant to post some of the articles and info - it just didn't seem right.:)

Obviously I am asleep. Or I was asleep; I just realised that Fizzisizt and Niner7Tango are accused of being Internet Trolls but I am the one told to leave?????

Now I have woken up I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind this.

My Apologies

What I meant to say is that it was time to consider not continuing to post to this thread. You spent a great deal of time and effort in your posts and these guys are hijacking your intelligent thread.

The free exchange of ideas is not happening. Your discussion has not progressed. It has degenerated to where you have to defend yourself phrase by phrase, typo by typo.

Look at the string of posts and compare them to the original post and see where it has gone.

rancherbill, from now on, do NOT come into the public forums and start fights or ask members to stop posting. If you have an issue with a post, use the report post button and let the moderators take care of it. It's not up to you.

Be sure to include EXAMPLES of their actions. (i.e. LINKS to the specific post in question or citing the specific comment you feel is not appropriate.)

Thanks,

The Management.

rancherbill, from now on, do NOT come into the public forums and start fights or ask members to stop posting. If you have an issue with a post, use the report post button and let the moderators take care of it. It's not up to you.

Be sure to include EXAMPLES of their actions. (i.e. LINKS to the specific post in question or citing the specific comment you feel is not appropriate.)

Thanks,

The Management.

You are right. I did not handle my concerns correctly. It won't happen again.

My apology to the group.

I reread their posts prior to posting my message. I stand by my statement that they are interent trolls.........

As an example when I was researching a different topic I found this site

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm (http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm)

but, I was always hesitant to post some of the articles and info - it just didn't seem right.:)

Ok, I'm still an "interent" troll......
Love the Flat Earth link you posted!! Is that supposed to prove your point or are you simply showing us you're a member?

So, you say you don't have the qualifications to evaluate the science, you say that neither 97T or myself have the qualifications....but Al Gore does??

You come in here with phasers on heavy stun, but where's the rational discussion that provides ANY scientific rebuttal?

And btw, I could post stuff from Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen and Michael Mann and Richard Alley (whoops...I think I did already) and Heidi Cullen (self-proclaimed "climate expert") and on, and on, and on.....but having read their work and opinions, I opt to post that science which I believe is MORE ACCURATE OR REPRESENTIVE of the reality of climate.

I post the "contrarian" views because I presume people like you have already bought into the other side of the argument because ...... drum roll...... you've read their work??? Right??? You've at least read some of the TAR, right?

Geof,

I have been assuming based on the evidence of your intelligence, wit, education, experience, and maturity, that our discussions were not insulting to you; of course they were not intended to be. And further, I gather from reading your messages that you do not allow anyone to insult you without your prior permission, or to put it another way, insults only hit home if they are put forth by someone whose opinion you value and are known to be intended as such.

That said, if I have ever insulted you in the things that I wrote here, I apologize and ask your forgiveness.

I know that we can argue the finer points of scientific method and epistemological principles without upsetting each other, and I thought it would be likewise for other readers. And I expect that both of us figured the casual reader might get something out of it, even if it did become somewhat esoteric. And I am sure you will agree with me, scientific method and sound rules for epistemology are of paramount importance, especially when the stakes are so huge. Does the subject not deserve this much attention?

Sure there is a bit of intellectual fencing going on here. But it doesn't insult me, and I believe it is on topic, going to the core of the premises behind the whole global warming hypothesis. And I value the interaction, particularly when there is something to be learned.

I am thankful for the generosity of the owners of this forum for allowing this discourse. Although the relationship to machining is tangential, the subject will affect us all, and manufacturing will be the first to suffer under the policies that have been proposed.

If anyone objects to what I write, I wish they would argue some point I made, rather than trying to silence me. I promise not to try to insult them. But I will continue to argue, as long as I am able, that a stamp of government approval does not constitute authority on truth, and is not required for objective verification of truth. Objections to the contrary do not insult me.

--97T--

97T; First response to your latest post :) , second :) .

We are on the same page just expressing things differently. And as I mentioned previously I can take as good as I give.

By the way I like your rephrasing about 'giving permission to insult'. That I am going to steal.

Geof,

I stole that one myself -- it's profound.

--97T--

The C.A.S.E. approach to problem solving.

COPY AND STEAL EVERYTHING.

Nothing wrong in here!

I just wish I was witty enough to join in! :D

Nothing wrong in here!

I just wish I was witty enough to join in! :D


You do leave yourself open for a smart ass rejoinder.


You are halfway there.


And I know this is lowering the tone of the thread BWTH its my thread.

Hopefully you enjoy this little addition to your thread!

Here's 150yrs of Global Warming & Cooling...according to the New York Times! :)

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Very good ... and logical ... too much so to be of any interest to the left .... your going to have to tie it in somehow with gay rights and the health care crisis to get their attention ......