Re: Sunspots...

fãhç wrote:

> "Stuart Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > fãhç wrote:
> >
> >
> > > "Stuart Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > <unsubstantiated paranoid shrieking>
> > >
> > >
> > > Still waiting for you to provide any cite, but you have none.
> >
> > Liar. I gave about three of them so far.
>
>
> Referring to a Wall Street Journal article that you couldn't remember the
> date, the author, or provide a URL for is considered a cite by you? 

What would be a point in doing that? Does
welfare pay for an online subscription to
the Wall Street Journal? How would you get
to it? And you would have just stuck your
head up your ass and pretended not to see
it, or would have dissed it like you just did.

There's no fricken way a commiecrat is going
to admit he's wrong on this; we know that because
the issue has NOTHING to do with global warming
and EVERYTHING to do with attacking the American
economy.

> That's
> the only one I've see you claim to give to me.  Since when is the WSJ a
> scientific reference?
>
> Post your three URLs here in this message.

Here is one about your speed:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990313202232data_trunc_sys.shtml

This one is surely beyond your limited comprehension:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
At least, you're going to pretend not to understand it;
as I said, you're out to sabotage the American economy,
and this Global Warming - CO2 stuff is just a propaganda
point.

This one has annoying music, but it has references you
can check:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm
It has a pretty good link to this one:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

Here's one from a research group called "NASA".
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/
If you go down to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, it
details what's wrong with many of the computer
models that predict global warming due to CO2 - the
ONLY concentrate on the surface temperature (where
the BOGUS data is) and ignore the upper atmosphere
(where urbanization doesn't cause bogus data points,
btw, like I've been saying).

Here's a link:
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci8-10-98.htm
"Support Grows for Sun-Climate Link

 "A striking correlation has been found between changes in the sun’s 
brightness and changes in global temperatures. One of the problems with 
any explanation that attributes climate changes to changes in the sun’s 
energy output is that the output is not large enough by itself to 
account for change on earth. Several theories have been advanced to 
explain how changes in the sun can translate into large climate changes 
on earth.

 "The New Scientist (July 11, 1998) discusses the recent work of Eigil 
Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological 
Institute. Their theory says energetic particles from space known as 
cosmic rays assist in cloud formation. The more clouds, the cooler the 
earth becomes. Solar winds, according to Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 
block cosmic rays leading to less cloud cover and a warmer planet."

As I have said before, you don't even know about the
link between solar activity and global warming. How
the hell is anyone suppose to take you as credible,
when you and the other eco-goons call it "a pretty
funny little fantasy" which proves that you are
IGNORANT of the theory, and "global warming has been
documented to be occurring long before any recent
sunspot activity" which proves you are IGNORANT
of the fact that sunspots have been happening for
BILLIONS of years, and the solar activity cycle
correlates well with previous ice ages and warming
periods. Hell, if you go back before 1990, the
correlation between CO2 and global warming goes
to hell. That's why the commiecrat propagandist
IGNORE the data before 1990.