WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?

Help pass the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139). Please go to this URL http://www.undoit.org/index.cfm and sign the petition.

This petition plea for legislation sounds like the type of thing that 'Solar Weather Technique' forecaster Piers Corbyn was talking about in speech at Imperial College: 'not led by science but driven by politics and spin'. Here's the press release:

Weather Action Ltd, Delta House, 175-177 Borough High St, London

NEWS RELEASE 24th May 2004 03.00 hrs

Global Warmers challenged: Piers Corbyn of Weather Action throws down gauntlet at Royal College Of Science Association Annual Dinner

Piers Corbyn of Weather Action long range forecasters and former President* of Imperial College students Union spelt out three challenges to Global Warmers in his speech as guest of honour at this year's Annual dinner of the Royal College of Science Association (the old students association of science graduates of Imperial College)...:

1. To justify how Carbon Dioxide levels have any significant observed effect on world temperatures while observations show World Temperatures are closely related to particles hitting Earth from the Sun**. 'If Carbon Dioxide actually controls World temperatures the Global Warmers must also explain how it controls what happens on the Sun, and such a proposition is utter nonsense' said Piers. [**shown by 22yr time-moving averages, graphs attached produced by M Golipour Weather Action Associate, as presented by Mr Corbyn to the CERA Global Oil Summit in Feb 2004. 'Solar particles (geomagnetic effects - red graph) control temperatures (blue graph) while CO2 (purple graph) just follows a pretty smooth curve', explained Mr Corbyn.]

2. To explain how Carbon Dioxide, which follows a smooth curve, could be controlling something (e.g. temperature), which shows a lot of periodic and other variation. 'The reason for CO2 smooth variation is because it is largely controlled by temperatures NOT the other way around, and this control is partly time-delayed', said Mr Corbyn. 'It appears, for example, that sea temperatures (and ice cap extent) both present and past influence the present rate at which the sea absorbs or emits CO2 and the CO2 content of upwelling seawaters which absorbed CO2 probably centuries ago in amounts determined by temperatures then', said Mr Corbyn. (see also Stephens & Keeling

Dear Steve:

Being a fossil fool flunky must mean that you never have to

be original. I was going into my archive to answer the same

strawman arguments that you have cut and pasted here dozens

of times before, but that would be casting my pearls of wisdom

before swine. If you haven't read my reply a dozen time before,

why would you now?

ear Steve:

Being a fossil fool flunky must mean that you never have to

be original. I was going into my archive to answer the same

strawman arguments that you have cut and pasted here dozens

of times before, but that would be casting my pearls of wisdom

before swine. If you haven't read my reply a dozen time before,

why would you now?

[ The usual fossil fool strawman drill team skipped]

Sure it has. You are just ignorant. That can usually be cured, though you are a 'hard case' ignoramus.

That's funny. According to the worlds scientists, the data has been in for years.

Where have you been flunky?

To give you proof, one needs to know what you want to prove. What, exactly, do you mean by your use of the pronoun, 'it,' Harold (Capitalist Pig).

This approach of yours to public discourse is quite consistent with the kind of counter-scientific approach that the Royal College Of Science Association heard excoriated in that speech by 'Solar Weather Technique' forecaster Piers Corbyn.

I have indeed seen you often repeat a fact or two about solar influence. You have always focused on irradiance as best I recall. If you want to pretend that your previous efforts were responsive to Corbyn's comments, even on just his forecasting technique, that's entirely your choice.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin

Done long ago, Harold. Please pay attention.

What does Harold's capitalism or his 'piggery' have to do with it?

Either global climate change is happening or it isn't.

Also, McCain and Lieberman were both eminently 'capitalist' politicians the last time I looked. Many capitalists seem to be in denial over greenhouse warming and its links to the fossil fuel business - but they don't ALL have to be.

Global climate change is happening, SLOWLY. Some part of this change is probably natural and some part 'man made'. Almost all global warming proponents want to do something about the man-made part of global warming, but they don't want to do anything about the natural part of global warming. 'Doing something' about the man-made part of global warming involves taxing the hell out of fossil fuel consumption in the current 1st world countries while doing nothing about it in places like China and India, where the rate of fossil fuel consumption increases is very high and expected to continue.

Pardon me if I'm skeptical. The above description would seem to be VERY inconsistent, unless it is first a scheme to generate a lot of taxes, and second a scheme to slow down the rate of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. When increasing taxation is much more important than protecting the environment, it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Read the thread, please, John. Harold signed his post, the second post in this thread, like this:

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)