"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Sunday, February 11, 2007

THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SCOOPS MSM AND BLOGOSHPERE AGAIN: COSMIC RAYS AND GLOBAL WARMING


MEMORANDUM HAS A ROUND UP OF MSM AND BLOGOSPHERE COVERAGE ON THE FACT THAT SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS PROVE THAT COSMIC RAYS HAVE MORE TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING THAN MAN-MADE CO2.

WELL, TAB FIRST BLOGGED THIS BEFORE ANY NEARLY EVERY OTHER BLOG (EXCEPT TIM BLAIR!), EARLY LAST MONTH - JANUARY 6TH.

AND WE FOLLOWED UP ON IT, TOO: ON JANUARY 21; AND FEBRUARY 4TH; AGAIN ON FEBRUARY 9TH; AND AGAIN - YESTERDAY, ON FEBRUARY 10TH.

WE'RE GLAD THE REST OF THE WORLD IS CATCHING ON.

AND READ MARK STEYN - HE ARGUES THAT THE MEASURES THE AGW (ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING) CROWD WANTS TO IMPOSE ON ALL OF US WOULD BE WORSE THAN GW.

IF THEY READ TAB EVERY DAY - LIKE YOU - THEN THEY'D BE BETTER INFORMED BECAUSE TAB IS BEST PLACE TO FIND UNDER-REPORTED YET IMPORTANT NEWS WITH HARD-HITTING ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY. SPREAD THE WORD!

4 comments:

DavidCyrus said...

Do you even read the articles that you link to?

Henrik Svensmark does not offer any proof, as you headline- he simply offers a different theory.

His own words:
"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought..."

Am I surprised that you think this proves that cosmic rays' effects dwarf man-made C02? Not at all.

Reliapundit said...

u r an asshole david cyrus.

svensmmark DID DI EXPERIMENTS WHICH PROVED HIS THEORY.

that is the whole freakin point u jerk!

read more about it HERE - u asshole!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk
/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

excerpt:

"... The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars. "

see david cyrus: they did an experiment - something that can be reproduced by anyone anywhere and independently verified.

IOW: they PROVED their theory.

no fuck off you fuckwad moron leftist piece of shit.

or come back for more until you are DEPROGRAMMED.

M. Simon said...

You might want to give instapundit a heads up when you post something really good.

Works for me.

My take (late to the show as usual:

Clouds

BTW I've added you to my blogroll.

DavidCyrus said...

Reliapundit, you are a certifiable idiot- back in 4th grade most of us learned that you can't prove a worldwide climate theory by running an experiment "in a box of air in a basement." Sure, Svensmark and his buddies ran a little science project in their basement; I am not surprised that the rest of the educated world questions this as proof of anything, nor am I surprised that you swallow it hook, line and sinker.


In fact, your own reply states this, but you are obviously too stupid to understand the real meaning of the sentences you write.

Did you happen to notice that your own reply stated, "...nobody can really say..." what are the implications of this theory?

But wait! maybe the half-wit Reliapundit is the one "nobody" who can really say it. I guess in that case, when Svensmark theorizes, "nobody" listens.