I love it. The irony is that this entire debate is over the liberals beating up on a company that has consistently supported politically liberal causes.

no matter how green they are now or will be, that still doesnt change the fact that they ignored the epa's laws and restrictions for at least 2 years despite numerous letters and notices from the epa. no matter what they do to fix things now, they cannot fix the long period to which they held the environment in contempt after virtually every other computer/ electronic device manufaturer in the 1st world countries took steps to fix it. global warming aside, which btw i think is a crock of s***

Apple: They're "greedier" than you think!

Steve Jobs last year earned over $650 million.

Well, I guess that's the way things are in this world: greedy corporate execs, glorified by the media, getting credit for what has been achieved by their disposable slaves!

I read that they are "greedier". Funny. Carry on.

green apples are usually sour. I like Fuji's myself.

hmmm yeah, and smoking doesn't cause cancer either y'know.

Idiots. Try reading the vast amount of data indicating strong statistical links between human activity and global warming. It makes the evidence the other way look pitiful. Proven beyond doubt? No. But nor is smoking causes cancer, or calcium is good for teeth and bones, but the huge weight of evidence says that in all likelihood these things are true. Maybe just try reading New Scientist or something. Easier reading.

As for Al Gore? Do I give a monkeys what he says or if he's a hypocrite? Nope. What's that to do with the threat from global warming. Nothing. It's a distraction.

In fact, do I even care if humans ARE responsible? Nope. It's happening. That's all that matters.

Anyway, what me and you do is much less significant than want global corps do. It's +those+ idiots that own and control the corps that need controlling, not simple +individual+ idiots like the global warming detractors posting nonsense here.

The selective attention is astonishing on your part. And obviously you aren't even familiar with any of the other information.

And I love you assumption that it must be!
And since when is scientific fact based upon a consensus vote?!? ...Maybe in your high school science club.

What does Gore's actions have to do with global warming? Hmmm. Let's see, he is the one telling others how they must modify their carbon footprint while his is large enough to equal a small country. But then he is a liberal and they are allowed special dispensation to do as they like as they proceed to propose laws and regulations coercing others how to act as they feel it a valid role of government to social engineer.

Oh, and if "its happening" is all that is necessary to note, good, then jump up and down, or stick you finger up your nose. Do whatever you feel it necessary to do. Just don't tell me or others how we have to live. And start devising ways to acclimate to the changes.

And ultimately you expose your own moral bankruptcy as you both claim that the problem is man made and then excuse your behavior as you blame the proverbial "they" and declare that "they" must solve the problem!

And ascribing major contributing factors to elements aside from simple human causes does not constitute a global warming detractor, except to simpletons unable to read for meaning and simply stuck on stupid.

And when you are not busy proving that you are an idiot based upon seeing a movie or reading a magazine article, check out the graphs at

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

And how about reading a FEW more magazine articles!

http://www.space.com/sci...spot_record_041027.html

http://www.timesonline.c...s/uk/article1363818.ece

But be careful, you might have to think.

If you feel compelled to make a difference, do so by changing Your lifestyle, not by imposing your hangups onto others.

Your emotional concern is appreciated. Your ignorance is not.

If you hurry, you can still catch a few cartoons on TV.

It's funny, because you go and tell him he's an idiot because he got his stuff from a magazine article, then you post some magazine articles.

Hypocrite much?

Get off your high horse, your not as smart as your mommy wants you to believe.

You didn't read anything but the "magazine" part, did you?

He posted the links to the magazine articles because that's where the guy above was getting his info. (ya know, so it'd be easier for him to understand?)

Gads, a child could have figured that one out...had they read the entire post.

Tool, the guy has obviously not gotten enough sleep. ;-)

And to add to the irony, the first incredulous poster suggests reading something respectable like the New Scientist for reliable info and I then post a recent link where Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy of man made global warming must be challenged!

If they can't follow this, its obvious that they are incapable of following even the Gore case...or what is even more probable is that this inability makes them perfect candidates for it!

Preach on brother foxfyre. The popular-culture drones need all the reminding of the facts they can get.

Everyone needs to read the following BBC article and honestly consider it with zealot-free common sense:

Sunspots Reaching 1,000-Year High
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...ence/nature/3869753.stm

That said, simple common sense also says everything companies (and the rest of us) can do to clean up their impact on the planet is a damn good thing.

Your right. I saw the word "magazine", but nothing else and decided to make a post.

Guess I'm not as smart as you. Rats.

Well, at least you can admit it. :p

Edit, because Betanews wasn't showing my comment right.

Let's see, when in office Clinton and Gore did no more than talk a good game as they took no steps to actually achieve anything.

Now that he is out of office, he desires to tell OTHERS how to live (well, OK, not so much different then when the Libs are in office!), while refusing to apply the logic to himself being the enlightened individual that he is.

Here's an idea, Al! Dump your private jet and use the Internet that you created to spread your message telling everyone else how to act.

And apply the ideas to yourself and your own lifestyle, and quit your attempts to impose your ideas on everyone else! (But I guess that is tantamount to telling a Liberal to stop being a Liberal!)

And hence the problem with Jobs and Gore with their cults of personality!
I really DON'T care about either of their personal lifestyles or their personal philosophies.

Wouldn't it be nice if Apple concentrated on increasing the ability of their products? Duh!

Jesus H.

Last horse, say hello to finish line. What do you want, a cookie for planning what you should be doing?

Apple's biggest problem is that their computers are over priced as it is.

Adding their "green" technology will push them even higher out of the picture - that their market share will actually drop.

I don't care what you say - but any business that is going to succeed is going to have to look at the bottom line. Buying one computer for each employee versus one for ever three will never cut it.

Not to mention that this global warming crap is anything but that. IF you want the real "Inconvenient Truth" - read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming".

Get the REAL facts.

Repub zombie

anything that could reduce corporate profits MUST be wrong

repeat

Thanks for the incoherent and completely wrong statements. You say get the real facts but you have stated all misinformation.

Take your own advice and get the real facts.

there's enough cush in Apple's margin to absorb some additional mfg cost.

Which info is wrong?

The fact that the computer models the "global warming theorists" use can't predict current climate or passed climate using the same set of data?

The fact that Gore's movie uses a set of information (known as the hockey stick) for how the graph looks on temperature averages that has been proven inaccurate (long before his movie came out).

The fact that two companies that are hugely behind this are General Electric and BP - and that they are spending money on technologies such as solar and wind power that without government subsidies are incapable of making a profit?

That not one of the countries that claimed they would abide by the Kyoto agreement have done anything to reduce their so called "green house emissions", yet their costs on fuel have gone up? And no - it's not because of the trouble in the Middle East either.

Read the book, research the data behind his information and show us where it's wrong.

It's much easier to bleat like sheep and run around crying the sky is falling. Please Mr. Gore, save us!!!

Also - if Mr. Gore truly believed everything he wants us to believe, why has he not done anything with how his own use of energy???

These are all well documented facts, check out how much energy President Bush is using at his home, how much of it is renewable energy - and then tell me that Mr. Gore really gives a rats a** about any of this.

Didn't say it was wrong, said that the "scare" they are trying to use to make people buy their equipment is wrong.

if Mr. Gore truly believed everything he wants us to believe, why has he not done anything with how his own use of energy???

That's the fun bit, isn't it? His response, of course, is that if he convinces others of the dangers and they limit their consumption, he's done more already than he could do by simply cutting back his own use.

Makes sense, right?

*shakes head*

I'm still completely confounded on how anyone can take this complete jackass seriously.

Monitoring your dribble on the BetaNews forum these past "few years" PC_Tool, I certainly know who the jackass is, and it certainly isn't Al Gore. REMOVE YOUR HEAD FROM THE SAND, and have a look at GLOBAL environmental issues, preferably further a field than your miserable backyard!!!

If Al Gore can convince many of us to reduce our consumption and impact, then the fact HIS consumption (aircraft travel etc) is up is a rather mute point, right?

*shakes head*

No one takes you seriously!

George W. Bush and environmental ethics in the same post; now that's funny. As for the rest of your post; what book? Frankly I wouldn't know where to start with what errors you spouted that aren't really facts, just the psuedo words of a few people that really don't know what the hell they're talking about within a much bigger picture, but hey go ahead and enjoy whatever this enlightening book is if it keeps you happy to avoid reality and absolves you from any responsiblity.

George W. Bush and environmental ethics in the same post; now that's funny. As for the rest of your post; what book? Frankly I wouldn't know where to start with what errors you spouted that aren't really facts, just the psuedo words of a few people that really don't know what the hell they're talking about within a much bigger picture, but hey go ahead and enjoy whatever this enlightening book is if it keeps you happy to avoid reality and absolves you from any responsiblity.

You know, the irony of you knee jerk feel good emotionalists is that you equate the debate over global warming with the one group's interpretation of the cause.

Is the temp changing, sure. And if you had an understanding of the world in a greater than 30 year period (you know, since the SAME folks were telling us we were headed for a new ice age in the mid 70's), you would be familiar with the cyclical pattern of temperature change!
But then I guess that you are familiar with the linkage of the climate mins and maxs to variant solar activity, manifested in events such as the Maunder Minimum (also know as the Little Ice Age") and the correlation of temperature to solar variation.

Oh, but that assumes an awareness of greater than 30 years!

And temperature variation is not a linear model as all of the nifty graphs suggest. Oops!

But your models neglect aspects of cause such as solar variability. But then, if you admit that there are factors greater than yourself and all of the gas you generate, then you cease to have the political leverage the liberals so desperately seek to assume control of the economies they have so eagerly sought for decades.

There is no surprise that the environmental movement began to flourish as the Vietnam war impetus was waning. It simply morphs to follow the the s***ing means to an end.

So take your simplistic notion of global warming necessarily implying that human activity is the direct and most significant cause, despite your emotional guilt and need to feel both a nexus and thus the potential of your emotional self-flagellation to fix the problem.

lmao...

Remove your head from his a** and realize that *none* of the claims made in his laughable movie are provable, and that, in fact, many of them were *disproven* before it was even released.

Think for yourself, don't let some money chasing egomaniac do it for you.

I for one will err on the side of caution. We ALL should, as reversing things to come is not an option (realistically).

So what your saying is that the hundreds of millions of combustion engines, Coal electricity power plants and all the polluting industries throughout the world arn't having an effect on air purity and heat generation, and that nature will take care of that massive infusion of heat and pollutants.
If I'm not mistaken (and stupid) the earth is almost totally closed loop except for some heat naturally escaping into outer space, as well as a small amount of atmosphere and water vapour, so an increase of greanhouse gasses doesn't mean there will be an increase of these gasses leaking into outer space. Nature isn't that "intelligent" unfortunately.

You mean CARE, right?

I for one will err on the side of caution. We ALL should

That's ideal. And it's fine to be of that opinion. Just don't think you have the right to enforce it.

as reversing things to come is not an option (realistically).

Darn right. I find it incredibly amusing when the Global Warning nuts tell us we need to *stop* global warming. While it *may* have been contributed in some small part by us, eww are by no means able to reverse it. But stop it?

You do know we can, right?

It's called Nuclear Winter.

Frankly I wouldn't know where to start

Translation: I'm utterly clueless and don't have the time to think for myself, so I'll play it safe and stick with the uninformed masses.

Yeah, we know. Facts require thought. Too much to expect from most folks nowadays. Just keep playing the media shill. It looks good on you.

You guilt ridden idiot, that is not what I am saying!

I am saying that there are many contributing forces that are MUCH larger than your manmade toys that have been in play for a much longer period which make a much larger contribution.

It is funny that you 'late to the party' emotionalists maintain that mankind is so small on the one hand and yet we now dominate the earth and can control much more than the weather.

So explain the Maunder Minimum and other historical cyclical climatic variations? Must have been the power generation plants, huh?

And without your power plants explain the glacial advances and their recession? But I guess that was due to cavemen arriving and building lots of fires and breathing heavily.

The earth is NOT a closed loop except to those of you stupid enough to think that because space is "empty" (like your vacuous logic) that it is not a part of a larger environment! And its time you idiots woke up to the fact! And history is composed of more than the last 30 years and the system is cyclical and not a linear system!

Nor does that mean we can pollute with abandon! But that is not the largest most determinant force in the system!

But then, I must admit that your argument does sound reasonable when we apply it to the vacuum inside your head!

Let's see, if nature is that "stupid", and yet it involves systems far beyond your comprehension, that makes you...yup, to use YOUR words...mistaken AND stupid!

Jaysus. So many incorrect facts and assumptions. Global warming *is* happening, there's a near consensus of scientists worldwide who agree with this. There are a few vocal naysayers, most of which have ties to the oil companies, but there are also a few vocal naysayers claiming the world's only 5000 years old as well. Silly.

As for "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" - it was written by a lawyer. A lawyer who heads the "Competitive Enterprise Institute". Which is funded by...ExxonMobil. Shocker.

Please read and digest: http://environment.guard...tory/0,,1876538,00.html

there's a near consensus of scientists worldwide who agree with this.

There's that word again.

Has our educational system failed so miserably that consensus now equals SCIENTIFIC PROOF??@!?@

Consensus!=science. It doesn't equal proof. You cannot "Vote" for the truth. The general consensus a few centuries ago was that the world was flat.

Which is funded by...ExxonMobil. Shocker.

Yes, amazing a company who's business is being vilified by lies and propaganda would want to, ya know, try and spread the truth.

Science. right. I'll go VERY VERY SLOWLY. Of all the people that have applied the scientific method to the hypothesis of climate change. Of all of those people who have researched it thoroughly, who do it for a living, who are qualified to speak of this. 98% of them worldwide have reached the same conclusion, that man is affecting the environment, that climate change is happening in part because of man's actions. Their consensus is not a vote. Their consensus is a whole bunch of people carrying out different (or sometimes the same) analysis of data, rigourous testing, basically applying the scientific principal to the issue of climate change and finding scientific proof that it is happening. That is what I mean by "consensus". Not that a bunch of bearded blokes sat in a room and decided to vote on it.

The general consensus a few centuries ago was that the scientific method was anti religious and therefore must be evil.

The only lies and propoganda being spread are being spread by those companies who stand to lose the most money if public opinion goes against them. As ever. And they have very deep pockets.

OK you late to the party idiot!

WE ARE NOT DENYING THAT THE TEMPERATURE IS CHANGING!

This will confuse you: the earth's temperature has been constantly changing in cyclical patterns! Duh!!!!! But it took your geniuses how many years to finally agree that it is and then to quickly jump to an erroneous conclusion based upon their stunning discovery!? You folks are hilarious!

What we object it is your myopic leap of faith that necessarily assumes that it is necessarily caused by manmade factors! And that conclusion is NOT based upon conclusive facts but upon supposition! And no, there is no conclusive evidence of this! All they have are extrapolated assumptions assuming a linear progression!

Go read the other posts and the links above! I do not feel the need to repeat what an 8 year old should have been able to follow. Sorry for overestimating your abilities!

And as for your asinine comment:"The only lies and propoganda {misspelled BTW} being spread are being spread by those companies who stand to lose the most money if public opinion goes against them. As ever. And they have very deep pockets."

You know why? Because your position is posited by the same folks with a political agenda seeking to assume control over the economics of the 'heinous' companies (pardon me, "companies" doesn't have the same emotional impact that 'corporations' inspire in poor victims like you) you just described who seek to dominate and dictate said developments. How's that for an anything but neutral concern? You guys just keep retreading the same position in different guises! And I love how you frame this as if it is the "public" who is doing this!

What? I am not saying that the temperature is not changing!

Are you incapable of reading for meaning - Oh, of course, you are simply mouthing the standard tirade divorced of actually listening to someone else!

And who cares about whatever pamphlet you reference. the primary research agency involved in the study of solar variability and other factors has been NASA.

So get your liberal mantra quoting head out of your anal orifice and look around and think for yourself.

It's not my myopic leap of faith. This is a conclusion reached by 98% of the scientists who have researched this. Their conclusion is that man made climate change is real and it is occurring right now.

Have a peer at http://www.sciencemag.or...tent/full/306/5702/1686

Although this will probably not change your view of anything as you appear to be pretty blinkered in your views on this subject.

>What? I am not saying that the temperature is not changing!

Nope, you're saying that we're having no effect on it, which is untrue

> Are you incapable of reading for meaning - Oh, of course, you are simply mouthing the standard tirade divorced of actually listening to someone else!

No, your arguments are incorrect and wrong.

> And who cares about whatever pamphlet you reference.

The Royal Society is not a pamphlet. It's one of the world's foremost academic organisations.

NASA provides much of the satellite acquired data to do with our environment and the sun, it does very little research into climate change. Yes, sunspot activity could have something to do with the temperature rising, but it is not the sole factor, even if it wasn't on the rise the temperature still would be.

> So get your liberal mantra quoting head out of your anal orifice and look around and think for yourself.

Are you twelve?

You simply compound your stupidity. I did not say that we cannot contribute to it - we are not the determinate cause! Your breathing contributes to it as well, you walking methane generator. What makes you unique is that your orifices are reversed.

NASA has been one of the foremost researchers and funders of research into solar variability.

You obviously just make this stuff up!
And if I was 12 I would still be several years ahead of your late to the party BS.

Explain the climatic temperature swings without your critical manmade emissions hot shot! Explain the Maunder and Storer Minimums - among others! This has been occurring LONG before man had any significant industrial capability!

Oops! Don't let the facts confuse you!

98% BS! Your % just grew by 8% over even the proponents' claim!

Even Nigel Calder of the New Scientist has challenged these conclusions!

There is plenty of evidence and experimental basis to challenge your leap of faith by the SAME folks who were predicting a global winter in the mid 70s! And all because they continue to use linear models!

The real irony...some of us have actually been familiar with this research for over 20 years. We didn't need to read the politically motivated panic sheet that you folks have been running about with in your cry to control the economic 'commanding heights'.

So, again, reference the links earlier in the article and explain the historic climatic variability without your manmade theories. And in mentioning solar variability,we haven't even looked at the contributing factors such as volcanic contributions and other natural phenomenon.

So let's make this simple - explain the cause of the onset and the remediation of just the Maunder Minimum - ignoring the previous and subsequent cyclical climatic temperature variations.

Manmade my @ss.

No-one is claiming climate change doesn't happen on its own, what they are saying is that man is currently accelerating the naturally occurring climate change. Therefore, man made climate change is a reality. All the evidence points to this being the case.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Instead of insulting me, try picking holes in the above report, peer reviewed and published by a few hundred scientists who happen to be experts in their fields, as opposed to a dodgy Washington lawyer

Are you capable of discussion without sinking to insults?

The "Maunder Minimum" spanned C16th-19th - "a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C," (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."

It's thought that this was to do with decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity (Volcanic ash rises high into the atmosphere and reflects solar rays).

It's likely that the small changes in the atmosphere led to changes in ocean currents and prevailing winds which led to extended cold in the northern hemisphere.

However, then is not now.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90% probability and represents the consensus of the scientific community

And by consensus, I mean people who have researched, published and had their work peer reviewed agreeing that their research points to this being the case

I believe that out of the 120 scientists that collaborated on part one of the IPCC report released in February, only two of them disagreed with its overall conclusion. Which I also believe equates to a little over 98%, right?

http://environment.newsc...00-hotly-contested.html

Nigel Calder edited the New Scientist between 1962 and 1966 - he's hardly "of the New Scientist", he left it over 40 years ago...

You keep mentioning some lawyer whom none of us are basing anything upon. Its a great straw man for you to keep propping up, if it only had merit!

Farting contributes to the greenhouse gases.
There are BIGGER forces at work than just man, despite your anthropocentric orientation to climate.

What is significant is that the conclusion of the report is that it is man that is the DETERMINATE cause. And this is bogus!

Like I mentioned earlier, the climatic variations have been occurring regularly throughout history without significant contribution from man. Suddenly you folks discover this and after entire careers going back to the late 60's, spent trying to hold man accountable, you have finally come up with just another interpretation whereby you are able to blame mankind for the PRIMARY CASUAL AGENT.

Sorry, but your awareness and attribution of blame is a little late and incomplete. The primary and fundamental pattern continues - with or without man's contribution.

No one is challenging the fact that mankind contributes to greenhouse gases. Funny, we don't hear about the ozone crisis of 10 years ago anymore - oops! That was cyclical and self-correcting too!

But sorry, man is not the Primary Causal/Controlling factor in historical climate change. BTW, whatever happened to this same groups predictions of a global winter in the 70s?

Amazing!
Not only do you selectively edit, you contradict yourself!

Check the correspondence of the solar variability with the climatic change on earth. There is stunning long term correlation. PERIOD!

I love your limited interpretation of the events and then your attribution that it was caused by solar variability and volcanic events. Oops! Edit that!

Now your consensus is 90%, down and astounding 8% in 15 minutes! Sorry for catching your flagrant misrepresentation earlier!

And "very likely" is now conclusive scientific proof. "Very likely" is an OPINION.

The fact that Nigel Calder was a former editor and has moved on to do other things in his career does not negate his being a former editor of the New Scientist! And it certainly does nothing to discredit his opinion with regards to the current issue!

And the panel consisted of people who for the most part conducted research with the assumption of finding a manmade nexus between human activity and climate change! HARDLY an independent sample of those who were involved in research that came to differing conclusions! The shocking result is that ANYONE differed with the results in that group!

But thanks for quoting your report to support the findings of the group's report! Now that's independent verification for you!

Your report is an OPINION, it is not scientific fact.

Gee, scarecrow, which way to OZ?

Where's your evidence for this? Because as far as anyone can see, looking at the current data, temperatures should be stable.

I've given you links to a lot of lovely literature that explains this.

It also explains what is actually happening.

All you seem to be able to do is claim that I'm making it all up.

And there's no "you", I'm a software engineer, not a climate scientist, I'm just aware of spin and well read.

Where did I say that man was the primary causal agent? All I said was that man made climate change is real and is happening now. Because it is. Whether or not we're responsible for 100% of it or 50% of it or whatever is currently being investigated by scientists. But almost all of them believe that it _is_ happening. Even if we're only responsible for 5% in addition to what's happening naturally, we could tip the balance. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are already at the highest they have been in 650,000 years. If we tip the balance then the permafrost in Siberia may defrost, which will release into the atmosphere the equivalent of 75 years of fossil fuel burning's worth of CO2

Firstly, 90% and 98% are two different figures for different things. Please learn to read.

Secondly, "very likely" is quantified. This means it is not an opinion. They clarified what they meant by "very likely" because they're scientists and that's the kinda thing they do.

Thirdly, the fact Nigel Calder edited a Science magazine does not automatically make him a scientist. He is a science writer, he is not a climatologist. He took issue with a part of one of the conclusions reached in the first section of the Feb 7th report. That report is still being discussed and finalised, reviewed and will be available later this year.

Fourthly, the panel is open to all members of the UN and the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), not just the ones that agree with them.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

This report is a consensus amongst scientists that man made climate change is a reality. It is not an opinion, nor is it "my" report. The report consists of many scientific journals, published and peer reviewed. If it's not peer reviewed it's not in the report. If there's ambiguity in the data it's not in the report.

"This report is a consensus amongst scientists that man made climate change is a reality. It is not an opinion"

ROFLMAO!

And temperatures should be stable? What???
Throughout history the climate has changes cyclically, becoming cooler and warmer.
And that was even before man invented the TV or large power generation plants.

It may come as news to you, but there has been an ebb and flow in global temperatures and their distribution for just a few years now. And you will be shocked to know that at one time glaciers covered a fair portion of North America.

Now I know that you believe that our use of aerosol cans mitigated this coverage, but the fact is that this change has been occurring continuously throughout earth's***ory.

And your assumption that temperatures should be stable if man is taken out of the picture is simply ignorance magnified exponentially!

What you fail to get is that this cyclical change has been occurring and it will continue to occur.

Now I am glad that a group of folks finally became aware of this. And I am glad that they are 'concerned'.

And while this is by no means a complete assemblage of data, here are a few graphs of data of which you are OBVIOUSLY unaware!

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

Now explain away the correlation of the climatic change with solar variability!

But then you think the temperature should be an invariant steady state and that man makes the difference! You assume what never was and what never will be!

The fact is, climate change of this nature has been a fact before we came along, and it will be a fact after we are gone.

Rather than try to tell us how to live, you might want to spend a bit more effort learning how to adapt to the changes that are occurring despite your guilt and what you contribute to it.

And a few of us are involved in REAL science and REAL research!

But now I have a better understanding of why my software functions so 'reliably'!

And sorry to confuse you more (is this indeed possible?)

But here, you can read of Svensmarks's experiments that call into question the conclusion of your climatologists. And your opinion of Calder is superfluous. I don't care if you are his clandestine lover. Calder is just a messenger. But feel free to attack him and his credentials. It doesn't change the experimental results and it doesn't change the historical variations of which you have just become aware in your idyllic steady state fantasy world.

---------------------------

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change - Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

February 12, 2007
Nigel Calder

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months' time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John c***croft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you're forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you're at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it's confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun's brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun's magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

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.

Please read this:
http://www.monbiot.com/a...4s-problem-with-science/

"And your assumption that temperatures should be stable if man is taken out of the picture is simply ignorance magnified exponentially!"

That's not what I said.

"What you fail to get is that this cyclical change has been occurring and it will continue to occur."

No, what I said is that the cyclical models that have been created, using observations from the last few thousand years don't take into account the spike that we're currently seeing

Also I did not say that solar variation has no part to play in temperature rise and fall, I simply said that man also contributes to this and that's generally what is being agreed on by the lovely scientists that you seem to know better than.

"But here, you can read of Svensmarks's experiments that call into question the conclusion of your climatologists. And your opinion of Calder is superfluous. I don't care if you are his clandestine lover. Calder is just a messenger. But feel free to attack him and his credentials. It doesn't change the experimental results and it doesn't change the historical variations of which you have just become aware in your idyllic steady state fantasy world."

Ah, silly me, I thought he was trying to sell books debunking global warming...as he's been following Henrik Svensmark's work since 1997 and has "insider information".

As someone else put it in the comments section of that times article you kindly posted:

Nigel Calder has exactly ZERO expertise in climate science.
He's a writer, not a scientist.
Henrik Svensmark is published in a peer reviewed journal. But, the article in the Journal does NOT reach or support the conclusions reached in his press release or in his "book". Henrik Svensmark is about money and notoriety, not about science.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg shows that the CR flux does NOT follow the warming trend.

"The effect goes through solar modulation of the cosmic radiation, which affects the formation of aerosols and thereby also the formation of clouds. Even though a physical mechanism connecting cosmic rays to aerosol formation has been found experimentally, no climate model has yet made an attempt to include such an effect."
http://www.spacecenter.d...ng-and-cosmic-radiation

I like your attempt to reduce solar variability to cosmic rays. If only the behavior of the sun were so simple and if 'cosmic rays' were the sum total of its contribution.

Yes, the graphs of the solar models do correlate rather closely with historical and current events.

>What? I am not saying that the temperature is not changing!

"Nope, you're saying that we're having no effect on it, which is untrue"

The only thing untrue about this statement is your complete and utter misstatement of facts. Your statement is an unabashed lie. I said that there has not been any conclusive evidence that man is the primary causal factor which you maintain.

As you maintain that even without other causal factors, that man alone is sufficient to drive the climate.

"Yes, sunspot activity could have something to do with the temperature rising, but it is not the sole factor, even if it wasn't on the rise the temperature still would be."

You are also the one who said: "Because as far as anyone can see, looking at the current data, temperatures should be stable."

Certainly not based upon solar variability! The current trends are quite consistent with the historic activity. And before you go looking for the level of activity in any particular year, there is also an ~60 year s*** in the phase of the activity graphs. A given year's response is superfluous.

I am glad that you feel secure in holding man solely responsible, as you have said, even without any of the other contributing factors, man is the primary causal factor.

And if you want to stop using electricity, be my guest. But don't show up claiming the right to politically tell and coerce others how they must live. If you want to change your lifestyle, you don't need a report, just do it! Many of us have already done this for several decades and already adjusted lifestyles before you guilt ridden yet self righteous folks decided that we will all suffer terribly by warming rather than your previously predicted global winter. But of course you folks are smarter now.

You began your tirade by associating anyone who has the audacity to disagree with your 'consensus Opinion" with those who believe the earth to be 5000 years old and following the writings of some lawyer - whomever that might be (despite it sounding more like Nader to me!).

I am glad that you have suddenly gotten religion based upon your extensive ignorance and 2nd hand information - after all, you have told us that you are a software engineer, not a 'real' scientist. And currently being involved with Information Assurance, I can tell you how much respect I have for you folks WITHIN your area of 'expertise'!

The irony is that in the early 90's I was involved with university research into solar variability funded by NASA, (which you also claimed NASA did not do!), and the political backlash that resulted from anyone even suggesting such a non-anthropocentric position was amazing to witness. And that was 15 years ago!

But then we have a generation of folks whose entire life's work and careers are based upon establishing the premise that man is to blame. And this is also supported by a well established political organization which has maintained this very premise for almost 50 years without your "committee consensus".

But they have no vested interest! Their grants and their funding is not based upon their premise. And their continued influence is not dependent upon their foregone conclusion.

Have fun following your science by committee consensus point of view.

And if you are so worried and guilt-ridden, YOU make the lifestyle changes. Don't be voting for actions imposing coercive measures on others. Stick to generating buffer overflows.

You're still putting words in my mouth. Stop it.

"I like your attempt to reduce solar variability to cosmic rays. If only the behavior of the sun were so simple and if 'cosmic rays' were the sum total of its contribution."

I didn't attempt anything, that wasn't written by me. That article goes on to state this:

That there exists a significant contribution from solar activity variations to global temperature increase does not, however, exclude other contributions to the rising global temperature, natural as well as human.

Which is my point

"I said that there has not been any conclusive evidence that man is the primary causal factor which you maintain"

I don't maintain this, I haven't said it anywhere. Nobody is claiming that man is the primary causal factor...

Solar activity over the last 1150 years: does it correlate with climate? - Sami K. Solanki (MPI für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany)

Ilya Usoskin (Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland)
Manfred Schuessler (MPI für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany)

"The full reconstructed sunspot number series shows all the known Grand Minima (Maunder, Spoerer, Wolf, etc.) and the medieval maximum. However, the most striking feature of the reconstruction is that during the last 1150 years the Sun was never as active as during the last 60 years. We present a comparison with the Mann et al. "hockey stick" curve for global temperature and find a reasonable correspondence, if we neglect the last 2 decades. In particular the sunspot number exhibits a gentle decreasing trend over most of this period followed by a rapid increase in the last century. During the last 2 decades, however, the cycle-averaged sunspot number has remained basically constant, while the temperature has continued to increase."

As I was saying, as far as anyone can see, looking at current data, temperatures should be stable - ie not rising, as sunspot activity has remained constant.

"I am glad that you feel secure in holding man solely responsible, as you have said, even without any of the other contributing factors, man is the primary causal factor."

No I haven't. I've said that man's activity might only be partly responsible but could be enough to tip the scales, as it were.

"The irony is that in the early 90's I was involved with university research into solar variability funded by NASA, (which you also claimed NASA did not do!), and the political backlash that resulted from anyone even suggesting such a non-anthropocentric position was amazing to witness. And that was 15 years ago!"

You seem to not be getting that 15 years ago your hypothesis held true, you were only 5 years into the relative sunspot stability that we've had for the last 20 years. But since then, warming has increased and at a rate that was unexpected.

"And if you are so worried and guilt-ridden, YOU make the lifestyle changes. Don't be voting for actions imposing coercive measures on others."

I already do. I just think it's amusing when armchair scientists try and poopoo actual scientists

"Stick to generating buffer overflows."

I don't, and I'm still wondering if you can manage a disagreement without sliding into name calling.

Arm chair scientists. Interesting. Care to compare real world resumes and academic/professional credentials software boy?

I think its humorous that someone who couldn't cut the math and ended up in a computer science
program is discussing science at all. But then you Did read a reference to a committee's CONSENSUS OPINION. Now there is science divorced several degrees from science.

The amazing thing is that 'your' climatologists do not even have a model for solar contributions to the climate. Their model ignores it as a contributing force entirely! Even the Danish Space Institute acknowledges that on their website in a link provided several posts ago. How convenient to overlook that.

"I don't maintain this, I haven't said it anywhere. Nobody is claiming that man is the primary causal factor..."

WRONG!

"The full reconstructed sunspot number series shows all the known Grand Minima (Maunder, Spoerer, Wolf, etc.) and the medieval maximum. However, the most striking feature of the reconstruction is that during the last 1150 years the Sun was never as active as during the last 60 years. We present a comparison with the Mann et al. "hockey stick" curve for global temperature and find a reasonable correspondence, if we neglect the last 2 decades. In particular the sunspot number exhibits a gentle decreasing trend over most of this period followed by a rapid increase in the last century. During the last 2 decades, however, the cycle-averaged sunspot number has remained basically constant, while the temperature has continued to increase."

"As I was saying, as far as anyone can see, looking at current data, temperatures should be stable - ie not rising, as sunspot activity has remained constant."

Gee whiz, and have you read far enough in the studies to discover that the source/response is not instantaneous? There is an approximately 60 year lag for the full effects of the COMPLETE cycle to manifest itself! ...While you focus on local minimums and maximums ignoring the contextual overall upward trend in the cycle! This is akin to someone saying: Gee, a cloud came out and blocked the sun for 20 minutes this afternoon, and the temperature didn't drop 20 degrees, its remained the same! See, the sun's contribution is insignificant! This simply displays a fundamental ignorance of the overall system.

Your interpretation of evidence displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of the models and the evidence. But then, ignorance is bliss.

The report holds that man is a determinate cause of global warming. It does not say that on occasion many people breathing hard may contribute a tiny bit of CO2 to the environment. Nor does it even posit other factors which contribute to global climatic change. In fact, your glorious report does not even acknowledge solar variability and other singificant factors as fundamental contributing forces to climate change. After all, that did not fit the agenda of many of the participants' foregone political agenda. And as a result, it proposes that man radically change its mode of living.

So all you are saying is that man can contribute 'something', "that man's activity might only be partly responsible but could be enough to tip the scales, as it were." Tip the scales? The irony is that you seem to envision some system that can be tipped. After all, their report also speculates as to whether it might be "too late" as well. Too late in a cyclical process. fascinating. Again, your lack of knowledge of process lends itself to fascinatingly simplistic imaginings of how cyclical processes work, as you continue applying a flawed linear model inappropriately. Tipping point in a cycle. Fascinating.

You know, the fat is that those of us who disagree with the fundamental premise of the report that holds mankid primarily responsible for changes in climate object to the simplistic view which you very contritely try to explain away as 'man just might just have a little bit to contribute to the climate, maybe, perhaps.'

IF the report had simply stated that there were many other factors, many of which we do not fully understand, and that man may contribute to this, we wouldn't have a debate. That was our position from the onset. We maintain that there are many larger fundamental factors contributing to the earth's climate - a pattern which has been conclusively demonstrated although it is still not fully understood, of which man is but one small factor. In other words, significant climate change has been occurring long before man, and will likely continue long after man. The earth is part of a slightly larger system than is imagined in your simplistic and egotistical anthropocentric model.

We may add some modicum to these cycles, but our behavior is not sufficient to stop them, nor is it sufficient to significantly modify them.

In other words, man is not the primary causal factor in the climate cycles. Man is, at best, a secondary contributor to said cycles.

That is what we initially maintained, And now you think you can come late to the party and modify your claim as that of "man's activity might only be partly responsible but could be enough to tip the scales, as it were." Yup, and I love your reference that solar variability may have been valid 15 years ago, but it is not currently. ...Despite the relative maximum whereby sunspot activity was at the highest level ever recorded just several years ago (and yes, there Is year to year and sub cycle variability in an otherwise net upward trend of this part of the overall cyclic activity!) But then we look at much larger windows then that of the last several months looking to see how much the temperature has changed! You look at your watch, others look from a frame of reference of planetary time.

Does man contribute greenhouse gases? Sure. An since you are so fascinated by this. look at the ranking of cow flatulence as a contributing cause to the release of greenhouse gases. You just might be surprised at its significance relative to your power plants and cars.

So, please tell us more about how science works. But when you do, cite your magazine source as you personally speak only from inference and by the way of hearsay. But then it would be unfair to ask how many degrees in physics you have. After all, the closest you get to science is a newspaper or a magazine.

So now you feel that there may be much larger forces at work, but that "I don't maintain (that man was a primary causal factor - as the report DOES!), I haven't said it anywhere. Nobody is claiming that man is the primary causal factor...""I've said that man's activity might only be partly responsible but could be enough to tip the scales, as it were."

"Tipping the scales" would constitute a primary determinate factor.

The irony is that none of us denied that mankind does not contribute to environmental factors. We simply disagree that man is the primary determinate causal factor.

So one wonders just what you were debating as you are now morphing your story into a version vaguely similar to what we started from.

And that position puts you at significant odds with the finding of the committee! But you are not bright enough to recognize this!

But please, read a few more magazines and further develop your OPINION masquerading as fact. Maybe you can get your friends together and discuss the issue and as a result establish more scientific fact!

Just don't masquerade as having anything to do with science.

And name calling? You were the one whose first 2 sentences posted made reference equating anyone who disagrees with you as adhering to the idea that the earth is 5000 years old and that we all follow some lawyer and the evil corporations. Sorry righteous software boy, you established the rules by precedence and now we get to play by them too!

Feel and think whatever you want. Believe whatever committee's consensus OPINION you like. The problem is that others are trying to use your "committee consensus opinion" - what you erroneously call science fact, as a basis for their self-righteous dictation of political and economic coercion of others.

If you want to change folks, don't use such a lame, but 'oh so caring' altruistic lever for your coercive social engineering! Establish fact, not opinion. And then people will change. And if they don't, that is their choice as well.