Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5311
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020740.63081bc2@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Mr. Short-term Memory,
Well, you've been reduced to just one line of name calling.
> Mr. Short-term Memory,
Well, you've been reduced to just one line of name calling.
#5312
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> granted based on need).
You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> granted based on need).
You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
#5313
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> granted based on need).
You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> granted based on need).
You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
#5314
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> granted based on need).
You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> granted based on need).
You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
#5315
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> > that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> > can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> > granted based on need).
>
> You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
> totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Unfortunately you are probably right. It doesn't have to be that way. Instead of a
strict need basis, I'd be willing to live with a system that kicks in after your
medical bill are greater than some percentage of your taxable income.
> Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
> catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
I could live with that. How about implementing it before I get sick and need to go to
the Hospital.
Ed
#5316
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> > that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> > can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> > granted based on need).
>
> You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
> totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Unfortunately you are probably right. It doesn't have to be that way. Instead of a
strict need basis, I'd be willing to live with a system that kicks in after your
medical bill are greater than some percentage of your taxable income.
> Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
> catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
I could live with that. How about implementing it before I get sick and need to go to
the Hospital.
Ed
#5317
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even suggests
> > that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If you
> > can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be generously
> > granted based on need).
>
> You do realize that a government system like that means you'll have to be
> totally broke before having a chance of getting dollar one.
Unfortunately you are probably right. It doesn't have to be that way. Instead of a
strict need basis, I'd be willing to live with a system that kicks in after your
medical bill are greater than some percentage of your taxable income.
> Insurance could be returned to it's primary role, coverage for the
> catastrophic (with regards to cost anyway) only.
I could live with that. How about implementing it before I get sick and need to go to
the Hospital.
Ed
#5318
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >
> > > No we don't!
> > >
> > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
> not prove
> > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
> at one
> > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> don't even
> > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
> years.
> > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> errors
> > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
> are
> > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> groomed the
> > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > loon.
> >
> > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > operation?
> > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
> I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
> seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
> global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >
> > > No we don't!
> > >
> > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
> not prove
> > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
> at one
> > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> don't even
> > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
> years.
> > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> errors
> > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
> are
> > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> groomed the
> > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > loon.
> >
> > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > operation?
> > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
> I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
> seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
> global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
#5319
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >
> > > No we don't!
> > >
> > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
> not prove
> > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
> at one
> > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> don't even
> > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
> years.
> > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> errors
> > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
> are
> > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> groomed the
> > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > loon.
> >
> > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > operation?
> > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
> I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
> seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
> global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >
> > > No we don't!
> > >
> > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
> not prove
> > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
> at one
> > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> don't even
> > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
> years.
> > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> errors
> > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
> are
> > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> groomed the
> > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > loon.
> >
> > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > operation?
> > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
> I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
> seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
> global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
#5320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >
> > > No we don't!
> > >
> > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
> not prove
> > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
> at one
> > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> don't even
> > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
> years.
> > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> errors
> > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
> are
> > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> groomed the
> > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > loon.
> >
> > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > operation?
> > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
> I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
> seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
> global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
> "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.c om...
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >
> > > No we don't!
> > >
> > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
> not prove
> > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
> at one
> > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
> > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> don't even
> > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
> years.
> > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
> infere
> > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
> errors
> > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
> are
> > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
> groomed the
> > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > loon.
> >
> > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > operation?
> > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
> I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
> seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
> global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
are given in the report along with references to the published
studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).