Redstate

If one truly believed that the planet was hurtling towards catastrophe, would you exempt any nation, let alone huge developing ones, from using products that are causing the catastrophe?  I would think not.  Ergo, Kyoto is political, not scientific.

I'll find it and post it tonight.  The WSJ also did a nice editorial on the problems with the famous hockey stick graph...a study done by statisticians validated the findings of another statistician that showed that the statistical model used was predisposed to create the hockey stick.  Same article also cited a researcher who showed why this paper wouldn't have gotten a true unbiased peer review due to the author's connections to a very small and cliquish group of scientists (my interpretation from memory).  Since that article requires a paid subscription I can't post.

The Democrats' trumpeting on this issue is similar to their trumpeting on stem cells. Both are highly misleading. Letting Democrats frame the stem cell debate as they have leaves the reader with the impression that only Democrats care about saving lives.

This debate is similar. By constantly running to that "junk science" arguments -- when for whatever reason the world does seem to be getting warmer -- lets the Deomcrats frame the issue as "Only we care about saving the Earth."

Much better, I think, to discuss the utter folly of the proposed solutions. I'd start will Kyoto: $11 trillion for a .007% temperature drop -- and here's the kicker:  Those Chinese and Indians stealing your jobs are exempt altogether.

More compelling and much, much cleaner...

About the surface of the sun getting warmer and the other planets in the Solar System experiencing GW?  I'd like to share them with folks I know.

You don't say....?

PDF of committee report is here.  A shorter PDF fact sheet is here.

It is basically hearings into the Mann et al Hockey Stick report and problems associated with the data, the analysis of the data, and the conclusions it reached.

There are also further hearings being done by the Whitfield subcommittee of the Barton committee. A real player feed of at least a portion of the proceedings is here.

i would suggest reading the entire article (the lead and ending don't seem wildly inconsistent with the rest of the article), second, from the actual study

We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all the global climate change prior to 1970 it cannot have been responsible for more than 30% (50% for the intercalibration by Willson, 1997) of the strong global temperature rise since 1970.

--Solar variability and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850

the entire Solar System!  Check this link.  However, you need to register ($30) to read the whole story at earthfiles.com.  I passed and search for other sources now.

Here is the full text of what I was referring to.  Again, sorry, no link due to $$ site.  This was from 7/11 edition I think:

-----------

It was refreshing to finally read an article by a climate scientist that provides an objective view of the global warming issue. Richard Lindzen's essay ("There is No 'Consensus' on Global Warming," editorial page, June 26) concludes that the case is still very much open and I heartily agree. I have followed this topic for more than 10 years and have been amazed at how many of my colleagues have accepted this theory without questioning the methodology used to develop the various models or understanding the complexity of global climate variations.

One of the factors often ignored in the discussion is the variation in the sun's radiative output, which greatly affects the earth's temperature over time. The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) has compiled a comprehensive solar database for use in global climate models. Through the use of total solar irradiance satellite measurements, the NGDC has documented the fact that the amount of energy from the sun varies over decadal time scales. The NGDC further states that "global change models need to discern between variations caused by anthropogenic and natural occurrences to provide a sound scientific basis for policy making on global change issues." Clearly, global climate variation is a very complex issue and our understanding of it is still uncertain. What's needed is more scientific analysis and less hysterical predictions from politically motivated individuals.

Joseph A. Castellano, Ph.D.

San Jose, Calif.

(The author is a retired scientist and business executive who was engaged in the chemical, semiconductor and electronic display industries for 45 years.)

Those Chinese and Indians stealing your jobs are exempt altogether.

Actually they're leaving more money in your pocket by not charging you as much for the things you need to purchase. They're not taking, they're giving. And I bet you never even say, thank you.

solar irradiance

I'm just pointing out how the whining about global warming intersects the whining about offshoring of jobs.

I'm an open markets guy all the way.

if that came off as rude; i certainly didn't mean for it to do so. the telegraph story is just a very poor representation of the actual study.

Here's the most recent link to this effect that I've seen:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/e
cnsun18.xml