 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Palin v. Gore...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM From the actual transcript of the show mentioned, Al Gore said: "It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees aces there are these incredibly hot rocks, , and the crust of the earth is hot ..." Priceless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq - PM Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:04 PM "... it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience..." Gore recently said that "if you go down 2 kilometers, the Earth's core is a million degrees". He did not say whether that is F or C. #### That lie is like the fish that grows a couple of feet every time the story gets told. What Gore said on the Conan O'Whatisface show was that in some areas of the earth, two kilometers down, it's "very hot." [thermal vents near volcanoes, Yellowstone Park, etc.] The discussion was about alternative energy sources, and in this case, they were talking about geothermal energy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:42 PM The mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, which prompted two disaster songs, was over ten thousand feet deep, about 2 miles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:33 PM No wonder that coal miners are paid so well... Some of those mines are close to 2 kilometers deep... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:04 PM "... it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience..." Gore recently said that "if you go down 2 kilometers, the Earth's core is a million degrees". He did not say whether that is F or C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:35 PM Glad that Palin ain't like that John... *grin*... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:25 PM Back to Palin and Gore, it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience that the North Pole might melt in 5 years. He cited a scientific source, but the scientist he cited didn't want any part of that claim. I think Gore must have felt that he was addressing an audience who understood that his extreme claims (the poles aren't melting; lot's of ice; South Pole sets a new record every year; North Pole has less ice than average, but more than last year or the year before). Gore has the chops to win his debates, but he sure runs his mouth without thinking sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM Object to mandatory birth control or institute mandatory birth control? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:25 PM 'I suspect that the same people who say this would be among the first to raise the alarm if they became aware that we are imbibing birth control through our water or some such means." Why would they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:47 PM Okay, but that's hardly an argument against hybrids and vehicles like the Smart Car. There is plenty of real estate within the United States, and the whole world for that matter, where one never sees a snow flake. Yet many folks there drive SUVs, Hummers, and other gas-guzzling road crushers. I'm not advocating "one size fits all," I'm advocating "look around you and use your head." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:20 PM Smart cars a poor choice here as well (Alberta). Distances are long, and more power is needed in the Foothills and mountains, and dangerous in snow and ice. Also impossible to take the kids anywhere with all their hockey gear or skiing equipment. Mid-size cars and SUVs are the choice here; the Prius is good within the city, but for the above reasons mid-size and SUVs are Toyota's sellers here, not the Prius. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:10 PM The problem with petroleum used for transportation is that it is easy and cheap. Don Firth's post- the need for plastics in one hell of a lot of our goods (my keyboard as I type this as well as all those ballpoints we dump in drawers that have been sent out with duns for donations, the bottle my milk comes in, many items around the house and now a major component in the wings for the new Boeing people carrier)- is one factor that may cut petroleum use as a fuel. Reserves economically feasible will last at least 50 years; hopefully measures will be taken to find substitutes before then. China with their one child policy did cut population growth, but now they have the beginnings of a problem of a lot of oldsters with no young to support them, necessitating extensive and expensive care facilities, etc. China is building extensive nuclear energy facilities to supplant inefficient power plants dependent on coal (and oil), and is now the biggest user of solar panels to supplement home heating and other small needs. Admittedly a big source of 'greenhouse' gases, toxins and black carbon, perhaps China, for all its size, will become the leader in reducing materials that harm the environment. Petroleum for energy generation and plastics will continue to be important to their economy for many years, hence their new gas pipelines and lease bids in Iraq and elsewhere (Like the U. S., new or increased pipelines from Canada and the Arctic, and continued exploration and bidding for sources. I cannot see people willingly reducing standards of living, nor will they elect leaders that will enforce reductions. Education leading to use of more efficient substitutes for high-pollution sources is needed now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:08 PM Don... Smart Car... fine if you don't live here. When the roads are snowy, or, worse, slushy, a Smart Car could kill you. Fine for fair weather but dangerous as hell in snowy weather. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:56 PM And Jack the Sailor has hit on a key point. The city I live in has an excellent recycling system, with waste pre-sorted by people themselves. Cans go in this container, bottles in this, paper products here, matter that can be used for mulch goes here, etc. How does the sanitation department encourage this? If it isn't properly sorted, they won't pick it up! You have to haul it to the dump yourself. Only most dumps are turning into recycling plants where, if it isn't sorted, they won't take it. The building I live in is a coop apartment. A couple of decades ago, we took out a big mortgage and had this 100 year old building weatherized, complete with thermal windows, got rid of the coal-fed boiler that inefficiently fed an antiquated radiator system and installed electrical baseboard heat (Seattle City Light is all hydropower, no coal-fired plants), and got a tax break and historical status as a result. Several of the people who live in this building work for Microsoft. They don't hop in their cars and drive across the Evergreen Point bridge to get to work, they telecommute. My wife works at the Seattle Public Library and she takes public transportation to work (our car, a 1999 Toyota Corolla spends most of its time in the garage; ten years old and about 25,000 miles on the clock). Energy Star compliant electrical appliances (including my computer). Energy efficient light bulbs everywhere! Saturday is "Farmers' Market" day in Seattle. In addition to the famous Pike Place Market, almost every district has a location where local farmers bring their produce, so it's not too difficult to get fresh, locally grown food, trucked in from various areas such as the Kent Valley south of Seattle, not trucked halfway across the continent. It's generally less expensive than what you can get in the supermarkets and it doesn't have all the nutrition processed out of it. I see a lot of Priuses and "Smart Cars" around. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:16 PM There is an elephant in the room which no one seems to be addressing. And that is that fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. New deposits (which is to say, deposits that have been there for millions of years, but have just recently been discovered) are getting much more difficult to find. When it's gone, it's gone! What do we do then? In the meantime—I recall a conversation I had back in the early 1960s. The conversation was with Jerry Pournelle, the science fiction writer, who was living in Seattle at the time. This was while he was going for advanced degrees at the University of Washington and working in the aero-space division of the Boeing Airplane Company, and before he moved to California and—among other things—started writing science fiction. Jerry was talking about the egregious wasting of fossil fuels. He held up a ball-point pen and said, "When you consider the number of things that are made out of petroleum—the barrel of this pen, for example—AND such things as medicines, fertilizers" (and he recited a long list of things that people use all the time, but have no idea are actually petroleum products, and some of which are essential to some peoples' lives) "it is a crime against future generations to simply burn it to produce energy!" He then went on to list a number of renewable sources of energy that are not being utilized, such as solar, wind, tidal, and he outlined a couple that sounded pretty far out, but which, he assured me, would not just work, but would work more inexpensively than fossil fuels. "And," he went on, "would not stink up the atmosphere!" Jerry was (is) politically pretty conservative (he served as one of Ronald Reagan's science advisors and was an advocate of Star Wars, even designing a number of weapons systems for it), but he was right on the money when it came to being concerned about what humans were doing to the planet—and where it could eventually lead. What do we do when the fossil fuels run out? Worry about it then!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:14 PM Does our real standard of living have to drop for us to radically decrease carbon emissions? It is my understanding that California is 30-40% more efficient than the rest of country in terms of home electricity use. If the rest of the country caught up that would mean significant gains. Then there is the weatherization plan that Obama recently unveiled. Replacing 12 MPG suburbans with 30 MPG hybrid minivans. Teleconferencing rather than business trips. etc. Heating and cooling of McMansions. There is a lots of waste in our society that does NOT really add to our standard of living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:53 PM pdq, true but not as much. Secondly and most importantly in light of the holidays, you are consistantly downright mean and defamatory towards me and others here which is both glaringly wrong and certainly not helpful to you in the long run. You know there are exceedingly generous living breathing people who have put you on the lump of coal list simply due to a lack of good will and civility. Cheer up, gear up and get along. Seasons Greetings Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM Wrong, as usual. Russia is also dropping in population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM Italy stands alone as the only country in which the population is markedly dropping. And the Vatican scratches their collective heads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:09 AM "They're talking about everything but the one thing that would help--controlling human population growth." ake I suspect that the same people who say this would be among the first to raise the alarm if they became aware that we are imbibing birth control through our water or some such means. Education and raising the standards of living for all is the only answer. It is slow but inexorable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM "...if you want to reduce the birth rate, it is best done by raising people's standard of living..." But raising the standard of living for large group of people causes them to be be big polluters since... high standard of living= large consumption of goods= large consumption of energy... and we are back to the same problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Martin Harwood Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:58 AM All the more reason to reduce consumption in the developed world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:39 AM The problem with that analogy is when people migrate to a developed nation they become a super-consumer just like the folks who are there now. Reducing population growth at the source is the best way to deal with the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Martin Harwood Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM While population growth is certainly an important issue, I think it's an all too convenient way to shift the onus onto the developing nations. The disparity in per capita energy consumption figures are staggering. We've got to stop being so bloody greedy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:08 AM If you want to visit Cleopatra's masion home you now need scuba gear. The most ancient cities on Earth are below the waves. Take a look at the latest discovery! http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-caribbean-sea-floor/65855 Mass extinctions occur during sea level rise as well as sea level drops. Climate change forces out life that can ill adapt. Too much heat as well as excessive cold is what we call climate change. Currently the co2 levels are stromnomically high. We are breathing less Oxygen and the sea is warmer. Our response will be less enthusiastic compared to the ingenuity of how to steal 8 trillion dollars with deregulation, Credit Default swaps and derivities (all of which stole enough money to finance an effective global response to climate change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:59 AM It's far from efficient. There is usually a big rise in the birth rate after a major war. If you want to reduce the birth rate, it is best done by raising people's standard of living and improving their education. It is the poorer and less educated people who generally have the highest birth rate in any given society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:40 AM Well, that's a start. The problem with trying to control population by war is, smokeless powder consumes oxygen and expells nitrates into the air. Then there's all those messy bodies to deal with, tanks and huge ships running around burning fossil fuels... On top of all that, it's not efficient, and we know there's a better way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:29 AM I've done my bit on that. No kids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:49 AM They're talking about everything but the one thing that would help--controlling human population growth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:46 PM Bobert, take a look at my 8:19 post today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:03 PM Opps... Make that 2 things... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM Well, one thing which cannot be argued is this: 1. To the best of my knowledge there is no pending Climate Bill in Congress... ...and... 2. Big Oil (or someone) is allready spending big bucks telling folks that the "climate bill" will cost us jobs and raise our taxes??? Hmmmmmmm??? Someone who is making alot of $$$ doesn't want Congress to even think about climate legislation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM Foukai, Frohlich, Spruit, Wigley, 2006. "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate," Nature 443 (issue 1038): Existing literature suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time. "...brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century." See list of peer-evaluated articles consulted in this review. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:19 PM Bruce, follow the link and look at item 6. http://www.alternet.org/story/144557/12_hilarious_corporate_attempts_to_look_green?page=2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:51 PM There is clear and incontrovertible evidence of a link between climate and variations in solar activity - with climate lagging solar activity by about 10 years. This linkage is documented for millions of years. That is why it is so significant that the link seems to be broken since about 1975. This alone should be sufficient proof of something new happening to trigger implementation of the precautionary principle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:00 PM But that's the fucking point! Do you seriouly think anyone here would be willing to make any more than a token gesture? What is required is a worldwide change in how we view the way we live. At the moment the non-developed world wants a lifestyle "just like the Americans" thats what they dream about! they already have self sufficienct to a minimal standard. They want to be like us....and we know we must be like them to survive, if man made global warming is a reality. But we will go on denying and apologising for ourselves to the bitter end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:58 PM I am sort of weary of those who seem to insinuate that quibbling over fine points of some arcane bit of physics and astronomy affects the overall preponderance of the data about warming! Here are 50 of the supposed objections and some comments on them There are MANY things to sort out, but winning the battle over sunspots won't cover it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: olddude Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM I like that Canadian Scientist David Suzuki I think his name is. The effects of man's activity will hasten the event even if the event is a natural occurrence or not. That is if it normally would take 1000 years than maybe it will only take 200 due to the carbon emissions. Now how anyone else can think in the big scheme of it all that reducing carbon emissions, is a bad thing, then I don't get it because even if it does not cause global warming, it causes enough other problems in the environment and in our health that it is worth doing. So trying to reduce the fossil fuel emissions is a good thing I think and I applaud Gore for doing something other than sitting on his butt like so many others have been doing for decades. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM Consumerism in all its guises, is the worlds foremost cause of pollution. How many of us would be willing to rewind our lifestyles and living standards back to pre 1900 levels? That would be the minimum required to make any impact on co2 levels. It woulds also mean the end of Capitalism as we know it Instead of buying our living standards, we would be obliged to become self sufficeint in food production, return to living as three and four generation family groups,sharing in housing, heating and the production of food. All the talk about alternative energy sources is only a load of "hot air", if these new sources are to be wasted producing items whos only purpose is to encourage people to exchange their lives for money and the money for a consumerist dream...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM it is US who created them and find them necessary to our well-being. And that's the problem that needs sorting out, or there won't be any well being for you for the US or anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM If you wish to call petroleum suppliers "major polluters," remember their investors, hundreds of thousands of them, the people who gain employment from the uncounted companies who depend on their products, and all of us who use plastics, fuel and materials whose production depends on petroleum - it is US who created them and find them necessary to our well-being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:35 PM McGrath, what is that remark in aid of? Seemed self-evident to me, but clealruy not to Q. My point was about tokenism, as symbolized by stuff like politicians "reprieving" the odd turkey. "Clean energy research" by major polluters looks very like mere window dressing, while normal business, wrecking the planet, goes on as per normal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM ...fade out Debbie Boone singing "You Light Up My Life"...cue the Robert Shaw Chorale... "Sunspots We Have Heard on High" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM "BB, I know what I know, " Yet you declare that ** I ** do NOT "know what I know." Be careful- you might have to be elevated to one of the Ubermench. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM BB, I know what I know, and I can't be held responsible for what other people think or say, so quit trying to shove everyone you disagree with into one convenient pigeon-hole. Over and out. I'm not done with this thread, but I have things to do for the next few hours. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM Yes, and the inference is that solar output drives climactic change. "Inaccurate information is still inaccurate, even if the promulgator of that information has a whole string of degrees" Yet the GW "hotheads" insist that since they have supporters with "a whole string of degrees" they cannot be argued with. Make up your mind- you can't insist we respect "AUTHORITY" when YOU do not do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:58 PM BB, when it comes to astronomy, I might be what is called a "talented amateur." I have been interested in the subject since I was eight years old, have read widely on the subject, and have taken a number of courses at the University of Washington. I have also logged in some observatory time. Granted, I don't have the degrees that you say you have, but I have known of, say, anatomy professors who couldn't find their own butts with both hands and an anatomy chart. Inaccurate information is still inaccurate, even if the promulgator of that information has a whole string of degrees. In my post above, I also talked about the sun's long term cycles, not just the 11-year sunspot cycle. And I am also fully aware of the work done on temperatures and atmospheric content by studying such things as tree rings and core samples taken from glaciers and ice sheets. So there is considerable information that can be at least inferred about solar radiation that goes back a long way before 1978. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:45 PM "Solar cycles Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behaviour of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been suggested; only the 11 and 22 year cycles are clear in the observations. 2,300 year Hallstatt solar variation cycles. 11 years: Most obvious is a gradual increase and decrease of the number of sunspots over a period of about 11 years, called the Schwabe cycle and named after Heinrich Schwabe. The Babcock Model explains this as being due to a shedding of entangled magnetic fields. The Sun's surface is also the most active when there are more sunspots, although the luminosity does not change much due to an increase in bright spots ( faculae). 22 years: Hale cycle, named after George Ellery Hale. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals. 87 years (70-100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005) 210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005). 2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle Other patterns have been detected: In carbon-14: 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, 2,241 years (Damon and Sonnett, 1991). During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation show cycles of 2,500 years. The sensitivity of climate to cyclical variations in solar forcing will be higher for longer cycles due to the thermal inertia of the ocean, which acts to damp high frequencies. Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate was 1.5 times as sensitive to 22 year cyclical forcing relative to 11 year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertial induced a lag of approximately 2.2 years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data." Predictions based on patterns A simple model based on emulating harmonics by multiplying the basic 11-year cycle by powers of 2 produced results similar to Holocene behaviour. Extrapolation suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near Little Ice Age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum. There is weak evidence for a quasi-periodic variation in the sunspot cycle amplitudes with a period of about 90 years. These characteristics indicate that the next solar cycle should have a maximum smoothed sunspot number of about 145±30 in 2010 while the following cycle should have a maximum of about 70±30 in 2023. Because carbon-14 cycles are quasi periodic, Damon and Sonett (1989) predict future climate: Cycle length Cycle name Last positive carbon-14 anomaly Next "warming" 232 --?-- AD 1922 (cool) AD 2038 208 Suess AD 1898 (cool) AD 2002 88 Gleisberg AD 1986 (cool) AD 2030 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM Though if you WANT to use sunspots, ... "Sunspot activity has been measured using the Wolf number for about 300 years. This index (also known as the Zürich number) uses both the number of sunspots and the number of groups of sunspots to compensate for variations in measurement. A 2003 study by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland found that sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years. Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode." So, if there is any further discussion of the solar output being "fixed", please supply at least a theroy as to why the data indicates otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 09 - 12:34 PM In case you want a picture, let me find one for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg If you want the original source, feel free to look- I am tired of wasting time telling idiots what the scientific community has known for some time. |
