Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Evidence Accumlating that Global Warming Driven by Sun
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, November 08, 2008

While the politicians move ahead (or stay behind, you decide) considering how to combat AGW and impose a "cap and trade" system on a faltering economy, you may want to read through this:
Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming. However, in a recent article entitled "Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?" I presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause. But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun's electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center.
Yes he said "theory" (AGW is a theory as well). But he also said "evidence is accumulating". Any guess as to how open-minded the consensus crowd will be to this or any new evidence which would tend to discredit their theory? Espeically with their guru's party now coming into power with him calling for something called "sustainable capitalism?"

[HT: McQ2]
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Unfortunately this "research" is published at the "Institute for Creation Research". Any "science" coming out of an anti-scientific body like this must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Written By: A.N.Onymous
URL: http://
Well obviously, then, given the most important aspect of all of this is where it is published, it will easily be taken apart by "science".

Go for it.

My quick read through the article shows nothing to dissuade me that his theory is based in science.
Written By: McQ
Unfortunately this "research" is published at the "Institute for Creation Research". Any "science" coming out of an anti-scientific body like this must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
No, the linked article is published is published there. The research is performed and published elsewhere (ex. Physical Review Letters), but you wouldn’t know that since you took the narrow-minded route of intellectual laziness.
Written By: huh
URL: http://
Perhaps the Institute of Creation Research may not be the most scientifically compelling institution, but then again, there’s undoubtedly great pressure on the liberal illuminati not to report anything that would conflict with Obama’s global warming program. So because right-wingers have nothing to lose, they just may be the ones to listen to—and go ahead and do your homework. It can’t hurt.
Written By: A.
URL: http://
Well, i guess that won’t stop the big Zero from spending trillions to fix what ain’t broke. But that is what he is about isn’t it.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I’ve got to agree with the first post. Right message, absolutely the wrong messenger.

I understand it’s an uphill battle to get this kind of opinion and papers about the causes of ’global warming’ out, but people with an interest and background in science are gonna click on that link and then close it out because of the position on creationism. That’s exactly what I did.
Written By: sookie
URL: http://
Messengers don’t validate or invalidate messages - they just deliver them. It’s up to the individual to be smart enough to figure that out.
Written By: McQ
I just today read a comment on this very topic at

". . if [you are] thinking about GCR-cloud connections [the Svensmark theory], [modelling] is being done (it requires a full aerosol model including all the different modes of formation, accumulation, growth and impacts on clouds), but all estimates so far are that changes in ionisation makes only a negligible difference. This is of course completely independent of critiques of the statistical work put forward by some, and the plain fact that with no trends in GCR, it can’t be related to recent warming." You can find more detail about the critiques of Svensmark at RealClimate.

On the other hand, the consensus view of global warming rests on *many thousands* of peer-reviewed papers, so don’t be too quick to dismiss the mainstream, regardless of the views of the Creationists.
Written By: Kevin McKinney
Hey Kevin - if we’re going to play the "website" game, RealClimate doesn’t have the best "scientific" reputation in the world.

Additionally, peer reviewed doesn’t mean "right" if the premise is wrong to begin with.
Written By: McQ
L7T3KI ouhuxubrkldt, [url=]mecogdiipsoh[/url], [link=]ktnzciknkpcw[/link],
Written By: 3
w5Lcbx prnbgrdyyvwp, [url=]rejrqgpiwvsh[/url], [link=]whaocbiwcpaz[/link],
Written By: 3

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks