Brett,

While I am not a believer in AGW I am not going to stand up and yell "Ice Age". It's good to try and predict the climate but humans do not have the technology. Sure it can cool for the next 3 decades but then it could warm up again, we will never really know until it comes. I say anything is possible and they could very well be correct, but then again they could be just like the AGWers and shouting cold instead of warming...

Climate does what is wants and humans have no say in it and we have no idea what it will do next...

People should not discount the Sun's effects on the Earth's climate. John Casey does not appear to be a climate change naysayer, but rather a pragmatist who is trying to point out that Solar activity can and does play a major role in determining the earth's climate. It will be interesting to see if his theory proves itself.
Michael Moffitt

Well, Junk Science says he's a fraud.

Be that as it may, I don't think he's proposing anything new here. Certainly it isn't as 'unprecedented' as he seem to think it is. There are many scientists that propose the idea that solar cycles (and there are many) are the driving force behind temperature cycles on decadal and longer scales. Dr Svensmark's work in attempting to establish that the sun's magnetic cycles control the volume of GCR impacting the upper atmosphere creating cloud condensation nuclei that then controls the amount of cloud cover (changing albedo enough to raise or lower temps) is an example.

The idea that a convergence of different solar cycles adds to the temp cycle isn't new either. The 1470+- year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles cited by Dr. Singer in his book, "Unstoppable Global Warming", are actually a coincidence of two cycles of 87 and 210 years. Then, of course there are the non-solar cycles -- precession (23,000 years), axial tilt (41,000 years), and orbital elliptical cycle (100,000 years) - all affecting the temp cycles as well.

All in all this guy is, in my opinion at least, just trying to hype already known information to get funding. Kinda sorta like what some climate scientists are doing.

I honestly do not believe this new study will make any difference to how people from the skeptic side or those from the AGW (now about to become ACC Anthropogenic Climate Change) side will view things. After all the majority of people have their mind made up one way or the other and few are open to sensible discussion on this issue.

Darren is spot on.......AMEN!

Last fall I looked into the scientific literature of sunspot cycles. There were dozens of predictions made as to when the next cycle might begins. And they seemed to all use different trends & theories.

It is clear the processes controlling the cycles inside the sun aren't even understood or predictable for the next cycle. So how does someone ( with zero publications ) hit upon a way to make accurate predictions several cycles in advance?

As PT Barnum may have said - there's a sucker born every minute.

Maybe this guy and the warming alarmists can duke it out since they most certainly are on opposite sides of this debate. I am not sure why I necessarily feel this way, but having experienced -30 weather several times in my life, the idea of global cooling worries me plenty. Nobody is packing their cars during the summer for any possible emergency, but they darn sure are packing them with all sorts of extra clothing, food during the winter, at least around here.

It would seem that the warming alarmists really can't call these cold alarmists a bunch of quacks since they both are advocating a pro-active position to meet climate change. The only question is what climate change is really coming and how soon and for how long. Whew, lots of think about!!!!

I think it will be hot tomorrow. Cold in January.

of course they're right, I have done extensive research on this topic and I have only come to one scientific conclusion.
Now Al Gore and his crew are all politicians, without even a minor scientific degree. Their aim is to make money and ruin the US's economy.
In the past year, the temperature has fallen around 0.7 degrees celsius, which is enough to wipe out a century of warming.
Think about it: What's more powerful: your SUV, or the sun???

This seems just as feasible as the non-proven AGW theory. After, the earth hasn't warmed in the last several years and the sun does appear to be asleep. I don't see anything close to an ice age coming out of this, but I really have no concern about the planet burning either. The earth probably will cool down some and most of us will probably make it through in pretty good shape.

Gee. Panic mongering of a different sort. This should make cold weather lovers like BT and Mark do backflips. But then again, it doesn't give a reason for their pals in big government to throw their weight around. While I beleive that glo-BULL warming is a crock (obviously), and that the lack of sunspots is screwing everything up, I don't think we should be panicing (yet) about dangerously cold weather. As far as I am concerned, where I am at, it can't get any colder! The earth will take care of itself. Get over it!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!!

I am very skeptical of these claims although I have been reading from many sources that global warming ended in 1998. Maybe it is time for accuweather to consider adding a global cooling site.

Interesting piece Bret! I have encountered the sunspot cycles and climate cycles as related in other sources (can't remember where or who offhand) and indeed this makes sence. Other factors include eccentricities of Earth's orbit, it stands to reason that the Earth's orbit shifting further out during a cool cycle of the sun would further cool the planet. However there are other space weather factors...The Earth and her solar system are hurling through space some three quarters the way out on a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy.Some say we have entered the Photon Belt already, since about 1987..In the Electric Universe Model the Stars are fueled by electrical currents through space, mostly from a galactic center. I have read interesting posts concerning a galactic cycle of some 900 thousand years where our solar system goes through a belt of photonic energy (photon belt) emenating from the galactic core. This may explain in part why other planets of our solar system are warming also. Perhaps the combination of Artificially Enhanced Global Warming (GHG or EMF or AGW)and Photon bombardment of our solar system is producing the interesting weather .... When we look at a system for analysis or troubleshooting, we need to take account of all the factors, otherwise we make erronious, though plausible, deductions! My thought here is the Global Cooling my be offset by the Photon Belt space weather etc.

This theory is along the lines of the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) hypothesis propsed by Rhodes Fairbridge. The work of Theodore Landscheidt is also somewhat similar.

What they have are observations and correlations - without a proven physical mechanism to explain it. (note the word proven - there are several proposed mechanisms including cloud formation induced by GCRs).

If you go back and look at the various solar minimums in history (Oort, Maunder, Dalton, etc.), the data matches very well with the current very low solar activity, the extended solar cycle 23, and the last 12 months of cooling trend in the temperature data.

In my opinion it is very plausible that we are heading into the next "grand minimum" and much cooler temperatures over the 2-3 solar cycles.

Dang it!

I was just beginning to enjoy the warmth and now it's over.

I don't like ice. Bad for the garden, driving, and oil drilling.

Seriously, this guy and or group has no better understanding of the climate than do the followers of Gore. No offense to any, it's just that the problem is complex and NO ONE has enough actual quality information to make a reasonable guess at the future.

I will start to think that the meteorologic sciences have a chance at scoping out the climate when a 15 day forecast verifies in both temp and precip. Oh and since the significant digits related to climate change predictions are often in tenths of a degree, the 15 day numbers should also verify to tenths of degree.

I know what you're thinking that the two forecasts are vastly different but simply put, if you can't figure out what happens short term there is no way that you can figure out long term since the initial states are incorrectly assessed.

I can't speak to this guy's actual credentials, although the staff listed on their website isn't awe-inspiring (not that degrees seem to matter anymore given the politicization of the topic). However, it doesn't seem that he is producing anything new. The Russian Academy of Sciences made the global cooling - sunspot correlation in the past as have many others. Their prediction was cooling beginning with SC25. Interestingly enough though, SC24 still has not begun (by the classic definition), and according to Solarcycle24.com there have been no sunspots at all of either cycle (23 or 24) for 16 days.

I asked in another thread but didn't receive a reply. Brett, who was counting sunspots in the 15th Century and why - and how? Astrologers maybe? I've learned a lot of interesting things in this blog and this one got my attention. Thanks.

Reply: I hear Chinese astronomers were the first, actually well before the 15th century. Galileo started observing them in the 1600's.

While I do not think AGW is a real significant concern, nor do I think the temporary lack of sunspots is either. Quite frankly, this guy sounds like a crackpot.

Hmm. Speculation is fun, but is it accurate? I agree - one the GFS is able to verify for 384 hours with little error...then we can start seriously considering climate models or predictions.

Although I am a meteorologist, and a fan of winter (because of the increase in weather)...and probably would be more entertained by colder weather - blindly believing in global cooling or warming - is a tad outlandish.

But hey, what ever entertains the mind, right? We will see what really happens eventually. Either way, we'll adapt and overcome.

Bob,

I most heartily hope that you are wrong. Living through a 'grand minimum' is not a very pleasant prospect. Interesting to note that there were warm years, in fact hot years, during the 'Little Ice age' and this was what caused most of the problems, rapid change from a warm/hot year to a series of cold years whipsawed the climate/weather systems.

Most of the most devastating storms that afflicted Europe during this period were during very cold years.

Hmmm...The 179 year Fairbridge Minimum sounds a bit more plausible:

The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.

So explained Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume.....

Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=bfeddc8e-90d7-4f54-9ca7-1f56fadc7c2b

[Just recently, ABC NEWS, Wednesday, 2 July 2008:>>

�Australian astronomers may have found a solution to how far-away Jupiter and Saturn drive the sun's solar cycle.....

...The authors propose that this spin-orbit coupling takes the form of a 9:8 resonance, with the 179 year alignment cycle of the Jovian planets being equal to nine alignments of Jupiter and Saturn and eight 22-year Hale cycles...�
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/02/2292281.htm?site=science&topic=latest

Over at solarcycle24.com they are calling it the "Gore Minimum!" :p

I'd take it with a grain of salt. But I do not expect the major media or the AGW cultists to mention it.
It might be true, but who knows.
My argument has always been that we don't have enough real data to make accurate conclusions.
In college I remember learning that astronomical accuracy didn't mean precise..it meant give or take a few light years,

I agree with this guy more than the global warming politicians. When all things are said and done, it all comes down to the sun. And I am not a scientist, but it just stands to reason that the sun has infinitely more power and control over weather than us insignificant humans. Throughout history we have always overestimated our place in the universe and this global warming scare is just another example. At some point in the future nature will put us back in our place, we have just had unusually good weather for the past couple thousand years allowing us to thrive.

The only thing I don't like is the scare tactics saying there will be mass loss of life, food, etc. That just tells me he is after funding. But, his idea is more plausible in my eyes than the warming theory.

Regardless of this chap's scientific speculation, he must be on the right track since he has already suffered ad hominem attacks from the AGW crowd. At least the AGWers on this site have been less aggressive than at some times in the past and that civility is appreciated.

This paper gives more detail on the SIM hypothesis.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

You can also goolge Theodore Landscheit and find many of his papers.

It makes a lot of sense to me - but I am not a solar physicist. Most of them do not buy into it - but they also can't explain the extended quiet of solar cycle 23 either.

According to this theory

-The new climate will produce dangerously cold weather that will result in worldwide agricultural ,social and economic disruption.

"Yeah right" Like the world has never had those problems before.

To blame the cold for agricultural,social and economic disruption would be like blaming Brett for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the coast of Alaska.Which actually gave the economy a boost because it created jobs for the clean up.
What a joke.

Scientists have been measuring the sun's magnetic field as a precursor to the following sunspot cycle. NASA satellite Ulysses has been measuring the sun's magnetic field for 17 years, and recently ended its mission with NASA issuing the following statement: "Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun's poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history." See: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-106

Anthony Watts, in his blog has been noting that the sun's magnetic field seems to have experienced a sharp drop in October 2005 and has remained there since. See: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=geomagnetic

Additionally, he has been presenting data from and others with respect to the global temperature anomaly as measured by four separate agencies. For the first 6 months of 2008, the global temperature anomaly has been negative, essentially erasing all of the global warming over the past 100 years.

One other point is that the world has been arguing whether or not global warming is caused by man under the assumption that any warming from some arbitrary date in the 1900's would be detrimental. That is an entire separate theory that does not seem to be debated much anywhere, but may be a mute point if indeed the sun continues to remain inactive and the earth continues to cool.

It's hard to evaluate John Casey and his organization - the very vague language in his press release is suspect. However, the sun activity theory is well founded. Please take notice of the work of Dr Sallie Baliunas, a well trained astrophysicist who has been presenting data on this for years (see link below). She received little recognition from Harvard when she was on staff of the Harvard-Smithsonian Observatory.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

RC theory - interesting, unproven, less than fully credible, deserving of further study.

I remain an AGW skeptic, but I react with dismay when some on this forum call AGW a "scam". I think AGW theory deserves our thoughtful, open-minded consideration and we should all be closely following new developments from the climate science community.

My feeling is that our understanding of the natural drivers of global climate change is currently insufficient to support the draconian measures in CO2 reductions being called for by the warmistas.

I must give the same treatment to the RC theory for the same reason. I'm not investing in equatorial property just yet.....

Hi Brett,

I was emailed one of Mr. Casey's press releases back in January. It seemed "not quite right" and contained typos along with some grand claims about changes in the sun.

After further investigation it turns out he is operating a one man office at the Space and Science Research Center. There are some questions over whether an office actually exists or if it is simply a phone number with answering service and website. It was unverifiable back then, and I'm not expending the effort now to see if there has been a change.

My take is that it is a fishing expedition for funds.

I chose not to present any of the press release in January and I'm skipping this one too.

Reply: I suspected it was a one man show based on the address as well. There are some things in the press release that make you suspicious, but who knows. I have presented stuff by one man organizations in the past that have had opposite views. Trying to be fair.

Bob: "This theory is along the lines ..."

For whatever its worth, I agree to the letter.

Casey, however, is attempting deception with regard to his credentials, as if any were needed.

a theory that says fluctuations in that big ball of fire in the sky is responsible for climate change is a hell of alot more credible than some computer generated fairytale based on a miniscule increase in a life sustaining gas...considering global temperatures are plummeting, sunspots are late, hansen has been caught fudging the data, antarctica is freezing over and al gore proven he is a convenient liar, one has too consider what this dude says...only, time will tell, but the consequences of solar minimum isnt something to revel about...peace, bros!!!

"Their aim is to make money and ruin the US's economy."

See as much as I am skeptic, I do not believe they have evil intentions. I think they believe a lot of what they are saying. I think they turn up the notch a lot to get the attention they believe the issue merits. There is nothing in it for them to ruin the US economy. I do think they see fossil fuels and the people working in the industry as evil and are working overtime to underscore that position. Equally I do think they know they are financially benefiting from all this media thrust on the subject. Their heads and wallets are getting bigger. The more finances and political preference plays a part in this green movement the more corrupt it will become. That is the problem I think.

You know what's so great about 100 year extended climate forecasting? Anyone can be an "expert".

Anyway, this is a good OT article.

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion"

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html

Here is my prediction -

Catastrophic global cooling will exactly counter catastrophic global warming, and after ten years people will decide to quit wasting hundreds of billions of dollars funding climate scientists.

Well whether Casey's cycle theory is right or wrong doesn't matter much; the fact (by experimental measurements) is that the earth IS now cooling and has been since about 1995, and quite rapidly since Jan 2007; and all this despite the fact that global CO2 continues to climb.

According to Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth pp66/67) Atmospheric CO2 levels rise about 800 years AFTER global surface temperatures rise, and CO2 falls about 800 years AFTER global surface temperatures fall. Nobody disputes those facts determined from Vostok Ice cores, as used in Gore's book (although he did try to hide that fact by vertically separating the curves so it is harder to see; but the raw data shows it clearly).

So since we now have a period of rising atmospheric CO2 levels, and since less than 4% of that is relarted in any way to human activity; then we should look back 800 years to see what was going on.
Well 800 years ago was 1200 AD which is right in the middle of the mediaeval warming period.

So today's CO2 levels are a result of outgassing of ocean CO2 due to global warming that happened around 1200 AD, when temperatures were much warmer than they are now.

And the MWP was followed immediately by the little ice age; so we can expect the Mauna Loa CO2 data to start heading down again in the next 200 years.

And right now Atmospheric CO2 levels are the lowest that have been in the last 600 million years; about 3-400 ppm whereas we used to have 7000 ppm, and throughout all that high CO2 era the earth's temperature never went above 22 deg C (in the temperate and tropical regions where plants can grow) That is not too different from today's 15 deg C which includes the cold polar regions where nothing grows.

So regardless of Casey's credentials; the facts are quite clear CO2 doesn't cause global warming, but the exact opposite is true; global warming causes CO2.

The sun is responsible for changes in the Earth's climate? What has this guy been smoking?

Seriously, if the research has been peer-reviewed, it must be absolutely correct, right? Peer-review is the gold standard of all AGW research, so this must necessarily invalidate all other contradictory research which proceeded it.

Great to see a set of responses that are somewhat balanced and moderate. The sources for this stuff are not as well qualified (understatement) as the 99% of scientists who are concerned about CO2 as a cause of the increase in dangerous weather effects (floods, drought, wind, fires, starvation, social upheaval) reported in world news (and on this site in the daily world weather report), and have stated that the debate is over. There's plenty of funding available to support the foot-dragging, delay-promotion machine that favors existing big money. A while back my facts were criticized by someone who chose to make a direct comparison between funding to Senator Inhofe's campaign and funding for research and development to show that the big money was not promoting this campaign. It took me a little while to figure this out but woke me up to the need to check sources.

If you want to find out for yourself instead of believing something because it is repeated over and over (often in a bullying tone), I think dot Earth is an accessible and interesting source, with a variety of alternative resources in the responses. This item is from a discussion claiming volcanic heat was changing the picture of Arctic melting.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-last-round-on-fire-under-north-pole-ice/

Ironically, when I checked dotEarth today the most recent post is about another whistleblower outing political interference with science.

I dare despite the expected shock/horror responses to mention Dr. Hansen, a whistleblower who was gagged because he dared to stand up to political spin (thought he has finally been allowed to speak out), or the Union of Concerned Scientists which is an organization set up by scientists to fight the politicization of science (and yes, all administrations on both sides have tried to politicize science to some degree, it's the scale and extremity that are new).

I am closely acquainted with several of the Nobel laureates who are mentioned in the referenced article in today's post, which is why I, a non-scientist with some scientific training, have been following and worrying about this issue for so long.

I just read in the headlines section of this site that on this date in 1936 there was an intense heat wave covering the eastern portion of the country. I know that the Dust Bowl was also around this time frame. What was the cause? There were no SUVs, automobiles were not in wide use and there were a lot less people on the earth. My thinking is that the climate runs in cycles. Always has always will. Let's stop this silly AGW propaganda.

Brett, wasn't it completely obvious to you that this guy's stuff is the purest of crackpottery? Posting it here is like tossing peanuts into a crowd of hungry monkeys. BTW, peer-review is a formal process necessarily linked to getting published in a legitimate scientific publication.

Reply: Steve, I was just waiting for your comment on this one. No surprise in your response.

Mark B.: "the Russian Academy of Sciences made the global cooling - sunspot correlation in the past as have many others."

No, they didn't. They have the same position on global warming as all the other major academies. One guess as to what that is.

Gary - I agree with you about Casey's credentials (or lack thereof). I just didn't want to discredit the idea of the solar cylce being a major driver of climate.

I have a decent conceptual background in physics - although I admit I am not qualified to prove or refute papers. But SIM appeals to me because I am an Occam's Razor kind of guy.

Brett:
Instead of looking for the smoking toe, why don't you post some science from the IPCC. Now that is something that we can all comment about. This fellow is not peer reviewed, but leaves his two cents like a hooker, to sell his new Company. I wonder who his financial sponsors are. Why don't you ever post long term trends or anything from the IPCC. (Reply: I have posted many things in the past from scientists who co-authored part of the IPCC.) Isn't this a global warming blog. Perhaps your boss, the president of Accuweather, is a right-winger. Now this gang has stripped the skin off of BT and Mark, so they have chosen to blog elsewhere. Letting bloggers gang up on others isn't fair or decent. There needs to be a certain level of respect which I don't find. Everyone has a right to their opinion, including Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen. If someone doesn't like what they say disprove them, not their right to say it.
KIPP

Steve Bloom, a lot of the skeptics were quick to discredit and question this story, they did it without being a as well. Perhaps you could learn from them.

This guy is not talking abou AGC or anything. He is talking about the down swing of the temperature cycle of climate.

Kipp,

You love the IPCC report dont you... that has been talked about a lot on here. Welcome to the party.

kipp-just ret fm vacation and enjoyed many of the exchanges between you and others on the july 3 forum-any way you observed and wondered about the planetary warming seemed to be happenning more in the nh vs the sh-one pos explanation could be the toplike wobble of the earth positioning direct rays of the sun to hit maybe 25-100 miles further north than normal

during the 9-10 months ive been enjoying this site many different cycle and oscillations etc have been discussed and how often they occur is it possible that many of these cylces happen to be occurring simultaneously creating more of a warming trend than sy if half were occuring-the same could be said for cooling trends-perhaps the sunspot cycle is the first of such cycles to move to the cooler side

by the way cycles are not limited to just the sun earth orbit and atmospheric cycles volcanic and other geographic influences can also affect climate and weather-so its just possible that in 1990 a bunch of cycles conspired to warm up the earth for the next 17 years and with a little help from saddam hussein they managed to do it
even though im a skeptic theres a "throw me a bone" for my agw friends

WeatherWatcher:

"I dare despite the expected shock/horror responses to mention Dr. Hansen, a whistleblower who was gagged because he dared to stand up to political spin"

You conflate the spinner and the spinee. BTW, my cats qualify as weatherwatchers of some experience. Do I need to feed you too?

Global Warming has ended? LOL.
I'm still waiting for my winter. Oiznop, you predicted I would be dealing with snow this time of the year... :( I want my Winter back!

Brett: "Steve, I was just waiting for your comment on this one. No surprise in your response."

And no content in yours, Brett, although you did more or less state your view in your responses to Kipp. Here's the problem:

You said above that you posted this to be "fair." I find that a little confusing. There are hundreds of crackpot global warming ideas out there that could never pass peer review, so why single out this one in particular? Do you feel a need to have a certain number of crackpot-oriented posts? Doesn't that just tend to confuse readers as to the state of the science?

There are more than enough marginal hypotheses out there that do pass peer review, a few of which you do post on but most of which you skip. More significantly, in any given week there are two or three significant contributions to understanding global warming that never get mentioned here. Is it "fair" to exclude those? Reply; Steve, again, this blog is just a small part of my overall job. I only have so much time to research articles and there is no doubt there are going to be many that I miss. This particular one was forwarded to me by a co-worker. Feel free to forward some articles that you would like to see posted to me. I cannot say for sure that I will use it, but I am willing to consider them.

This being a blog, one reasonable explanation would be that posting on outlandish ideas helps with traffic. That would be a perfectly understandable explanation, but it has little to do with fairness.

FYI, Kipp, the founder and head of AccuWeather (I don't know how much of it he actually owns) is very much a right-winger, although when this has been raised before Brett has responded that it has no effect on the content of this blog. Brett also notes that he's a Democrat, although I suspect that may make him somewhat of a lefty pinko in the context of AW.

Brett, I should add that I do think the quality of your posts has been improving long-term. Obviously I set a pretty high bar, but it's obvious that this improvement could not have occurred unless you were making a major effort to understand the material.

Rich,

There is no limit to the damage that is being done to the psyches of young people by these global warming predators.

Kipp wrote:
"Isn't this a global warming blog. Perhaps your boss, the president of Accuweather, is a right-winger. Now this gang has stripped the skin off of BT and Mark, so they have chosen to blog elsewhere. Letting bloggers gang up on others isn't fair or decent. There needs to be a certain level of respect which I don't find. Everyone has a right to their opinion, including Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen. If someone doesn't like what they say disprove them, not their right to say it."

Kipp, I join you in your wish for more mutual respect in the discussion here. However, I get the feeling that you and Steve would like to see only pro-AGW, Gavin-approved content here. If Brett did that, the skeptics would go elsewhere and then who would you debate? Wouldn't that be rather boring?
Also, with RealClimate already in existence, there's no need for another highly edited forum with only pro-AGW content.

mr alpert with a "p",

the international panel on climate conspiracy says the world should be boiling over...how long will it take for you to realize the opposite is happening?...the obvious conclusion is AGW is a SCAM and the IPCC is a political joke on real science...by the way, AL GORE has been proven to lying about just about everything in his movie and his pal HANSEN, the head honcho at the GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, thinks satellite temperatures are less reliable than his PROVEN TO BE MANIPULATED faulty, earth-based thermometers...tell me bro, why would a guy at the head of a space agency rely on faulty earth thermometers and not satellites?...when are you going to wake up and smell the roses you are being had?...or r you to emotionally attached to a liberal agenda to see thru to the truth?...

WeatherWatcher wrote:
"The sources for this stuff are not as well qualified (understatement) as the 99% of scientists who are concerned about CO2 as a cause of the increase in dangerous weather effects (floods, drought, wind, fires, starvation, social upheaval) reported in world news (and on this site in the daily world weather report), and have stated that the debate is over."

Congratulations! I don't think anyone else can pack as much unsupported pro-AGW ranting in one sentence as you can. I admire that. :)

I think a credible case can be made that extreme weather events have been occurring since time immemorial and are neither more frequent nor more extreme than in the past. It's also pure speculation to tie any one weather event to AGW.

Starvation and social upheaval due to AGW - sources please.

Consensus is not the same as proof. Climate model predictions are not the same as data. As long as climate research continues, the science is not settled. As long as there are credible, dissenting scientists, the debate is not over.

Kipp Alpert:

The attempt to silence people and "gang up on them" is coming from the left, not the right. Which side started the "debate is over" mantra that tried to connect every scientist, who dared disagree with AGW, to Big Oil? Which side has "adjusted" the numbers from past and present in order to better fit their POV? Which side said that people who disagree with them should lose their credentials or worse, charged with crimes? Which famous scientist made a big production back in 1998 (during a near unprecedented El Nino) about how warm it was and now claims his predictions were accurate when they clearly are not anywhere close? Which side of the debate regularly launches ad hominem attacks on people who ask questions about their codes, sources, and data? Which side is trying to claim that a "consensus" is tantamount to proof that a theory is correct? Which side uses aliases (like Steve Bloom) because they are too cowardly to use their real names? BTW, how is that degree in Astronomy working to help James Hansen understand Climatology when people with Meteorological degrees are told they don't understand 'Climate" and should leave it to the experts? So Kipp, next time you decide to throw stones, you might better make sure your glass insurance is paid up.

Kipp Alpert | July 9, 2008 4:49 PM

"Everyone has a right to their opinion, including Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen."

I agree 100%.

"If someone doesn't like what they say disprove them, not their right to say it."

I'd agree if Gore and Hanson were just some folks at the party, but they are not. They are proposing massive changes to our economic and Governmental system. They bear the full burden of proof and they have not provided it. If this was a party conversation, I would move on for a more enlightened conversation.

Steve Bloom,

It is not the Russian Academy of Sciences per se but individual fellows (Oleg Sorokhtin, Yuri Zaitsev and Habibullo Abdussamatov for example) of the RAOS that see correlation between sunspot activity and climate change.

You're correct in that the Russian Academy of Sciences officially supports the IPCC position on AGW.

Thanks for the correction. Mark

PETE: Touche!

Funny I had someone tell me that they'd rather not listen to me about my dissenting voice on AGW. They said they'd rather hear from 'a climatologist'. And I'm a meteoroligst. That's borderline ridiculous. How the BLEEP do you think someone became a climo guy? From studying poly sci? Give me a break!

What strikes me more than the headline, is how the anti-AGW side here was quick to take the same stance as they have against GW and that is nobody can predict that far in advance and that this theory hasnt been proven. They easily could've said, see AGW really isnt real, but they didnt. They are consistant in not wanting governments to rush into spending billion of dollars for something that is still being debated. This means for both a warmer or cooler future. Very admirable.

Brett, it must be very difficult to each day find NEW articles on this subject. Than to get scorned by one side or the other no matter what you post. When poster's like myself ask for no personal attacks, that includes non against you. I applaud how unbiased you have been. Keep up the good work.

Reply: Thanks Goldfinger

Steve B:
You Said:
Brett, I should add that I do think the quality of your posts has been improving long-term. Obviously I set a pretty high bar, but it's obvious that this improvement could not have occurred unless you were making a major effort to understand the material.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by nonsense.
You really must be impressed with yourself even when you are so completely wrong.

RICH Says; 'You know what's so great about 100 year extended climate forcasting ? Anyone can be an "expert" '. SAGWH Says; Definition of an Expert- EX is a "Has Been", 'SPURT' is a drip under pressure. Sounds like a certain NASA scientist we all have come to know and love whose name I will not mention. [But his Intitials are ........ James Hansen].

Mark B., as it would be very rare to see a member of a major science academy take such a position, I checked to see if any of the three were either full or corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Science. They're not.

I think what may have confused you is that, in contrast to the NAS in the U.S., the RAS runs the Russian network of national laboratories. As a result, many scientists are employed by the RAS but are not members. There, as here, actual membership is reserved to a limited number of very accomplished scientists.

The RAS member page is here. Click on full member and then corresponding member on the left bar to check the names yourself.

So what we have here are scientists who work for the RAS and have stated their personal views. That's fine, but the fact that none of them has peer-reviewed publications supporting those views is a hint as to how much weight to give them.

"Which side uses aliases (like Steve Bloom) because they are too cowardly to use their real names?"

Hmm, "cowardly." Personal attack, Brett?

That's an odd thing to say for someone with a sufficiently common name so as to make them effectively anonymous. My name is fairly common too, but as I've been commenting on various climate blogs for about five years now and am politically active it's possible with maybe 10 or 15 minutes of googling to figure out which Steve Bloom I am.

It's even odder when you consider that the vast majority of participants here are using names or aliases that can't be traced.

For the record, I always use my real name. I suspect Michael Jennings may have gotten a different idea from reading the AW forums. He should know better than to believe what he reads in comments here or there without some means of independently confirming them.

Our young friend E says: Global Warming has ended? LOL.
I'm still waiting for my winter. Oiznop, you predicted I would be dealing with snow this time of the year... :( I want my Winter back!

REPLY: Um, lets take a peek at the long range for Buenos Aries, shall we?

http://www.accuweather.com/world-forecast-15day.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&locCode=SAM|AR|AR007|BUENOS%20AIRES&metric=1

And this kid is complaining about there not being a winter in El Districto Federales. Minus the low temperatures, which look pretty darn cold to me (and yes, I realize they are celcius readings, which puts them in the low 40sF, Brrrr!), if my winter long ranges looked like this, I'd be doing cartwheels. Honestly, I just can't figure out these cold weather loving/panic mongering people people. They just don't know how good they have it sometimes. Again E, you are NOT going to get any sympathy from me.

Buenos Aires Low Temperatures. Proof that Glo-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!!!!

Ken Westerman, July 9 10:07 pm-
"How the BLEEP do you think someone became a climo guy? From studying poly sci? Give me a break!"

reply-
Poly sci? Is that anything like Astronomy?

Steve Bloom,

It is not the Russian Academy of Sciences per se but individual fellows (Oleg Sorokhtin, Yuri Zaitsev and Habibullo Abdussamatov for example) of the RAOS that see correlation between sunspot activity and climate change.

You're correct in that the Russian Academy of Sciences officially supports the IPCC position on AGW.

Thanks for the correction. Mark

Global warming has not ended here. It is much warmer now than it was six months ago. Using the standard linear and non-linear extrapolation techniques of climate modelers I predict that temperatures will be over 120 degrees at Christmas.

PH,

Absolutely correct... but it's not just young people. Our future President will soon jump the gun because he too buys into this hysteria/delusion.

It appears that we are being held hostage by global warming/environmental fear mongers in such a way that it resembles the Stockholm syndrome.

I do not understand how anyone concludes that unless we take immediate and drastic CO2 counter measures, the planet is doomed. It's just mind boggling.

And as this AGW distraction drags on, Iran continues it's defiance. But fear not, Barrack Obama will go to the middle east and CONVINCE the Iranians that they are WRONG. Right.

Good luck with that OR should I say... bonne chance monsieur Obama.

Hey ALARMists, what's going to happen if Iran restricts passage through the staight of Hormuz? They already threatened to do this. You think fuel prices are high now? Wouldn't it be a good idea to start drilling from our own sources AND create alternative energy at the same time?

You are all so dazed and confused (Stockholm syndrome) you don't realize that your environmental policies are more dangerous than any warming would be. Tick-tick goes the clock. Wake up or get out of the way.

Reply: RICH let's not stray too far from the topic. I don't want to open a new can of worms.

So which Steve Bloom do you claim to be? The Artist, the Professor, the Lawyer, the Photographer, or just the all knowing self convinced entity we see on this blog? As for my "personal" attack, you are much more abrasive and disrespectful to our host than I have been to you. Brett tries to keep an even keel here and is obviously still searching for answers but you seem to have (in your own mind) captured all those. From your attitude I would make a guess that you are Steve Bloom, the Professor.

Mark B., there's no such thing as a "fellow" of the RAS. As noted, there are two classes of member and then employees. "Fellow" implies a status that those three don't have.

So, Brett, it's OK here to accuse someone of being "cowardly" based on a false accusation? Interesting if so.

Reply: Oh, and it is ok to reference one as a leftist pinko?

Anyway, I will remove the word "cowardly" if you wish.

Steve Bloom,

You and all the other AGW alarmists seem to think that just because many people agree on something that it is true. Could you provide me with the evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to get hotter? I know you and others have debated about Venus and Mercury, but I have to flaws with that debate:

1. Mercury has NO atmosphere Venus does, it is comprised of 90 some-odd-percent CO2. If Mercury had any type of atmosphere regardless of its contents it would be hotter, wouldn't it?

2. Even if #1 isn't true, Venus' atmosphere is 90 some-odd-percent CO2 about 15 times more than the Earth....

I am not trying to start a name calling, "Mike is just a typical right wing idiot" arguement. I would just like to have this explained to me.

RICH,

I think the greatest gift I have given my children was to never have a TV in the house (except during the World Cup.)

They are free from the endless fears, addictions and perversions which the networks depend on to keep their customers tuning in. The Dali Lami says that our purpose is to enjoy life.

He didn't say anything about trying to play god and delude yourself into believing that you are saving the planet with mercury containing light bulbs.

Shoot, guys hurry, we need to burn more fossil fuels to try and prevent this ice age, it will cause drought, floods , hurricanes, tornadoes, tomatoes, fires, blizzards, sunshine, clouds, famine, feast, over population of polar bears in which maulings will occur, sea level drop ocean ports will be miles from where they need to be, please, please we all must do all we can, get rid of your twirly light bulbs, blacktop your yard, we need to make a movie to make you believe this is real, follow me I will save you!
Sincerly, Hale Bore

Really which would be better Global Cooling or warming? Really you shouldn't even have to think. Bottom line, the earth does what it does, the sun does what it does and we have NO control over it! And thats a fact.

Brett, the "leftist pinko" comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I kind of like the idea of being the Professor, MJ, although in a really dark alley I suppose someone could mistake me for Ginger as long as I kept my mouth shut.

Rich, you need to try to distinguish between a "doomed" planet and one that has merely become a much less pleasant place to live for most people.

Re the Stockholm Syndrome, I don't see it. In contrast, the Dunning-Kruger Effect seems to be all too common in the AGW "debate."

Mike, the absolute proof of what you're asking about is grad school atmosphere physics material, and involves math and physics beyond my ability and I suspect yours as well. Alternatively, and probably more usefully, you can read the American Institute of Physics' book-length Discovery of Global Warming, which is a detailed history of how all this stuff got figured out. There are also posts over at RealClimate that cover the same material without the historical context although somewhat more technically.

PH,

Good for you. My wife and I went one step further. We decided not to have children :)

And don't even get me going on those mercury filled lightbulbs. I don't know what is more stupid, those lightbulbs or cows with plastic containers on their backs?

Brett I notice that Steve Bloom rather clumsily uses the cowardly "insult" to avoid responding to the question. IMO, there is MUCH more to fear from people like Steve Bloom than there is from Dick Cheney because their religious zeal to convert everyone to the AGW side includes personal attacks, and attempts to silence (or even imprison those that have differing points of view). We have seen his type before in this country during the They have all the answers and will destroy us while claiming to try to save us.

Steve Bloom,

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by a "planet that has merely become a much less pleasant place to live for most people."

Thank you.

Steve Bloom:

I will look into the sources you provided.

Thank You

Mike

Steve Bloom:

Mike, the absolute proof of what you're asking about is grad school atmosphere physics material, and involves math and physics beyond my ability and I suspect yours as well.

Well Steve, it looks like we just put the finger on how to be qualified to be an AGWer.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."

MJ, I am left breathless by your mentioning me and Dick Cheney in the same sentence, and then being worried about me wanting to put people in jail because of their beliefs. Had it escaped your notice that the Cheney team has been caught doing that very thing? Ever heard of irony?

As for my identity, I don't especially want to be getting e-mail from crazy people, so while it's possible to figure out who I am, I at least want to limit things by making sure the people who find me have basic research skills and the ability to focus for long enough to get the job done.

Also, one would think that if you're going to be attacking someone's credibility for not providing their contact information you would start by doing so for one "Michael Jennings," and then move on to people using obvious pseudonyms like "Patrick Henry" or effectively anonymous single names like "paul."

Say, Brett, how far did you get in math in college? (Reply: I don't remember exactly, too long ago and the math part of calc. was a bad memory. My last two profs. barely spoke english. I think it was calc 3/4 or differential equations maybe. ) There seems to be an anonymous comment above that's directed in part at you, and my goodness is it rude.

Or at least it's trying to be. But on closer examination, it turns out that our anonymous friend was less than careful in his sourcing. Was the quote written by a famous mathematician? Nooo...

I turns out it's from a science fiction work by Robert Heinlein. So was Heinlein a mathematician? Nooo again....

In fact, his Wikipedia bio says: "After his discharge, Heinlein attended a few weeks of graduate classes in mathematics and physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, but quit either because of his health or from a desire to enter politics."

Or perhaps because it was difficult? Well, who knows, but in any case he never got the education. If our anonymous commenter's literary research skills are any indication, I think we can be confident that his expertise in math and physics stops far short of even the level Heinlein achieved.

Steve Bloom:
Pray tell me who (besides terrorist combatants) that Cheney has put in jail for disagreeing with him (for the record, I don't like Cheney or Bush). My name is not a nom de plume and I make no attempt to hide nor deny who I am. With the track record of some who preach AGW that have also predicted other calamaties (like Paul Erhlich, the people who produced the Alar scam, and the premature banning of DDT which has cost millions of lives) it is no surprise that James Hansen's predictions are considered gospel by some here and they are so far off as to be considered incompetent when judged fairly. You have the right to believe whatever you choose just don't try to force it down the rest of our throats and ruining the economy in the process.

I think it's close to that time that we burn more gasoline to counteract this inevitable cooling.

The problem, MJ, is that Cheney/Bush want to decide who is a "terrorist combatant" without benefit of court review. Fortunately, in the end, the courts differed with this creative "interpretation" of the Constitution, so "Michael Jennings" among others is now more or less safe from having to prove to Dick Cheney's satisfaction that he isn't a terrorist combatant. As much of what does on with this is secret, you may wish to read Orwell's 1984 to gain some perspective on the views and methods of people like Cheney.

I notice that the courts have been differing quite a lot with Cheney/Bush's similarly creative interpretation of environmental laws, as with the CAIR ruling the other day.

Global warming is very scientific. And the first law of global warming is that for every prediction made by a global warming scientist, there is an equal and opposite prediction made by another global warming scientist.

If one predicts cold another predicts warm, if one predicts more hurricanes, another predicts fewer...

My take on "the issue" at hand, and while I am skeptical of AGW/ACC, this is also dubious. AGW/ACC, as an unproven theory, has taken on the mantle of social engineering, politics and vast sums of public treasure, which is why it is so untrustworthy. Philosophically, we think we impact, ie control, the climate of our planet? What's next?

We are scratching at the foundations of knowledge, pretending to "know" something, when really we are still not far removed from the wonders of fire. LOL

Meteorologists can't reliably predict the weather, which is a subset of climate, more than just a few days. What hubris to think that anyone can truly predict with any degree of accuracy, sell it as truth, what the climate will be in 5, 10 or even 100 years!

My first post here - and I approved this message!

The problem, Steve Bloom, is with analogies such as yours when you equate Michael Jennings to combatants captured in the Iraq war. What are you thinking?

FYI, Bernie, the Bush regime would gave gotten in less hot water over those prisoners had they limited them to actual combatants captured in Iraq (and Afghanistan). They didn't. Also don't forget that the reason such folks weren't simply treated as POWs (per treaties the U.S. is party to) is because POWs can't be tortured or "rendered."

You may not like to think about it, Bernie, but if it weren't for the courts there would be very little stopping the Bush regime from arresting you (or Michael Jennings) tomorrow and holding you indefinitely, even convicting you, based on secret evidence you would never be allowed to see. I think you need to read up on some of the relevant cases.

The capper to all of this to me was just the other day when John Yoo (remember him?) was testifying to Congress and was unable to answer a direct question about whether the President could legally order an individual killed based simply on the President's feeling that it was desirable. All Yoo could manage to say was that he didn't think the President would ever need to give such an order. Comforting, yes?

A historical tidbit: Did you know that after World War II tribunals convicted Japanese soldiers of torture by waterboarding? The times they do change.

Reply: OK guys, let's get back on topic.

Sorry for reposting this Brett. Perhaps Bloom didn't see it?

Steve Bloom,

You said "a planet that has merely become a much less pleasant place to live for most people."

I am curious as to what you meant by this. I think it would be VERY helpful (for both sides) if you could elaborate. Thanks.

Our sun does affect our climate substantially, and the long term cycles mentioned are not regular but are sporadic and can not be easily predicted, but the 22-year cycle (two peaks and two minimums each cycle as the magnetic field builds, declines, reverses and builds, declines, and repeats) results in an 11-year cycle of high and low activity.

During the high activity period, our climate gets warmer, during the low activity period (we are now in) it gets colder, and the amplitude of this cycle is about 3x that of global warming over the same period of time. But if we look cycle to cycle we see a gradual warming trend that the solar cycle is superimposed upon.

However, CO2's contribution to warming isn't the worse of our problems, it's affect on ocean chemistry are much more profound.

Take a can of pop unopened, put it in the freezer for half an hour, pull it out and open it. It will spray but then freeze as the carbon dioxide out gases. Carbon dioxide suppresses the freezing point of water; and in the oceans you've got all of this methane, more than all hydrocarbons we've burnt to date; frozen in ice on the ocean floor. Melt that ice and you release all that methane which is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Also we upset the life chain and it's worth mentioning that mankind gets approximately 75% of our food protein from the oceans.

Lastly, while healthy human beings can tolerate considerably higher levels of atmospheric CO2, elderly are more affected and as levels approach 500ppm, we will start to see elderly drop dead because of the inability to rid their own bodies of carbon dioxide and take in oxygen.

Steve:
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond as I have been busy measuring the near record cold in Antarctica :-). As for your response to me about Cheney, you said originally "MJ, I am left breathless by your mentioning me and Dick Cheney in the same sentence, and then being worried about me wanting to put people in jail because of their beliefs. Had it escaped your notice that the Cheney team has been caught doing that very thing? Ever heard of irony?" Then I replied "Pray tell me who (besides terrorist combatants) that Cheney has put in jail for disagreeing with him (for the record, I don't like Cheney or Bush)." Your last comment was "The problem, MJ, is that Cheney/Bush want to decide who is a "terrorist combatant" without benefit of court review". Do you not see the stark difference in the two statements you made? In one you are making a statement of fact that they (Cheney/Bush) already did something and then amend it (without admitting it) that they just "wanted" to do it. As for 1984, I have read it many times and it seems to me more a reflection of someone like Al Gore or Barack Obama's viewpoint on big brother (read Government) than Bush. They want government in control of all your news (fairness doctrine), tax policy (fairness or if you prefer redistribution for the common good), world government of global proportions and even your thought processes. Sorry for the political comments Brett but I had to respond in kind to Steve's assertions. IMO people like me, Joe Bastardi, Steve McIntyre and countless other self proclaimed weather nuts are in much more danger of being silenced than Steve Bloom or James Hansen.

Rich, have a look at the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report and see what it says. If you post that list I'll add some discussion of the potential carbon feedbacks that the IPCC doesn't model.

This has got to be the funniest "press release" I have ever seen. Forget getting a Ph.D. in climate science, doing research and publishing in peer reviewed journals. You can just issue a press release. Really priceless! The real scoop on this guy can be found here:

http://digg.com/environment/Global_Warming_Has_Officially_Ended

See comment by greenfrye.

Back in the 70's the hype was all about a new ice age coming on. Calder, John Gribbin, and others wrote a spate of books warning of a colder climate, citing polar ice observations etc. Now, just 30 years later, all the hype is about global warming, citing polar ice observations, etc. Actually since the warming hype started about 1988, if the Al gore climate pundits are to be believed,the climate has flipped in just ten short years. I think most of this whole climate change thing is political. If they can't reliably forecast the weather several days out, how can they predict what the climate is going to do in 2,5 or 30 years. Anyway, as Darren says, they is absolutely jack-all we can do about it except shut up and take whatever Mother Nature dishes out.

Dear Accuweather,

Please accept my thanks for posting the most recent press release information on the Climate Change Declaration issued by the Space and Science Research Center on July 1, 2008.

While I simply have not had the time to directly address the many web sites who have commented on that PR or the ones prior, your site has among the best educated and most objective commentary from your readers of all the sites I have scanned, both pro and con. They deserve some address of the issues they have raised.

On the issue of whether this new entity called the Space and Science Research Center is for real, I believe the meager start of the SSRC nonetheless is an important start for many people. It is a start that will allow scientists who have great talent in solar physics and other areas a place to hang their hat and do important research that is independent and unfettered by political bias or requirements of conformance to the conventional thought. There is doubtless need for freedom of scientific expression in the US and elsewhere these days.

So, on the point of starting the SSRC I ask for a little patience as the gears of progress move a little each day and in so doing we provide more value and benefit to your readers and of course continue our current research focus on the critical next climate change.

On the matter of whether I am for real, I will tell you candidly it is a question that I have simply never had to address before. Perhaps the internet in its ability to allow everyone to make a comment and publish an opinion for world wide distribution is the source of confusion.

When the first press release came out in January from the SSRC it was met with much praise and much criticism. The criticism I was warned about in advance given what the RC Theory would mean to the AGW crowd. Still two or three widely read sources in particular issued condemnations that were filled with venom and their comments are still circulating on the web today. When I asked of them why they were so acidic,(if not libelous), they refused to answer. When I offered to provide all appropriate background information they did not want it. It was clear they had made serious mistakes in how they judge other people. I say 'people' since their ad hominem attack was not about my research. Since then I have been unable to find their direct links (apparently removed) though their residual web traffic is still floating around. I believe that after the subsequent SSRC press release 2-2008 which included strong endorsements from two top researchers and a recommendation from a former House Science Committee Chairman that my climate change theory "be seriously considered," that they may have realized their hasty criticism was, to be polite, inappropriate.

During the many important events that I have taken part in over the past 30 plus years, my credentials have never been questioned. They were granted full blessing in my work with then Martin Marietta where I served as a space shuttle engineer and later went on to be a trouble shooter for the company examining the physics of the causes in difficult scientific and engineering problems in multi-billion dollar programs. They were not questioned when I helped in the Challenger investigation and revitalization of NASA Headquarters especially in the quality and safety arena. They were not questioned when I chaired a White House National Space Policy Committee or assisted members of Congress including key committee leaders of important science committees. They were not questioned when after 9/11 attacks, I was asked by the leadership of the new Afghanistan to help advise their new government on reconstruction matters. They were certainly not questioned when I raised money to give starving teachers money in a war zone, and buy furniture for bombed out schools, nor when I helped steer millions in medical aid to Iraq working with the Department of Defense.

Also, the fact that I don't have the letters PhD next to my name along with a laundry list of past research papers seems to have been a stumbling block for many in accepting my own RC Theory and associated peer reviewed paper. (See RC theory at the web site for the detailed paper). To this issue I can offer three key points:

1. My background including high tech start-ups I have run has been one of tackling the toughest scientific and engineering problems I could find. That certainly is applicable to finding some truth behind climate change.

2. Some of the world's best scientists think I have found something valid and worth spreading the word about. Specifically that is my own research culminating in the RC theory. To quote one scientist ," It says a lot about his own analytical skills that without a significant background in solar physics he has discovered the same important findings on the sun's activity as other leading researchers." The history of scientific discovery is filled with similar stories of people who were working outside their own area of expertise and found something important.

3. It is no longer a question of whether the RC Theory is just a theory. That's what the July 1 news conference was about. The next climate change has now begun. The past phase of global heating caused (according to the RC Theory) by the 206 year "Bi-Centennial" solar cycle, also called the deVries/Suess cycle, is now over. We are now on the long term down slope of the cycle toward decades of cold weather. In other words, the theory has now been proven. The descent into globally colder weather has started as I and other have been predicting.

But start a single web site that runs counter to global warming (by result not intent) and suddenly people I have never met have decided that I either never existed or that my resume was put together overnight, my references don't exist and that I and the SSRC are for not real.

This is more an observation than a complaint - the internet has the capability of much good and many things that aren't good. It is just something that those like me will have to get used to as long as we remain in the business of 'planting flags' in hostile territory.

As the SSRC develops and adds staff, receives endorsements and support from those who really do know me and believe in what the SSRC is doing, I hope that your readers who do not yet know or support me or the SSRC will begin to revise their opinions.

Others have already 'checked on me and found my efforts credible if not vital to our country. They include Dr. Robert Williscroft and his son Jason (the DeadHand) and Dr. Rich Swier (the Duke). See the SSRC Press Release 2-2008 for others who support me and the SSRC. Dr.Tim Ball and others are now using the opinions of the SSRC in their own battles to have the truth of supposed man made climate change be finally revealed. I once thought that countering the past 20 years of AGW would be a long hard battle. I now see the opportunity for that pseudo-science house of cards to come crashing down. It will be the result of sites and thoughtful readers like yours continuing to fight the good fight and of course the all mighty climate regulator, the sun. The sun has entered a new period of activity. There can be only one outcome, just as it has done for the past 1,200 years in accordance with the 206 year cycle - a new climate era of deep long lasting cold weather for planet Earth.

There is a wealth of information for your readers at the SSRC web site at www.spaceandscience.net. I am always open to their recommendations for how the site can be improved.

In the meantime the SSRC will continue its genuine and serious quest to alert our citizens to the nature of the next climate change and the need to prepare accordingly.

Thanks Again,

John L. Casey
Director
Space and Science Research Center