Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 06/21/2009 8:49:28 AM PDT by Starman417
Only a couple more days to let the EPA know what you think of its proposed war against CO2. Just click on the little yellow “add comments” balloon. The following is a comment (ending at "sincerely") that you can copy and paste. (If you choose to roll your own, feel free to leave it here too.)
Dear EPA:
There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity, yet the solar flux is completely omitted as an influence on climate in all four IPCC assessments and in the Obama administration's new "Climate Change Impacts in the United Sates" report. This omission is rationalized on grounds that the existing theories of how solar activity affects climate are still formative. The scientific method rejects this rationalization. Observational evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa, but IPCC is using theory (its distrust of existing theories of the mechanism by which solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature), as an excuse for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that solar-magnetic DOES drive global temperature. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but the demonstrably anti-scientific nature of CO2 alarmism proves that it IS religion, not science.
EPA regulations are supposed to be science based. Imposing restrictions based on an anti-scientific religious doctrine would not just violate the EPA's mandate, but would violate the constitutional prohibition on state establishment of religion.
Solar-magnetic warming: theory and evidence
The sunspot-temperature theory is actually looking pretty solid. A strong solar-magnetic flux is known to shield the earth from high energy cosmic rays which otherwise, according to the theory of Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, would ionize the atmosphere, seeding cloud formation. Thus the solar wind in effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn.
Whatever the precise mechanism, researchers have found that solar-magnetic activity “explains” statistically about 60-80 percent of global temperature change on all time scales going back hundreds of millions of years. On the millennial time scale, see the seminal 1991 paper by Christensen and Lassen (“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”) and the 2003 isotope study by Usoskin et al (“Solar activity over the last 1150 yrs: does it correlate with climate?”), which found: “a correlation coefficient of about .7 - .8 at a 94% - 98% confidence level.”
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Exactly! But we still had education in our public schools in 1960. Our congresscritters today talk as though they did not learn about our solar system in elementary school.
It would be a wonderful dream come true, and while you are at it take the Department of Education and the Department of Energy.
I bet they think a solar system is one of those nifty glass looking things people put on their roofs.
Then you also remember "Global Cooling", "Acid Rain", etc.
By that time, the left was driving the agenda for political purposes. All you have to do to see that is look at the way the formatting and editorial comments of Scientific American changed between the early ‘60’s and late ‘80’s.
I left a comment, my comment was about a regulatory body deciding they have to protect future generations health without any show that there is a real world example of someone’s health being impacted.
Using this logic, every regulatory agency will have unchecked power.
Random sampling of public comments there look heavily in favor of cap & tax. We’re not engaging them...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.