First off, her name is spelled wrong. It's Sallie Baliunas. Second, both she and Willie Soon have irrefutable funding ties to the oil and gas industry which calls the legitimacy of their research into question. Willhelm, would you trust the work of someone who is funded by Greenpeace?

It is not even worth me discrediting her work, since it has been thoroughly discredited already, but I would like to point out that the authors she cited in her own paper have written about the fallacy of her argument. You can read their rebuttal here: http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/mann2003a.pdf

Solar output does indeed change. It changes over a variety of different time periods. While the longer t...

First off, her name is spelled wrong. It's Sallie Baliunas. Second, both she and Willie Soon have irrefutable funding ties to the oil and gas industry which calls the legitimacy of their research into question. Willhelm, would you trust the work of someone who is funded by Greenpeace?

It is not even worth me discrediting her work, since it has been thoroughly discredited already, but I would like to point out that the authors she cited in her own paper have written about the fallacy of her argument. You can read their rebuttal here: http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/mann2003a.pdf

Solar output does indeed change. It changes over a variety of different time periods. While the longer time period changes are due to star life cycles, shorter time period change is due primarily to sun spots. However, the variation in solar irradiance (the amount of solar energy the earth receives) on short time scales does not explain the large, rapid temperature increases observed over the last century and a half. There is more research than I can cite regarding this, although the recent paper in Nature (Foukal, September 14, 2006) provides a nice discussion of this issue. A summary is available here: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

I would also like to point out that climate models have over-emphasized the effects of solar cycles, and yet still do not find that temperature increases are due to changes in solar irradiance. There is a good discussion of this in the IPCC report.

Couldn't have said it better myself, jklugman.

Willhelm, why do you feel you can can call me scientifically illiterate? If you view yourself as scientifically literate, why don't you choose to respond with thoughtful, technical comments? Feel free to take this as a second chance to respond to the science in my earlier post.

Also, nothing in my earlier comment was a slur against you, and the only thing that seems rehashed here is your point of view, which is supported by nearly negligible research findings from highly questionable sources.

I think the discussion of someone's funding is very, very important. I'd like to hear you explain what you mean by "If we were going to make that an iss...

Couldn't have said it better myself, jklugman.

Willhelm, why do you feel you can can call me scientifically illiterate? If you view yourself as scientifically literate, why don't you choose to respond with thoughtful, technical comments? Feel free to take this as a second chance to respond to the science in my earlier post.

Also, nothing in my earlier comment was a slur against you, and the only thing that seems rehashed here is your point of view, which is supported by nearly negligible research findings from highly questionable sources.

I think the discussion of someone's funding is very, very important. I'd like to hear you explain what you mean by "If we were going to make that an issue, then AGW would have NO legs to stand on." Are you somehow implying that the thousands of scientists funded by not for profit money are somehow biased by their funders? How do you explain the IPCC reports, where governments (including our own) and scientists come together and make very strong conclusions regarding climate change?

I think the discussion of someone's funding is very, very important.
I'd like to hear you explain what you mean by "If we were going to make
that an issue, then AGW would have NO legs to stand on." Are you
somehow implying that the thousands of scientists funded by not for
profit money are somehow biased by their funders? How do you explain
the IPCC reports, where governments (including our own) and scientists
come together and make very strong conclusions regarding climate change?

1
2.
3.

Global warnin...

I think the discussion of someone's funding is very, very important.
I'd like to hear you explain what you mean by "If we were going to make
that an issue, then AGW would have NO legs to stand on." Are you
somehow implying that the thousands of scientists funded by not for
profit money are somehow biased by their funders? How do you explain
the IPCC reports, where governments (including our own) and scientists
come together and make very strong conclusions regarding climate change?

1
2.
3.

Global warning is billion dollar industry. If university researches were motivated by grant money and other funding, they would be more than happy to find anthropogenic global warming a fact.

Many other planets and moons are warming in the Solar System and while I am sure you would be more than happy to expain their warming away with a natural explanation, it would only reveal your inconsistency with the fact that none some to be cooling.

And, Belugah since "it's not even worth you discrediting her work" perhaps you should stop with the pretense that you would be capable of anything other than rehashing propaganda from gristmill.

In response to Willhelm: you've got a lot of good stuff there which I'll reply to in kind.

In reference to link 1.
- First, and most simply, the size of the oil and gas industry measured by financial statistics is orders of magnitude larger than the research "industry". We got into this whole argument because of your supporting the lousy work of oil-funded Sallie Bulinas. So, that's that. You've just debunked your original post by acknowledging that money can skew results.
- Second, the scientific method operates to examine theories with statistical evidence. Nothing in science is ever factually true, because scientists are always working to examine their theories. The IPCC report acknowl...

In response to Willhelm: you've got a lot of good stuff there which I'll reply to in kind.

In reference to link 1.
- First, and most simply, the size of the oil and gas industry measured by financial statistics is orders of magnitude larger than the research "industry". We got into this whole argument because of your supporting the lousy work of oil-funded Sallie Bulinas. So, that's that. You've just debunked your original post by acknowledging that money can skew results.
- Second, the scientific method operates to examine theories with statistical evidence. Nothing in science is ever factually true, because scientists are always working to examine their theories. The IPCC report acknowledges this by assigning degrees of certainty to their projections. I gather from your other posts in non-science areas that you have a libertarian/skeptical mindset. That's great! However, you clearly weren't around/didn't care when scientists were once skeptical about the global warming theory. It's fantastic that there are still skeptics, because that is the nature of science, but the evidence is overwhelming, and these skeptics aren't discovering compelling evidence that global warming isn't real. This means we're moving forward with our research instead of standing still.
- Third, scientists do not aim to please their funding institutions outside of doing quality work. NASA and NOAA have both subverted work global warming work, most notably Jim Hansen's findings about climate change. This is exactly the opposite of the influence you speak of. Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea, who reside on relatively opposite sides of the hurricane frequency and strength/global warming debate find equally robust funding opportunities for their work.

"Many other planets and moons are warming in the Solar System and while I am sure you would be more than happy to exp[l]ain their warming away with a natural explanation, it would only reveal your inconsistency with the fact that none [seem] to be cooling."
- Here's a citation for what you are talking about: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
I agree, it is an intriguing finding that a number of solar system bodies are showing warming trends. Scientists are not "explaining their warming away" as if it is some kind of "inconvenient truth". There is good empirical evidence and reasoning for why this is happening. But honestly, science doesn't know enough about ...

"Many other planets and moons are warming in the Solar System and while I am sure you would be more than happy to exp[l]ain their warming away with a natural explanation, it would only reveal your inconsistency with the fact that none [seem] to be cooling."
- Here's a citation for what you are talking about: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
I agree, it is an intriguing finding that a number of solar system bodies are showing warming trends. Scientists are not "explaining their warming away" as if it is some kind of "inconvenient truth". There is good empirical evidence and reasoning for why this is happening. But honestly, science doesn't know enough about other worldly climates to make comparisons with the highly resolved observations of Earth, so it's not worth doing yet. The temperature increases on these planets and moons are attributed to changes in solar flux. As was discussed earlier, the short-term fluctuations in the solar cycle can in no way explain the temperature anomalies that have been observed on Earth over the past century and a half.

"And, Belugah since "it's not even worth you discrediting her work" perhaps you should stop with the pretense that you would be capable of anything other than rehashing propaganda from [the] gristmill."
- Again, I am a PhD researcher in the atmospheric sciences, so this comment is inaccurate slander against me.

The word slander has been used a lot in these discussions with you, Willhelm. I'd like to clarify its definition. Slander is the use of false information to make an attack on someone.

You suggest that I have slandered Sallie Bulinas. This is the strongest statement I have made about her: "We got into this whole argument because of your supporting the lousy work of oil-funded Sallie Bulinas." It is a pretty strong statement, but is not slander. Sallie Bulinas was rebuffed in writing by other scientists she cites in her own paper. She has knowingly engaged in a conflict of interest by taking funding from the oil industry. Her results don't stand up to scrutiny. That is just plain old lousy sc...

The word slander has been used a lot in these discussions with you, Willhelm. I'd like to clarify its definition. Slander is the use of false information to make an attack on someone.

You suggest that I have slandered Sallie Bulinas. This is the strongest statement I have made about her: "We got into this whole argument because of your supporting the lousy work of oil-funded Sallie Bulinas." It is a pretty strong statement, but is not slander. Sallie Bulinas was rebuffed in writing by other scientists she cites in her own paper. She has knowingly engaged in a conflict of interest by taking funding from the oil industry. Her results don't stand up to scrutiny. That is just plain old lousy science. It may be my opinion, but it is not slanderous because I am not spreading falsehoods about her.

On the other hand, your comment: "I think your last comment and the fact you are not really interested in being a participant at Clipmarks proves you are a propagandist." FACT: I'm participating in clipmarks right now. FACT: I am a member of the field you feel entitled to malign. You are spreading falsehoods with the intent of damaging my reputation on these boards. That is slander, and slander lite relative to other comments you've made about me on these boards.

Why don't you at least cite the document by the WIPCC (http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf) and start there. That is a large, kind of well-written account of all the skeptic hard science you feel supports your claim.