It's mostly baloney! Timothy Patterson is partly funded by Exxon
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1022
And below is what I found on the internet, including an email from
Dr.Tapping----
Of course, I pointed out in comments that for one thing, the Maunder
minimum
is still quite controversial as a cause for the "Little Ice Age," and I've
pointed out several times that the best information we have says that
solar
variance could account for at most a quarter of the warming we've been
seeing.
But I'm not a scientist. I just do basic research. And, when I noticed
that
the IBD never actually directly quoted Dr. Tapping, and only talked about
him (all of the direct quotes come from R. Timothy Patterson, a fairly
well-known AGW denier), I decided to do something that the "fine
journalists" over at IBD couldn't be bothered to do: I contacted Dr.
Tapping directly and asked him about it. Dr. Tapping responds:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat
with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the
result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the
future.
It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not
so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.
It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is
a
major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it
already.
If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a
bit,
then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving
us
more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that
if
we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few
decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment
conclude there is another minimum started.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Regards,
Ken
"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:F2lrj.573544$kj1.462287@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Bill Glass wrote:
>
>> Did anyone see tonights network news.? I did want to pos to the forum
>> butit was interesting. Seems some of those who have been pu****ng
bio-fuel
>> forgot to place in their model the effects of turning land into
bio-fuel.
>> You can read the entire article on the nbc.com website as re****ted by
>> Brian Willaims and then download the scientic paper written by the
>> original author who pushed for it.
>>
>> The basic premise is that by using land for bio-fuel,, specifically
corn
>> and some crops in South America actually raises the carbo by 20% an
would
>> take 48 years to break even.
>>
>> On the same piece a bio-fuel spoksman defended the original proposal
but
>> their model was off, and did not take into account food costs.
>>
>> If you get a chance, take a few min and read the pdf file. I am not
>> taking sides bt found that the annoucement somewhat startlng
>
>
> Since this whole climate change issue is beginning to disintegrate
anyway,
> y' might be interested in the latest scientific take on it:
>
>
> http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
>
>
> Besides, everytime someone reduces CO2 levels, they're depriving
> vegetation of a key nutrient.
>
> I'm doing my part... I'm only farting indoors...
>
> <G>
>
> JT
>
|
