On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:02:54 +0100, John Mullen
wrote:

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I
was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note
the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither you
nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations
and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were
foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural
phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as
you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have
withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not
feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there
is
a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I
also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could
be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into
that
what you will.

OK. I read into it that you would quite like to be a GW denier (less
guilt
for you) but you haven't read up enough science yet to be able to talk
the
talk. You said something you couldn't justify, grabbed a URL to justify
it
but didn't properly check the URL. The URL unfortunately contradicted
what
you had said. You blustered for a while, threw in a red herring, and now
you're going all cryptic. Interesting stuff; but more psychology than
climate science.

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

Paul