Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Aviation pioneer and master engineer Burt Rutan on Global Warming

Recs

33

January 06, 2010 – Comments (31)

Came across this video series the other day and now is a great opportunity to share it.  You know, it's just a lot of fun, after being called a "flat-earther" and a "denialist" (is that even a freaking word???) to share such a well thought out presentation that is skeptical of AGW claims.  

Who is Burt Rutan?

Elbert Leander "Burt" Rutan (born June 17, 1943) is an American aerospace engineer noted for his originality in designing light, strong, unusual-looking, energy-efficient aircraft. He is often described as the "second true innovator" in the field of aerospace materials technology; his most important predecessor was German engineer Hugo Junkers, who pioneered the design of all-metal aircraft in 1915. He is most famous for his design of the record-breaking Voyager, which was the first plane to fly around the world without stopping or refueling, and the sub-orbital spaceplane SpaceShipOne, which won the Ansari X-Prize in 2004 for becoming the first privately funded spacecraft to enter the realm of space twice within a two week period. He has four aircraft on display in the National Air and Space Museum: SpaceShipOne, the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer, Voyager, and the VariEze.

Enjoy the video series.

David in Qatar

31 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 06, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Option1307 (29.84) wrote:

Thanks for the vids, I'll check them out later when I have time.

Report this comment
#2) On January 06, 2010 at 2:17 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

Option1307,

You're very welcome. I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On January 06, 2010 at 2:43 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

Ditto what Option1307 said.

Report this comment
#4) On January 06, 2010 at 2:51 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

I'm very sorry. I just realized that I repeated Video 3 of 6 and left out Video 4.

Here is Video 4 of 6. My apologies for the confusion.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On January 06, 2010 at 3:17 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

So who are these people supporting Global Warming regulation?

Do you wanna listen to those people?  Or would you rather listen to Burt Rutan?

For me, it's no question.  I'll take the successful Capitalist Burt Rutan over these psychopathic Socialists, Commies and Political Entrepreneurs any day.  

You can have your Viva La Revolution!  I'll take the guy who actually works for a living. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On January 06, 2010 at 3:18 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Thanks David - I had no idea that Cap and Trade was so flawed. The "Free Permits" part is crazy.

Report this comment
#7) On January 06, 2010 at 3:25 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

Two of the people that I really hope to hear from are rofgile and dudemonkey.  I hope you guys watch these videos.  And when you are done, perhaps you will finally see that Cap and Trade would have a profound negative effect on the American economy and would be a significant event for all investors.  You questioned why I would spend so much time blogging about it.  Here is your answer.

It is a scam.  Cap and Trade is a scam that would put normal people in jail if they attempted to pull it off.  Global Warming is a package of hubris and distortions.  The whole thing is a disgrace of unreal proportions. 

And when I sit back and think of all the followers who jumped on the AGW bandwagon, and then ridiculed anyone (not including Rush Limbaugh and the Faux News crowd, who deserve all the ridicule they get) that questioned it or showed any skepticism, I'm just sick.  

They should be ashamed of themselves.  But when you are discredited, it's much easier to just pretend like you never believed in AGW in the first place.  They'll crawl underneath the rocks for a few years, until the next great scheme gets revealed to them.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#8) On January 06, 2010 at 4:44 PM, leohaas (32.18) wrote:

Where do I start?

1) This guy is an aerospace engineer, not a climatologist. Would you go to a dentist for advice on cancer treatment?

2) You link to a page with weather information to support your opion that global warming is untrue. That merely shows how little you understand about climatology. Climate data is measured in decades, not in days.

3) You link to videos showing that some "psychopathic Socialists, Commies and Political Entrepreneurs" support action against global warming, implying that therefore global warming is not true. By the same logic, the Autobahn is a bad idea because it was supported by Hitler.

4) Cap and Trade may indeed be bad for the US economy and flawed. But that does not mean that global warming is not true. It is merely an inconvenient truth!

5) Where did all the glaciers and polar ice go?

Report this comment
#9) On January 06, 2010 at 4:48 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I really like his Recommendations in video 6 and encourage anyone who is worried about global warming to view the complete series.

 

Recommendations

• Drop CCC (Climate Change Crisis) and Cap & Trade legislation. It is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic. Its alarmists can use it to destroy US global competitiveness through Cap and Trade taxes.

-- As proposed, most new jobs are for Government regulation/oversight bureaucracies. The process is already ripe with fraud (85% of permits would be free. 15% auctioned).

-- As proposed, the huge spending would result in no benefit to the planet.

 

Thanks again for posting these!!!

Report this comment
#10) On January 06, 2010 at 4:50 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

leohaas,

Did you watch the videos?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On January 06, 2010 at 4:56 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

Oh I get it. See I have to premise that in order to rebut the content in the video, you have to actually address the content in the video.

As far as the qualifications of Burt Rutan, he addresses that in the first 3 minutes of the video. He is a DATA ANALYZER, and his analysis of the data of AGW is that it is a total fraud.

Thanks for your time.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On January 06, 2010 at 5:02 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

He presented a compelling case to question the validity of the data and refute current conclusions.

The odd take-away was the understanding that we are headed into Global Cooling and eventually another Ice Age.

Report this comment
#13) On January 06, 2010 at 6:29 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

#8: issue 5 is an interesting question. Maybe this explains it.

Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History

By Noel Sheppard

September 8, 2007 - 23:31 ET

source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/reports-record-arctic-ice-melt-disgracefully-ignore-history

How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant?"

Such is especially the case given the history of successful sea-based explorations of the Arctic dating back as far as 1903."

For instance, a name media would love for global warming alarmists not to know is Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905 (h/t Walt Bennett, Jr.): The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream - at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn - it was weakness in me - but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight' ... Vessel in sight."

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this Passage was clear enough of ice for a wooden sailboat, with a crew of seven, to successfully navigate it more than 100 years ago. How many times in the history of the planet do you think a similar - or even more ice-free - condition existed in this area?"

Not that the media cares, but this Passage was also conquered several times in the 1940s (emphasis added): Putting it all together, when you consider that serious monitoring of Arctic ice levels only started in 1972, and that explorers successfully navigated these seas in relatively archaic ships 60 and 100 years ago, how can anybody honestly claim that today's conditions in this region are in any way unprecedented, historic, or grim?" 

Report this comment
#14) On January 06, 2010 at 7:07 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Northwest Passage Routes:  http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

Just discovered that Roald Amundsen's journey took 3 years so it doesn't prove the passage was open during the winter in 1905 which he completed in August of 1905.

Report this comment
#15) On January 06, 2010 at 7:32 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

found a better article related to #8: issue 5

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

Bad reporting about the Northwest Passage issue.

source: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html

With just a few minutes of research I have been able to compile twelve cases of vessels traveling through the Northwest Passage. Yet major media outlets from around the world are pretending that such trips have never been possible until this year. The BBC didn’t even check their own web site."

Once “global warming” is mentioned all critical faculties are shut down in the media. They don’t verify facts. They just repeat the claims that are made."

We simply don’t know if the Northwest Passage has been relatively ice free before the 1978 satellite data started being collected. But we do have two different BBC reports, in two different years, each claiming the Passage was ice free “for the first time”. Before 1978 we don’t know. It is pure guesswork. But given that the planet has been much warmer than today, in the past, it is likely the Passage has been ice free on many occasions."

Regardless of that, the history of ships traveling through the Northwest Passage has been well documented. This is not conjecture or guessing. It is a historical fact. We’ve had small wooden ships do it, luxury tourist boats, a solo voyage, and numerous other incidents, all of which I have documented here."

Report this comment
#16) On January 06, 2010 at 10:17 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

 #8) On January 06, 2010 at 4:44 PM, leohaas (99.00) wrote:

Where do I start?

1) This guy is an aerospace engineer, not a climatologist. Would you go to a dentist for advice on cancer treatment?

You know, I love this argument most of all!  The argument that an aeronautical engineer couldn't possibly be smart enough to figure out BS when he sees it. The same people tell me that I can't possibly invest my own money and be successful. I'm not an MBA and  these financial advisors have studied this for years! How can I possibly compete? It didn't take me very long to figure out that these guys spent more years studying what was inside my pockets than they did studying the markets. In every ponzi scheme there is someone persecuting the masses for questioning the puppet master.

2) You link to a page with weather information to support your opion that global warming is untrue. That merely shows how little you understand about climatology. Climate data is measured in decades, not in days.

If you understood climatology, you would understand that it is actually measured in periods much longer than a millennium, and decades are a just drop in the bucket. Even given that, you can't throw out data in small time frames without showing data of your own to make it invalid. You are not the IPCC here! You have to show your work!

3) You link to videos showing that some "psychopathic Socialists, Commies and Political Entrepreneurs" support action against global warming, implying that therefore global warming is not true. By the same logic, the Autobahn is a bad idea because it was supported by Hitler.

I don't think that he posted anything  in the links to the videos other than showing a picture of who supported cap and trade. You made your own conclusions from there. 

4) Cap and Trade may indeed be bad for the US economy and flawed. But that does not mean that global warming is not true. It is merely an inconvenient truth!

I'd give you more credit if you called it a convenient lie. We have actually been in global warming long before your great grandfather was even born. Things tend to warm up after an Ice Age. You should be more worried about the next Ice Age because that will kill twice the amount of people that global warming will every year, and that will last about 100,000 years longer. I start trying to pump more of that life saving Carbon in the atmosphere now if I were you!

5) Where did all the glaciers and polar ice go?

You are right the ice in the Arctic is melting more right now. The Ice in the Antarctic is growing faster than the ice in the Arctic is melting though. If you want to save the polar bears, I would recommend a cruise ship. 

Report this comment
#17) On January 06, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

From here-
http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2009/11/21/33943/Central-America-to-demand-billions-in-climate
A little insight on how the concept was packaged and sold on a global scale. Seems some were already counting their "Ecological debt" monies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central America to demand billions in climate damages

Guatemala City.– Central American nations will demand US$105 billion from industrialized countries for damages caused by global warming, the region's representatives said on Friday.

Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the 105-billion-dollar price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

 

Ferrate minister said the region "had never faced" so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security. A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.

Comments:

Written by: glomarexplorer, 21 Nov 2009 2:21 PMFrom: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger LakesAs if we weren't being taxed enough by home governments, now we have foreign governments making demands on our money as well.

There is no clear proof of what these people purport, and there is some evidence to the contrary, premised on ice plugs studies that clearly have indicated existence of cyclical climate changes from droughts, to floods to ice over several millenia.

Another liberal initiative yet to blame the progress of industrially advanced societies on the perils of poorer ones. The real irony here is that they demand payment for the progress they envy and try to achieve, emulate. Amzing, but China made a switch and is now approaching foremost economic power status; soon to be foremost military potency and conqueror and ruler of the world.

MJEV.Report as spam/innapropiateWritten by: Ricardolito, 21 Nov 2009 5:27 PMFrom: Dominican Republic, Boca de ChavonActually ,the article says here that the countries including the Dominican Republic are asking for this money ..not being asked for it.
The five main offending countries ,in my opinion ,are the USA and China and Russia through industrial and deliberate man made pollution and Brazil and Indonesia through their massive tree harvesting that decimated millions and millions of acres .
the Copenhagen meeting will do next to nothing but without doubt man made climate change has and is still causing horrific problems Report as spam/innapropiateWritten by: anthonyC, 21 Nov 2009 6:58 PMFrom: United StatesOffending countries?

How about the offending Liars.

Wonder why the main stream media isn't following up on this story?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/1....acked-hundreds-of-files-released/

Oh wait, They did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1

Try as he did to turn it around and defend "global warming" the cat is out of the bag.Report as spam/innapropiateWritten by: glomarexplorer, 21 Nov 2009 7:44 PMFrom: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger LakesAnthonyC,

Many thanks for links.

It probably won't help because liberal minds will only see things one way: the way they want to. It will not be beneath them to lie and cheat and bamboozle everyone to get their way, for that is just the way they are. They will shout you down when lacking evidence, picket you and harass you to no end. This whole climate change thing is one of the most misunderstood subjects, and one that has polarized the world.

Funny thing is that great dispensations are meted out for the poor countries and emerging industrial nations such as BRIC and some of the other Asian countries. Let's face it, this climate thing has grown out of proportion and is being fueled by anti-US sentiments-you know-the hand that feeds them. Just wait until Chinese become preeminent power in the world....they will be deeply lamenting the US' demise.

VivaCuba and abc would be happy for a while-but it will be short-lived.Report as spam/innapropiateWritten by: mrweepa1, 22 Nov 2009 1:24 PMFrom: United States, Huntington Station NY. Juan Dolio DR.This is BULL --it!!
Why should the countries that developed the world and gave millions of people a better life a hand out. These changes in the climate are natural and have always have taken place. So if you live in a part of the world you don"t like MOVE!! Will giving them free money improve the weather? I don"t think so.

Report this comment
#18) On January 07, 2010 at 12:40 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

How to Avoid Green Investment Scams

Perhaps we should start with who defined them? 

Report this comment
#19) On January 07, 2010 at 12:56 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

David,

Thanks again for posting these videos.

I discovered that a percentage of polar ice routinely melts and freezes over each year. Its comprised of multi-year ice and first year ice.

The only valid way to evaluate the year to year change is to compare the same time frame year to year in the deepest part of winter over an extended period of time.

I'm surprised I was fooled by alarmist pictures of the polar caps in spring set side by side with a shot of the poles in winter and that the media has done such a poor job of reporting the story.

What an incredible scam.

Best, IIcx 

 

Report this comment
#20) On January 07, 2010 at 2:30 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

A great link to additional information debunking Global Warming analysis:

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm 

Report this comment
#21) On January 08, 2010 at 12:44 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

Thanks. What a great American Burt Rutan is.

If we indeed are moving into a period of global cooling, then hopefully all the gasoline we're burning will forestall it. Consider:

From "How Stuff Works": When you burn gasoline under ideal conditions, with plenty of oxygen, you get carbon dioxide (from the carbon atoms in gasoline), water (from the hydrogen atoms) and lots of heat. A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours.

I've never seen any analysis of the effects of fossil fuel use on the temperature of the planet from the direct effect of burning the fossil fuel in the first place, just the secondary effects of the CO2 which is produced as a byproduct of the combustion.

Just being a clerk, I can't begin to assess the impact of billions of gallons of gasoline burning and the effect it has or does not have on the global temperature, nor natural gas, nor coal, nor wood, etc. etc. etc. I was hoping someone somewhere had done a study on this. Because I'm curious.

I think I'll just idle the car longer in the driveway tomorrow, it sure was cold today.

Known as BTU-curious nzsvz9

Report this comment
#22) On January 08, 2010 at 4:32 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Using the term "debunk" in my #20 post is off base - there clearly is a rise in CO2 which could have an effect on the oceans and marine life.

Its apparently caused by temperature. Vegetation doesn't process as much CO2 in hotter years and stores carbon in the soil which is broken down and released CO2 the next year.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7620921.stm

 

Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem

source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean

 

This from a 2001 article I ran across that supports what Burt Rutan is saying. 

What the evidence shows

Robert H. Essenhigh

source: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

So what we have on the best current evidence is that

• global temperatures are currently rising; the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;

• the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;

• there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;

• the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;

• if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;

• the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;

• water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;

• determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range;

• and the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

Report this comment
#23) On January 08, 2010 at 5:12 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Note: Getting rid of smog with cleaner more efficient cars, trucks, power plants, power grids and the efficient use of resources is a great idea and long overdue.

But, does it need to be packaged as "Global Warming" under a Cap and Trade Bill?

Report this comment
#24) On January 08, 2010 at 5:37 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Space Weather Prediction Center which includes sun spot activity, solar winds, etc.:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SWN/index.html 

Report this comment
#25) On January 08, 2010 at 7:33 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Hey leohaas,

I found a great site that shows the polars day by day.

The Cryosphere Today

source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

Visually compare any 2 dates in time showing Polar Sea Ice consentrations:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=07&fy=1979&sm=01&sd=07&sy=2010

 

Polar Cap chart showing cycles:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png 

Report this comment
#26) On January 08, 2010 at 9:13 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

IIcx,

I'm glad you liked Rutan's presentation.  If you are not already familiar, the websites Climate Audit and WattsUpWithThat are very good sources of skeptical information.

Thanks for all the follow up links.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On January 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Hey David,

Rutan's presentation is very convincing so I spent some time trying to confirm some of his observations and looking into some of the assumptions. Finding that CO2 is such a small portion of the atmosphere and that water vapor is the largest (quoted at 95%) and thus most responsible for altered temperature and climate was surprising.

 

WattsUpWithThat article from January 2010 impies the opposite of Global Warming and an increase in cloud cover due to solar activity. This is pretty scary if it plays out.

Solar geomagnetic index reaches unprecedented low – only “zero” could be lower – in a month when sunspots became more active

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprecedent-low-only-zero-could-be-lower-in-a-month-when-sunspots-became-more-active/#comments

DR (10:49:00) :

I’ve dissected UAH data thoroughly and have found definite annual cycles, particularly during El Nino years. In all the 30 years of data, on only a few occasions do global temps not peak for the year in January or February. Ignoring measurements over land, there is a relationship to global temps and ocean temp patterns (NoPol and SoPol are outliers). They (oceans) converge tightly in October (97/98 El Nino is the exception). 2009 Trpcs flattened out from July through November but rose in December. I think the Trpcs may be key to what transpires in the coming months.

We should see global satellite temps rise sharply in Jan or Feb and meet or exceed that of Nov. If they don’t it would be a departure from 30 years of historical patterns. Current winter conditions are not making sense when comparing to previous cycles, so the next two months will be very instructive.

Is it plausible that even with a moderate El Nino, there is a connection between the Ap index and clouds and possibly influencing the AO to go negative thereby limiting global temperature effects of El Nino in the NH? I wonder.

 

Mr. Alex (11:28:40) :

1. Solar Polar Field Strength in a funk:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif

2. Solar wind at extremely low values:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind1.gif

3. Ap Index has dropped below 1901 levels, so it seems activity is no longer identical to 1901 dip as Leif has stated previously. ( Ap so far 1.42 for Jan 2010)

Despite December’s modest increase in spots and today’s numbering of the puny pore, solar activity is still low and the Clilverd et al (2006) prediction for SC 24 peak of 42 ± 34 (identical to Dalton Minimum cycles), is the likely outcome. 

Report this comment
#28) On January 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I don't want to be annoying so this is the last comment I'll post to this blog but I found this article and its related comments interesting. 

 

Comment under:

IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years?

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/#more-15116

rbateman (13:51:31) :

I’ll go with the 80-20 natural rule:
80% of the climate warming is due to natural Earth cycles.
80% of the remaining 20% (16%) is due to Solar Cycles.
80% of the remaining 4% (3.2%) is due to Anthropogenic activity
1.8% is pure chaos.
What they wanted us to believe is that the top 80% is Anthropogenic (give us all your money now) and the 3rd cut was natural Earth cycles.

Report this comment
#29) On January 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

lol - I just realized rbateman's numbers are wrong (equal 101%).

Change 1.8% to .8% for chaos and it equals 100%.

Report this comment
#30) On January 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Hope all is well and thanks David for throwing the "first stone". I've learned a ton!!!

Best Regards, IIcx

30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says

Obama administration announced $2.3 Billion for Clean Energy 

 

Report this comment
#31) On January 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, MGDG (35.40) wrote:

David, thanks for your interesting and informative blogs. There is too much information that is drowned out from the noise generated from popular viewpoints. I have always liked cold hard facts, whether I liked what they told me or not. I do not like data that is manipulated or adjusted.

40 years ago when I was in school, they showed us these amazing research studies being done with Ice core samples and all the information on climate that was being gleaned from them. I saw a graph quite similar to one of the ones in the videos you presented above. It showed warm periods were quite fleeting in geological terms.

My personal views have always been that water vapor drives the temperature, solar activity affects the water vapor and Co2 levels are affected by the warming and cooling of the oceans. In the grand scheme of things, my views don't mean diddly squat. They are nothing more than my personal observations from my life on Earth.

Your blogs seem to inspire one to use a little critical thinking and not just repeat what they are fed each day on the local news channel. Unfortunately most of them seem to fly by my radar, as this one has been out there for more than a week and it was only brought to my attention from a reference in another Fool's blog. I'll have to add you as a favorite to rectify that.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement