Wednesday, June 20, 2007

I am a genius (by the way)

Last year I said this:

I happen to be of the opinion that both CO2 levels and temperature are co-dependent variables, arranged in a highly complex matrix with any number of similarly important variables, not the least of these being global position in orbit relative to the sun and solar activity.
And now there is a published article saying this:
Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%...

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.
Thank you, thank you.

PS. To all the consensus-mongers -- not only did I completely debunk the Oreskes "928 paper" study last year, but I've found further evidence that the entire "consensus theory" is nothing more than a bunch of smoke and mirrors by a shrill enviro-socialist movement desperate to grab power:
In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
Hows that for a minority view? Note that this poll didn't let any refugee from a lab with a PhD in, it was limited to people who actually know what they're talking about.