I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

I like Basil’s quote. ” if you torture the data long enough it will tell you what you want.”

I was not addressing that thought at you or anyone in particular it is just a general observation. I have no reason to think you do it more than any of us and I missed whatever was said that made you come to that conclusion. I was apparently typing my comment at the same time you were typing yours right above it and mine was not a comment on it but only on the fact that I think there is a double standard that is messing up the entire discussion.

I don’t know what causes climate to vary the way it does, but it is pretty clear that Carbon Dioxide is not the driver in the paleo record. This makes me mighty skeptical of all the hype.

REPLY: I agree and Leif is welcome to post here any time – Anthony

Love that saying.

I don’t think there is any way a strong positive feedback for CO2 increase can be honestly reconciled with the paleo record.

I never assumed anything about water vapor [I couldn't care less, so I don't actively oppose the idea, either - maybe that's his problem]. About the cosmic rays, I don’t say that you should not ‘use’ them. You can use anything as long as you acknowledge that the link is not proven and you are just making an assumption. What I’m against is to act as if the ’science is settled on CRs and climate’. Lastly, Mark should stop having problems with a person’s character rather than with the science. I have never seen a comment from MarkW with a scientific content, only sarcastic comments and ad-hom missives. Mark, your venting is not productive.

I assume everyone interested managed to hunt it down, but it certainly needs a link here.

http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

Random weather note – it’s cool here, but much more interesting is that the barometer has been below 29.50″ for all but a few hours since the start of May 17th, the lowest being 29.26″. The cause is an upper level low, but generally we only see these sorts of pressures as nor’easters roll by. It’s also been quite sunny, also odd at these pressures. I’m not sure what to blame it on, but I’ll find something.

It is funny how when the sun is concerned strong statistical and physical relationships don’t generate a need for further investigation because a ‘physical mechanism’ has not been established, when wild statistical extrapolations about one gas can vastly vary from empirical research on the same gas and engender billions of dollars in spending and regulation.

Personally, I think Rick Ball says it best in the article ” The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming”, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151 .
Thanks to another Canadian, Maurice Strong …

On settled science, I am firmly entrenched in my fascination with the Planet=>Sun=>Earth climatic model and I am spending money preparing for this winter and mentally preparing for being cold the rest of my life. ;)

I will defer somewhat to the PDO, AMO proponents however but what they are saying only reinforces my convictions. (http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=129 )

Maybe we can get serious about establishing the Sun=>Earth connection with a ‘physical mechanism’ that is measured, tracked, and is predictable while we’re in the middle of the Landscheidt Minimum.