I remember now, but did not make the connection at the time, so your reasoning is lost to me.

60 years is a full cycle of the major oscillations (if not permutations thereof), was that the idea?

I wasn’t being entirely serious.

“…what happens when the sun decides to chill everything? What’s the intent?”

As far as I know, the sun doesn’t make decisions, nor have any intentions, but I could be wrong. You may wish to check with the sun people for a more authoritative view.

Perhaps your question is: what is your [my] intent? Well, I was replying to this comment: “The first test is: If what they are promoting will give them more power or money, then it is about the money and power.”

This comment places all political and business activity under a cloud. Understandable, perhaps, in today’s economic and political climate, but nevertheless it strikes me as unduly cynical. The fact that someone might gain wealth and power from a particular activity does not necessarily make that activity bogus. That’s why the ad hominen is a logical fallacy: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

How can you not like a poet named Frost?

Cold, entropy, is equally, and more basically deserving of reflection.

Yours in the Maunder Minimum!

Yes, I was rather surprised at your accusation since I make a habit of supporting my claims with the relevant evidence.

I am now even more surprised that you’ve confused me with someone of a different name.

Reply – To err is human, to forgive is divine. Let’s move on. – Dee

Je vous remerci. M. Gosselin! I do have pretensions in the direction of authorship.

By the way, wouldn’t a cold winter in North America and in Europe result in an increase in anthropogenic CO2 as a result of the increased BTU’s necessary for heating? I don’t necessarily mean another Maunder Minimum; a repeat of the winters of the late 1970′s, the memory of which is dear to this afficianado of negative numbers, would suffice.

Thanks for this clarification, Anthony. Two points:

1. I will assume this ruling applies across the board to all posters.

2. What about third parties? Does this ruling apply to them, or are they fair game?

And “could seem like” is the operative phrase. Many years ago I spent an agreeable half-hour skimming a text called “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. The author helpfully explained the glaring anomaly of the conspiracy in plain sight by referring to the children’s puzzle – not so popular nowadays – where faces and other shapes are ‘hidden’ within a drawing.

To see the shapes one merely changed one’s perceptual orientation. I suppose that’s how it is with conspiracies, except it’s a matter of changing one’s conceptual orientation.

But whether the claim is conspiracy or conjunction of interests, the fallacy is the same: even if it were shown conclusively that AGW were driven by a desire to annihilate the entire human race, that fact would not falsify AGW.

“Since both of you are committed believers, I don’t expect either of you to address the subject matter brought up by myself and EJ.”

I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

“Sort of the same way I expect that Brendan will never provide the oft-requested methodology for that questionable survey he was waving around here a few weeks ago.”

Que?

Reply – Beg pardon. I had a senior moment and confused you with the other Branden (who vanished shortly after having ignored my request for the methodology for his cited survey). – Dee Norris

So it’s all of the above. This AGW be mighty powerful science.

“The first test is: If what they are promoting will give them more power or money, then it is about the money and power.”

Which places most human activities under suspicion. Universal scepticism is a powerfully corrosive state of mind, especially in one so young. It inevitably leads to cynicism and utter nihilism, and a sad old age.

You know, you seem like a smart young man. You should join us in the balmy companionship of the consensus. Relax and let your mind float downstream. As a bonus, there’s big money attached. Lots of warm babes. And much power. Renewable, of course.

What, no Bilderbergers? But the Bilderbergers are key, I tell you, KEY!!