Very brave women in Afghanistan have been starting schools despite rape and death threats. Let’s support that with money and international praise, with international opprobrium for the men that would stop the education of women.

International opprobrium?, These evil bigots dismiss your opprobrium as worthless infidel whining.

When the evil fanatics threaten afghani schoolteachers with rape or death we should kill them
(The fanatics, not the teachers), tell everyone in the area how and why, and _then_ make a show of supporting the school.
Preferably by decorating one of the walls with their skulls, with a sign in the local languages, english and arabic saying “Let the girls learn how to read or earn a spot on this wall”

The pen IS mightier than the sword, after swords have become ornamental,
and then, only because you can pen “fire at will” faster than you can carve it with a sword.

Good point.

Actually, in scientific circles 6 year old data is out-dated IF it has been trumphed – which has happened. In Science 6 years is a long time. The consensus is that Global Warming is largely human amplified.

Except he won’t admit the data was collected in 2000. He said it was gathered in 2005. He can’t read references.

This started in April when he said that solar warming was causing Global Warming. And all he has to show is an article that he cannot understand doesn’t prove anything of the sort But rather than admoit he was wrong, he resorts to windy rants that insult the people who’ve pointed out his gaping holes.

The Taliban has been in Afghanistan for a long time. The factors which gave rise to the Taliban are still in existence. There are religious fanatics everywhere on the glove. Conditions in Afghanistan make a Taliban or similar group almost inevitable.

The Afghanis are living in primitive, desperate conditions, at least outside of Kabul, in small groups relatively isolated from one another geographically, which makes it easier for fanatics with some charisma to gain control of small scattered groups.

I don’t think we can realistically expect to drive them out or to exterminate them. Making war the “conventional way” has 2 problems: 1) it’s like aiming a cannon where a wellplaced bebee would be better; 2) the resentment that the local populace feels towards those who have killed off their loved ones, results in the next generation growing up hating the invaders and vowing to get revenge. This pattern can be observed over and over in history. The Israelis haven’t exactly been successful in killing off all of the Palestinian extremists, have they?

And with regard to the poppy crops, as long as people get addicted to opium and morphine, there will be a market. And as long as you have people living in desperate conditions, growing a big cash crop is going to happen, because there may not be a realistic alternative for them to survive. So OF COURSE poppy production is back up! DUH!

There are no short-term solutions to this. Going in with both guns blazing is just setting up the conditions for further unrest down the road, and given the geography of the place and the desperation of the people, poppy growing isn’t going away anytime soon.

I would like to see us in the United States get back to what our country is about, hope opportunity for all sorts of people, freedom. Let’s provide an example of an alternative way of life and make sure it gets publicized.

Very brave women in Afghanistan have been starting schools despite rape and death threats. Let’s support that with money and international praise, with international opprobrium for the men that would stop the education of women.

Do negotiation and diplomacy, accepting that only small incremental gains can be made. Use our Special Forces to take out the worst of the local despots, on the ground, rather than airstrikes which DO take out civilians and create the desire for revenge.

Monetary support for schooling for all, girls and boys, and for small local enterprises such as women getting together and starting small shops where they weave fabrics which can be sold on the international markets, and similar ventures. Small loans for small women-run enterprises have been very successful in India.

Long-term. Incremental. We Americans don’t do either well, but those are successful.

Now you have just been roped in by the strawmen of others. I never claimed that this study proves anything, I said that it shows that there is intense debate about the role of Sun in global warming.

That’s all I have sought out to show, which the study does quite fine and dandy. I have also not left out the date, source, or name of the article, I have excerpted it before and provided a link to it. So I fail to see how that changes anything. I’m being open and honest here, providing links and excerpting to prove my point.

unbelievable, on the other hand, still claims that the study is out-dated and based on data from 2000, which is of course completely false.

The only thing I was talking about in regards to the study is the fact that it states point blank that the Sun’s influence on climate is intensely debated in climate research.

unbelievable can’t have that be true, since she is hooked on the “consensus” propaganda spouted by Al Gore and Think Progress, so she sought to suppress, misrepresent, and undermine the study in order to avoid its obvious contents.

The conclusion shows that the scientists have still a long way to go in understanding the influences of the Sun on our climate, so anyone claiming they can explain everything to do with the climate warming are not being honest. The CO2 emissions agenda is trying to jump the gun on real science because it buttresses their theories that they want to be true.

With that said, as I have already pointed out, rimfrost.no contains temperature series from all over the world, the most comprehensive and publically available set of weather data. This tool shows that most places in the world are not significantly warmer than 70-100 years ago. Thus it seems that there can be other local phenomenon causing the warming, such as ocean systems, like the Gulf Stream.

The atmosphere and the Earth are a complex system, yet we are supposed to believe theories that increased CO2 emissions are the only explanation for a warming that, for the most of the world, is not unprecedented.

That sounds almost like a religious cult to me.

Seixon:

Every time you have repeated your citation, you have neglected to include the most important part of any citation, which is the name of the journal, volume, issue, pages, and year published. Here is the rest of the citation:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A10102, doi:10.1029/2004JA010946, 2005

I read the article. While it does say that their research shows some correlation between sunspot activity and climate, it is not saying that global climate change is due to sunspot activity alone. In fact, a major point of the article is an attempt to correlate sunspot activity with cosmic rays and possible effects on climate. You leave out the info on cosmic rays entirely. Also, the article is only able to extrapolate back to AD 200. And this sentence from the article is rather telling:

“For the following correlation study we consider the series up to AD 1900 because of the possible anthropogenic effects unevenly distributed over the globe.”

And the article’s study of variations in sunspot activity and cosmic rays goes up only until 1980. The levels of CO2 have risen dramatically since then, and the highest 14 years of summer temperature averages have occurred also since 1980.

Ice core samples taken in the Antarctic show correlation between CO2 levels and temperature going back 650,000 years. Throughout those years CO2 level has varied, and correlation with temperature is striking. This is used by skeptics to claim that the current high levels of CO2, which no one can deny, are natural variations since there have been high levels before, but the skeptics conveniently leave out that the current level is much higher yet than any previously recorded highs, thus suggesting strongly that another factor is operating beyond the previous natural oscillations in levels. And since various human activities also unquestionably contribute to the rise in CO2, Houston, we’ve got a problem.

Bottom line: I don’t think the article proves what you seem to be trying to assert.

Did you read the conclusion? The authors claim that they show trends but the corelation is not significant, i.e. we did not disprove the null hypothesis (Usokin et al., 2005). They did not show anything and need to continue their research.

I will have to agree with you that it is not an out of date paper, it often takes years to get a paper published after you do research, especially if you do not disprove your null hypo.

Conrad

I don’t know what to say really. It seems like you are a worthless person for all the tasks you claim to be doing.

You mistook ‘astrologer’ for an ‘astronomer’. And your spelling leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes, I did. I wrote the wrong word. That’s not as if I misspelled it. What about my spelling leaves a lot to be desired? You are so cheap and lazy. You just throw out accusations and BS without backing it up.

Now you can’t even respond to my debunkings of you because you have no legs to stand on at all. Everyone can transparently see that you’ve been lying from the start.

My study shows that solar activity is intensely debated in climate research, and you have pretended all along that the study is “out-dated” or even that since it’s in a geophysical journal, it was discredited.

You just throw up as much shit as you can and hope something sticks. Unfortunately for you, none of it has.

You’re the one who claimed that the study was meaningless because geophysical scientists don’t deal with the Sun. LOL.

When both NASA and the American Geophysical Union seem to disagree with that notion, you shut up fairly quickly about it, didn’t you?

You are discredited as a dishonest hack unbelievable, plain and simple. You hate science when it doesn’t say what you want it to.

That is a flat out mis-spelling and not a typo.
Again with the twisting of fact.