Goodness me, EclipseNow, is still having trouble finding old sunnyboy? I thought pointing him to a quite scholarly article written by John Daly may have been helpful. Daly obviously sees through Mann's attempted revision of the last millennium's climatic history although many others have done a better job debunking the stooopidity of the`Hockey Stick'.

But Daly isn't a character assassin like a superficial Tony Jones or the EclipseNow, because he goes much deeper to the core of the issue. He points to a blinded process that led to a chorus of approval along with a complete lack of critical evaluation. He says ..."The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear." (Here include solar/cosmic denialists like Davsab.)

Also, I find it significant that early on Daly was realising the potential democratising medium of the internet ....... i.e. insisting that scientists honour their profession by seeking to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means. In this respect, as many of my postings on OLO will attest, the internet is our new 360 degree medium of communication because it is many to many and beyond the 20th century dictatorship of the modern and beyond the superficial, lateral post-modern.

We are all scientists, artists and philosophers. It is easy to forget that science is essentially a philosophical discipline. It is based on empiricism, the method by which we gain knowledge through observation and measurement. History also teaches us to be cautious of deductive processes like relying on mathematics or religious bandwagons as a starting point. As far as knowledge and our place in an infinite connected universe is concerned we have barely scratched the surface but I simply share the humble, skeptical, induction process of find and ye shall seek.

“Here include solar/cosmic denialists like Davsab” – Keiran is deliberately lying or hasn’t read my post Friday, 27 July 2007 11:47:42 pm (above) or can’t understand it.

Daly is a self-proclaimed scientist (reminiscent of Keiran’s aspirations) who offered many opinion pieces, both in the media and to people like Ray Evans and the Lavoisier Group (LG), all dedicated to the argument that “the world's best climatologists are misguided, thick-headed or so lacking in integrity that they would invent a worldwide environmental scare story to help them bulk up their research budgets.”

Ray Evans (LG’s secretary and TGGWS panelist) co-wrote Daly’s obituary and has adopted Daly’s modus operandi of writing op-ed pieces in the media and organising home-grown and imported global warming sceptics to promote denial and delay. The LG also cultivates “true believers” (people like Keiran) to their cause, often unknowingly acting like ‘front men’.

People (like Daly and Evans and Keiran et-al) and groups (like Lavoisier, Institute of Public Affairs, Centre for Independent Studies, Cato Institute, Tech Central Station, etc are not satisfied with the scientific peer review process, claiming it a sham at best or a worldwide conspiracy at worst.

There is no doubt science would be made easier by throwing out the concept of peer review. Scientists curse from time to time the rigorous questioning of their peers, the need to re-visit completed work and the possibility that years’ of research may be for naught based on the scrutiny of their colleagues.

However, the peer-review process of science plays an extremely important role in ensuring that conclusions drawn by research are in fact sound before being touted in the scientific community. Without peer review, science could easily fall into the category of opinion – a.k.a. OLO and pseudo-scientists like Keiran.

Keiran is right in one respect; the internet is a great research tool. So why can’t pseudo-scientists like Keiran use it to do honest research BEFORE they show their ignorance, rather than taking a particular point of view because it suits their chosen ideology/philosophy and sprouting their nonsense to any who are willing to listen?

Boxer vows to act on global warming
The Salinas Californian - Salinas,CA,USA
Barbara Boxer led a group of her Senate colleagues on a weekend trip to Greenland for a first-hand glimpse of the effects of global warming. ...

I do not understand why a "genuine scientist" like davsab would be bothered continuing to waste his valuable time contributing to this site (prolifically).
His valiant efforts are not appreciated.
Davsab I sympathize.
Grand Admirals of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Navy are similarly disrespected.

I know Davsab, yet I feel I must counter their propaganda.

Tell me Alzo — what delays some of the temperature variations you are describing during the day and seasons? What blankets our earth and protects us from the immediate consequences of a 100% solar forcing which would result in freezing at night and cooking during the day? The atmosphere!

There are also 3 problems with your "critique" of Global Dimming.
1. We are producing more CO2 than ever before, so even IF we were producing as much sulphuric particulates as just after WW2, the CO2 forcing for warming could finally outstrip the sulphuric dimming.
2. We are not producing as much sulfur. Aerosols are not all the same. Clean air regulations have reduced the Dimming particulates because they caused acid rain.
3. Global Dimming has been a known phenomenon for decades.

In fact some want to increase it!

“Some scientists have suggested using aerosols to stave off the effects of global warming as an emergency measure. Russian expert Mikhail Budyko understood this relationship very early on. In 1974, he suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze.[41][42][43] According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.[44]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Possible_use_to_mitigate_global_warming

You just “believe” that the sun is the only climate driver (though the planet gets warmer during a low solar period). You’d rather believe in a fictitious UNIDENTIFIED mechanism than read about the many clearly IDENTIFIED forcings that skeptical, peer reviewed science has already confirmed. “I do believe in slowed sunlight, I do, I DO!” (Clap your hands 3 times).

Wheras:

“According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Relationship_to_global_warming

For Kieran: see myth 3, “The Hockey stick has been disproved”
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

The sun has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. When the sun has influence it is very temporary. The sun has not done anything unusual , the earth hasnt wobbled out of sink and we are not passing through a warping as we orbit the galaxy.

Climate change skeptics there are many global warming experiments you can try although I hope and wish you smart enough not to try it and get the point anyway.

1) Block your chimneny and light a fire in your hearth, is it the sun making you suffocate or is the atmosphere in your room?

2) Relieve yourself in your bed for a year without changing your sheets, wash them next July and smell them. Does the gas you smell come from outer space?

3) Do not open a window or use an exhaust fan in your bathroom , make sure the door is kept shut as much as possible. Is the mould alien?

4) In the heat of a dry summer leave your sprinkler on over your lawn for a whole week. Is the humidity due to sun spots?

All the crack pot theories denying anthropogenic caused climate change is crazy talk, baseless conjecture, loco.