Sunspots not CO2 Cause Climate Change

[Pudlugger]

Read the sunspots

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON
Financial Post
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

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%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

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.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.



R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
© National Post 2007


Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Continued below

[Pudlugger]

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

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.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
© National Post 2007

[Keith7]

this is ignorant science

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
this is ignorant science

How do you justify such a statement. This is from a professor of Earth Sciences at a respected University (Carleton is one of the top small universities). The data has been published in respected journals (Nature). You may not like it because it does not fit into your narrow viewpoint of climate change, but the science is good. To dismiss it out of hand reveals intellectual dishonesty.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
this is ignorant science
Not hardly. It is actual measurable and verifiable which most of the "global warming by man" stuff is not. There was a period early in the last millenia circa 1100 to 1300 when extensive wineries abounded in England which is much farther north than today. The Vikings left tools and burial grounds in Greenland and grew corn. The crop records indicate a global mean temp about 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than now. And it was in correlation with what was supposed to be a significant sun cycle.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

You change your position on global warming every week it seems. One day you say it's CO2, which is caused from the natural cycles on earth, then you say that it's not even caused by CO2 at all. Make up your mind man, but stop trying to drag us along with your propaganda.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
this is ignorant science Typical response from the left. When data shows contrary to what you believe, just dismiss it out of hand. No discussion needed.:rolleyes:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You change your position on global warming every week it seems. One day you say it's CO2, which is caused from the natural cycles on earth, then you say that it's not even caused by CO2 at all. Make up your mind man, but stop trying to drag us along with your propaganda.

Excuse me, but I have never said that I agreed with the Global warming crowd. I have always said it was solar and the records only show a gradual warming over the last 200 years which happens to coincide with the warmest cycle the sun has shownin the last 1000 years and perhaps the last 8000 years.

Sorry if the science is beyond you but this is not propaganda.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Excuse me, but I have never said that I agreed with the Global warming crowd. I have always said it was solar and the records only show a gradual warming over the last 200 years which happens to coincide with the warmest cycle the sun has shown in the last 1000 years and perhaps the last 8000 years......

Sorry if the science is beyond you but this is not propaganda.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Excuse me, but I have never said that I agreed with the Global warming crowd. I have always said it was solar and the records only show a gradual warming over the last 200 years which happens to coincide with the warmest cycle the sun has shownin the last 1000 years and perhaps the last 8000 years.

Sorry if the science is beyond you but this is not propaganda.

I'm not saying that it's false, I'm saying that someone is always coming out with a different reason for why our planet's climate is warming up, and what people choose to believe is more political than it is science, hence why I think a lot of it is propaganda.

[Fal44]

Can I please have a shorter version of all this?

[Emerson1]

The earth is gonna be to hot to live on sometime in the next few years anyway(by few i mean alot). The sun is a star, and if I remember right don't they grow bigger and bigger until they explode or something?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Fal44
Can I please have a shorter version of all this?

Bottom line is the sun gets busy and the place warms up. The sun cools off, gamma rays get busy and help create clouds and the place cools off. So the theory goes anyway. I think it is easier to believe the Sun affects our weather and climate. Seems too much like common sense. Just today I heard a treatise from a smart weather forecaster that they forecast on what has happened before but a weather pattern like the one currently hitting north texas is unusual and hence their inability to forecast it properly. Short version is that it does not fit their models so it does not compute. Time was a guy would look at the data himself and make the call. And it is these computer models that predict the great warming that destroys the earth.....hyuk hyuk.
Please forgive my belly laugh at that joke.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by Keith7
this is ignorant science

I was fortunate enough to visit a solar observatory that the US Government has on Oahu, Hawaii. It is actually a military base that is nothing more than a solar observatory. Meaning all they do is study the sun. It has been shown that the sun goes through an approximate 11 year "weather pattern" of its own, for some reason I was taught it was 14 years in college. We have been and continue to track not only sunspots, but more directly solar flares. Don't remember what was posted above, but sunspots actually are sign of a hotter sun not a cooler one..the more sunspots the more sun activity..i.e. flares and magnetic storms. Most people are not aware that a very strong solar storm, known as magnetic storm took out a huge power grid in Quebec Canada in the late 80's. It is for this very reason that our Army has solar observatories spread across the globe to keep a close eye on solar activities as they happen so we aren't caught unaware by a blackout.

BTW I had the neat experience of getting to see the sunspots through a telescope using a special type filter.

The average individual has made up their mind about "global warming" and the media seems to have convinced most of the world that it is a definite fact that man has caused it...meanwhile almost all of the scientific community ignores all data that would suggest it be anything besides CO2 production by the USA and China.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by Emerson1
The earth is gonna be to hot to live on sometime in the next few years anyway(by few i mean alot). The sun is a star, and if I remember right don't they grow bigger and bigger until they explode or something?

Don't sweat it, our star is very young and has another 4 or 5 billions year before it expands to fill the galaxy out to Saturn or thereabouts.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I'm not saying that it's false, I'm saying that someone is always coming out with a different reason for why our planet's climate is warming up, and what people choose to believe is more political than it is science, hence why I think a lot of it is propaganda.

Propaganda is ignoring the facts or skewing them to a point of view not supported otherwise. Science is about gathering facts and allowing everyone to make up their own mind. The sun having a cycle of about 11 years is a fact. That cycle affecting weather on earth is a fact. Why they don't talk about it on CNN is propaganda!

[Fal44]

well that was nice of everyone, oh well see you later earth :)..

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
Propaganda is ignoring the facts or skewing them to a point of view not supported otherwise. Science is about gathering facts and allowing everyone to make up their own mind. The sun having a cycle of about 11 years is a fact. That cycle affecting weather on earth is a fact. Why they don't talk about it on CNN is propaganda!

Yeah, and the science that was posted is doing what you just what you said. One scientists opinion on what is causing global warming is going to differ from another, and there in lies the propaganda, discrediting of ideas, etc., but I guess you just aren't getting my point.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
but I guess you just aren't getting my point.

Feeling is mutual.

Science reports the facts whether we like them or not. There are signs that point to the fact that man is increasing CO2 levels which are a known greenhouse gas. There are other facts that indicate that global warming has more serious culprits than just CO2. I guess when these scientist speak up to point this out it is the only time it can be called propoganda, right BBDE?

[charlesrixey]

It's highly likely that the climate changes we are experiencing now are a combination of all the factors mentioned.

people tend to focus on specific arguments, but the easiest answer is often also the best--another scientific principle, in fact!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
Feeling is mutual.

Science reports the facts whether we like them or not. There are signs that point to the fact that man is increasing CO2 levels which are a known greenhouse gas. There are other facts that indicate that global warming has more serious culprits than just CO2. I guess when these scientist speak up to point this out it is the only time it can be called propoganda, right BBDE?

No, the guys who are discrediting other theories and saying that their idea is more right than someone elses is what I consider the propaganda. I'm not saying that what was posted was false, but that it in my opinion is propaganda. Someone is always trying to prove that their idea is the most correct and their ideas are superior to someone elses. I'm not saying I support one idea, but I do know that cutting down all the trees in the Amazon and pouring out CO2 and having poor emissions standards isn't good for our environment, but it's probably not good for our atmosphere, and no, I don't think it's the only reason for global warming, either.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
Why they don't talk about it on CNN is propaganda! Amen!

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
How do you justify such a statement. This is from a professor of Earth Sciences at a respected University (Carleton is one of the top small universities). The data has been published in respected journals (Nature). You may not like it because it does not fit into your narrow viewpoint of climate change, but the science is good. To dismiss it out of hand reveals intellectual dishonesty.

And many other scientists have different theories, and they are respected scientists at respected universities. You dont like their view point because it doesnt fit into your narrow view point. How is that any different? Good to know that anyone that disagrees with you or your scientists has a narrow mind. How narrow minded does it make you to think that you are absolutly right, and anyone who dissents is wrong? If there isnt enough evidence to support 100 percent one way or another then how can you say anything about how people choose to believe?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Amen!

And because they do on FOX news is the right way. The most notorious right wing media outlet on television. Yawn...give me a break. Why dont they report on this on the discovery channel, TLC, or Nickelodeon? Guess they are biased as well.....

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by rockdale80
How narrow minded does it make insert anonymous poster s/n here to think that insert anonymous poster s/n here are absolutly right, and anyone who dissents is wrong?
:thinking: :thinking: :thinking: I think this can be said of many discussions on here. ;)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by rockdale80
And many other scientists have different theories, and they are respected scientists at respected universities. You dont like their view point because it doesnt fit into your narrow view point. How is that any different? Good to know that anyone that disagrees with you or your scientists has a narrow mind. How narrow minded does it make you to think that you are absolutly right, and anyone who dissents is wrong? If there isnt enough evidence to support 100 percent one way or another then how can you say anything about how people choose to believe?

Your argument is a straw man one. I rebuked Keith 7 for dismissing out of hand the data presented in this article as ignorant science. If the position cannot be supported by rational argument it is intellectually dishonest.You don't get it though do you? You speak of beliefs, as if it were a religious position and not subject to debate on merit. I take a dispassionate view and speak of scientific data and logic which is subject to rational debate. If you disagree you are free to challenge the data, but don't go all "Linda Blair" on me for treading on your sacred beliefs.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
And because they do on FOX news is the right way. The most notorious right wing media outlet on television. I guess that's why they have Geraldo Rivera and Alan Combs. (Those are just the first two that come to mind)

Name me somebody on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or ABC or NBC that's a conservative.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
And many other scientists have different theories, and they are respected scientists at respected universities.... If there isnt enough evidence to support 100 percent one way or another then how can you say anything about how people choose to believe? EXACTLY!!! Yet the man caused global warming group is saying the debate is over. (Al Gore specifically) They dismiss any other data as "ignorant science" (Keith7) because it doesn't support their narrow minded belief.

Until we have a grasp on the situation using ALL AVAILABLE DATA, how can we have a serious discussion? It would be foolish to enact laws and legislation using only one point of view.

[pirate4state]

http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

seriously this horse is dead!!!

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by pirate4state
http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

seriously this horse is dead!!!

did I miss it getting cooler? it's not dead by a long shot...

it's fun to poke fun at Gore, SNL did a great job of it and so did the fellas at South Park, so don't take me seriously when we talk about him... it's like in my mind he serves no other purpose but to be made fun of...

but we should listen to anyone's opinions and theories and for damn sure their FACTS...

these were facts backed up with a theory or two, it's good to see these and it's good to see others... all Pud did was say "Hey, here's some more facts on global warming that may or may not have been discussed already..." and instead of discussing it an arguement grows...

until crazy conservatives and silly liberals can learn to discuss facts without which party they're involved with being in the front of their heads we will get no where...

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by pirate4state
http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

seriously this horse is dead!!!


Horse isn't even a horse depending on who you ask...

it is either a warm blooded creature that eats grass and expels methane which is a major cause of global warming..

or that it is a fine ride that should be loaded up in a gooseneck trailer pulled down the road by a 4 wheel drive dually the nearest rodeo that you can find while spewing out as much CO2 as needed on the way to a good time while not worrying about all the environmental propaganda.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Your argument is a straw man one. I rebuked Keith 7 for dismissing out of hand the data presented in this article as ignorant science. If the position cannot be supported by rational argument it is intellectually dishonest.You don't get it though do you? You speak of beliefs, as if it were a religious position and not subject to debate on merit. I take a dispassionate view and speak of scientific data and logic which is subject to rational debate. If you disagree you are free to challenge the data, but don't go all "Linda Blair" on me for treading on your sacred beliefs. ]

All I am saying is there is not enough evidence to say that the date you have is 100 percent accurate, there would be no more science looking into global warming. So to think that the scientists that you agree with are right, and everyone else is wrong makes you that same narrowminded person you accuse keith of being. There are thousands of scientists with thousands of theories. The thing about theories are they arent facts, and nothing has been proven. I have told everyone where I stand on this issue. I think it is better to something than nothing. Thats jsut me though. But dont call people narrowminded because you dont agree with them, unless you are prepared to be called narrowminded for thinking the same way.

[pirate4state]

I'm talking about these threads. :rolleyes: Aren't ya'll dizzy from all these rounds?? :crazy1:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I guess that's why they have Geraldo Rivera and Alan Combs. (Those are just the first two that come to mind)

Name me somebody on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or ABC or NBC that's a conservative.

Geraldo Rivera and Alan colmes are not democrats. They are middle of the road at best, and represent very few issues that a democrat represent.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
]

But dont call people narrowminded because you dont agree with them, unless you are prepared to be called narrowminded for thinking the same way.

he didn't call him narrowminded because he doesn't agree with him... we have facts, and we have theories to follow up those facts on both sides... Pud gave us a ton of facts (as both sides do), some theory was in it, but that's with everything because we don't for sure know everything...

when you respond to a bunch of facts that are successfully supporting your opposition by calling it ignorant science you're being narrowminded...

when you respond by saying "well hell, I don't think that supports it because of (insert facts or theories here)" you're not being narrowminded...

these are very good facts... the other side has given very good facts as well...

we need to stop being enemies on an important issue...

one thing is for sure, it was good to read through an article on the subject without the author attacking the other side by throwing cheap-shots...

he just laid it out there, and that was that... take from it what you will, but that's good science...

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
he didn't call him narrowminded because he doesn't agree with him... we have facts, and we have theories to follow up those facts on both sides... Pud gave us a ton of facts (as both sides do), some theory was in it, but that's with everything because we don't for sure know everything...

when you respond to a bunch of facts that are successfully supporting your opposition by calling it ignorant science you're being narrowminded...

when you respond by saying "well hell, I don't think that supports it because of (insert facts or theories here)" you're not being narrowminded...

these are very good facts... the other side has given very good facts as well...

we need to stop being enemies on an important issue...

one thing is for sure, it was good to read through an article on the subject without the author attacking the other side by throwing cheap-shots...

he just laid it out there, and that was that... take from it what you will, but that's good science...

Both sides have good science. I dont know who is right. But even if mad does not cause global warming I am all for alternative fuels because I am tired of paying 3 bucks for a gallon of gas. Plus what would it hurt to take a proactive approach to this thing?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Both sides have good science. I dont know who is right. But even if mad does not cause global warming I am all for alternative fuels because I am tired of paying 3 bucks for a gallon of gas. Plus what would it hurt to take a proactive approach to this thing?

I agree, we should be proactive... I just don't want to end up having certain regulations and paying out the butt for things when we don't for sure know anything...

I can give a little man, like with gas right now, but I don't want it to grow into a problem where I can't drive for a week because my new "Drive Miles Card" won't be in for another month... ya know what I'm saying?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Geraldo Rivera and Alan colmes are not democrats. They are middle of the road at best, and represent very few issues that a democrat represent. Middle of the road? Wow, you must be waaaaaaay left to think that these two guys are "middle of the road".

Alan Combs is a liberal and proud of it. Just listen to him.

And you still didn't name me a conservative on the other main networks.

[Gobbla2001]

Though I think Combes is a liberal I believe he was put their strategically... I do not believe he has the mental compacity to come close to overtaking Hannity's arguement... it's like it's almost scripted, he just can't ever beat the guy because let's face it, it's Hannity's show...

On CNN you have Beck... Beck is pretty much conservative, he just doesn't like the death penalty and that's his deal... I think CNN went with him because though he's conservative he stays pretty independent and has no problem critisizing the current administration... also, and though I love him, he's like Combes (are we even spelling his name right?), he's not really a political genius... he raises question, he's funny as hell and that's why Beck's there...

Both of these networks use these two to prove to the others they're not biased... both are biased in ways and not in others, that's about it

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Middle of the road? Wow, you must be waaaaaaay left to think that these two guys are "middle of the road".

Alan Combs is a liberal and proud of it. Just listen to him.

And you still didn't name me a conservative on the other main networks.

Alan colmes claims to be liberal, and he gets 25% of the talk time on alan and colmes. That is right. 25%. And instead of calling Hannity on his stupidity he either agrees or doesnt know enough about what he is talking about to provide a great argument. If you want I will send you a bunch of the transcript on this and walk you through why I think he is incompetent. Our views may be the same on a few things, but on the majority of them he is conservative or middle of the road. He isnt a democrat. He is a diet conservative.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Good job brother. :clap:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by pirate4state
http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

seriously this horse is dead!!!


I agree, we've had this same discussion 1000X and its the same everytime.. Someone starts a thread saying something along the lines of "global warming is fake", then they copy and paste some rediculously long article that the original poster prolly didn't even read that was written by some scientist just trying to make a name for himself in the science field and make false assumptions then the educated people get on here and make everyone who believes this crap look silly.. the thread eventually goes away and a week later another thread with a title that goes some thing like "Scientist proves global warming wrong" and the cycle starts all over again... it gets old.. your not going to change mine or anyone else's opinion by copy and pasting some no name scientist's idiotic theory, so why try??

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Middle of the road? Wow, you must be waaaaaaay left to think that these two guys are "middle of the road".

Alan Combs is a liberal and proud of it. Just listen to him.

And you still didn't name me a conservative on the other main networks. msnbc has tucker carlson, joe scarborough and pat buchanon. i know tucker and scarborough have a show, well scarborough actually got promoted. does fox have a liberal with his own show? i don't watch enough to know truthfully. if ya count colmes perhaps but hannity does most the talking. that lady who replaces colmes gets after it sometimes.

[DDBooger]

thought this was funny! when that lady who replaced colmes gave ann coulter some Hannity lovin!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZLfLmncPEc

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Keith7
I agree, we've had this same discussion 1000X and its the same everytime.. Someone starts a thread saying something along the lines of "global warming is fake", then they copy and paste some rediculously long article that the original poster prolly didn't even read that was written by some scientist just trying to make a name for himself in the science field and make false assumptions then the educated people get on here and make everyone who believes this crap look silly.. the thread eventually goes away and a week later another thread with a title that goes some thing like "Scientist proves global warming wrong" and the cycle starts all over again... it gets old.. your not going to change mine or anyone else's opinion by copy and pasting some no name scientist's idiotic theory, so why try??


:clap: :clap: EXACTLY!!!