quick linkless note

In 1963, Karl Popper said this--

"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice."

Lots of sensible people have already noted that the theory of Manmade Catastrophic Global Warming appears to be confirmed, in the eyes of its proponents, by almost any weather event or scientific datum. It seems sometimes there is NO weather pattern or scientific measurement that cannot be explained by the anthropogenic global warming theory.

I've been covering a lot of ground on this tonight, looking at lots of stories and websites and databanks; it is a subject in which I have no professional expertise at all, so I won't attempt to make scientific arguments myself.

Nor, since I don't have much time to refine this post, will I hammer you with a bunch of links.

It will suffice for me to use this post as a sort of bookmark, as we are now in the final week of 2007.

You see, I've found a lot of blogs and other conversations amongst experts, hobbyists and interested people about the solar cycle, the sunspots-- or lack of them.

At present there are none. And it has been this way for a long long time, TOO long in fact.

For hundreds of years the solar cycle has been on an 11 year basis, with almost no variation.

If the next cycle begins when predicted, it will be more like 13 years. And recent predictions have been proven wrong with each passing month.

The last time we had an extended solar flat cycle was about 300 years ago, and it got so cold on this planet that crops failed and generations died of starvation.

Just google "Maunder minimum" and go from there, if you have a few minutes to spare.

IF the planet gets warmer, more things can grow, including the plants and animals we eat. Plants require sunlight and warmth, and animals eat plants. It is an adjustment we can all handle.

We can move to higher ground, we can build with better codes and live through hurricanes, etc etc yada yada. (assuming their arguments about those things are correct.)

But how can we generate enough energy to create sunlight to grow crops? It's a ridiculous thought.

Global cooling would be devastating to the human race. Global warming, not so much.

There is nothing to debate here, except to argue for warming or cooling. Right now, the warming guys are better organized and are making more money off it (and poised to make LOTS more in the form of worldwide taxation, mainly aimed at America), which is better motivation. But the cooling guys are coming up hard down the stretch, as the sun just sits there. Silent.

Spotless.

For way too long. The cycle was to start last spring. Now nobody knows, because the normal indicators are absent. This past winter set records all over the world for cold, in the northern hemisphere and then through June July August in the southern. Snow in Peru, first time since 1918. Frozen vineyards in New Zealand, new cold records broken every few days in Australia.

And we all know how well the new winter is going here in the States. More than half the country is presently under ice or snow, with record snowfalls already recorded from one end of the country to the other, as well as several notable new record lows.

No sunspots. No indication of the beginning of a new cycle, which was first noticed in 2006 and has attracted more and more attention as the dead time continues.

Just look around, do some googling. Even I wouldn't enjoy the exposing of the Gore fraud if it came with this kind of price tag, genuine human misery on a large scale.

Well, maybe I'd enjoy it a little. :-)