Reply to comment
Magnetic fields, cosmic rays, clouds & shielding = GW. Not CO2
December 12, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment id: 26430
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Have to say, this seems to summarize quite well the reasoned side of the macro-conditions which impact global climate change.
I am trying to educate myself on the subject, have read the entire blog to this point, and it appears that no response or refutation was attempted.
From all that I have read on both sides of the argument I'm inclined to accept this scientific explantion of global warming, rather than Al Gore's.
Thanks to all for the input.