The sound you just heard was hundreds of climate believers' heads exploding and thousands of skeptics screaming "duh, it's the sun".

True Believers know that Al Gore has solved this issue by claiming sun activity is counterbalanced by the moon's activity - simple proof the AGW theory can be taken to the bank.

Uh huh.

But naturally, there's still the death of a cute & cuddly "creature" attached to the story.

Last year during a CFRB debate where the Host insisted the Sun had nothing to do with earths weather , I posted the NASA links to the Solar activity and the Global temps and guess what?
The charts showed a minor lag-Time for the almost identical patterns for Solar activity and increased heat patterns.

I also found a big scam for the Child-Obesity Industry where advocates protest for higher Welfare cheques to buy healthier foods for the kids to keep them fit.
What a crock ,the very own Stats-can numbers barely had a change to the Gender/height/Age graph created by Doctors and Hospital Stats.
The scam was hidden in the new method used to collect info , seems that a footnote reference lead to the U.N. changes to the definition of a "Child".
It was change to be anyone under 19 instead of the older idea of under 13 as we see for the Young Offenders act that doesn't apply to under 13 kids , so when I broke down the Stats to see all the age groups it was the 15-17 year olds that were become fatter from being lazy and glued to their PC's .
As for the starving seniors eating cat-Food , the next highest group with an obesity risk was the 74+ group.
But this sudden jump didn't appear across a 20 year Time-shift , I concluded that canada's family-Reunification system is a failure because were getting a massive influx of grand-parents that are already over weight .

Until Sir Gore gives up his 5 houses and Gulfstream jets , I'm enjoying the products that are legally sold and taxed.

Come on. If the sun affected temperature then Earth would be colder at night.

Oh wait…

And, it's just a matter of time before they prove my pet theory of inter-planet rotation is linked to solar magnetic activity.

"Scientists have long known that the sun plays a key role in Earth's weather patterns..."

Once again Kate links to yet another piece of false information from the climate change deniers.

"As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future."

Well, now. Oh, dear. My my.

Someone should have spoke up, telephoned the Media or something.

And told the thousands, upon thousands of computer modelers and University professors and Hollywood "documentary" producers and "science" journalists and headline writers and United Nation "workers" and alternative energy promoters and carbon credit suckers and experts and Nobel Laureates and Leading Kyotoists and and .. that they are all nuts !

Or if only the Kool-Aide drinkers had just checked sda archives first :) click click

Could have saved the world a bundle if they had all been gainfully employed.

If only Liberals could find some way to tax sunlight...darn I shouldn't have said that.

CBC had Al Gore's "An Inconvenient (Lie) Truth" on last night. Maybe someone should send them the link to this article.

Phil, you don't want a tax on square centimeters of window pane do you?

Phil, IIRC, that twit so-called Mayor of Toronto, David Miller was having someone go around and try to measure shade.

Me thinks it has already begun.

"As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future."

This is too much. I can't stop laughing. I'm rolling on the floor. No more Kate. No more.

Interesting article, but as the paper contains no statistical tests it's findings are meaningless. Good science involves statistical interpretation of data to ensure a direct cause and effect relationship!

True Dante, which just goes to show that this report is no better than the bulk of research done to "prove" global warming.

That article is totally bogus. Probably funded by big oil and you crazy suicidal deniars.
Everyone knows we have more effect on the climate than the sun. I mean... look up.! It's not even that big!!!
And don't forget, there's only one of it but there's billions of us.
The sun..... Puleeeeease!

Anyone notice that CBC was on the AGW bandwagon all day yesterday??

I particularly found the weasel phrase "...at least regionally." most interesting. The author thinks that the sun only has regional affects...

Anyone notice the CBC yesterday?

If they keep this up the THE GORIST ILK will be telling THE ONE that the global warming cult needs a bailout.

Dimethyl sulfide eh,what kind of BS is that? I learned back in the good old days that it takes dust or smoke to make rain.THAT HAS'NT CHANGED!Clouds are formed by dimethyl sulfide,I dont think so,thats water vapour folks,fog only higher.It makes me wonder which online university these people got their degree from.

WHAT. You mean all those little squiggly bublbs loaded with mercury aren't asffecting thing the eniviroment?? You mean I've been had??Sorry for the typos,Shovelling snoe at - 28C/WC-39C sems to havr screwed up my fingies.Just think.Cpuld be -50 withot the help of AGW.

Good science involves statistical interpretation of data to ensure a direct cause and effect relationship!

It was already mentioned upthread by Halfwise but I suppose needs simplifying .... ahem ...... during day , sun make earth warm ... when sun go away at night , earth not so warm .... if sun have warm and not so warm cycles ... maybe earth does too .

Ommag et al: I too noticed it. Unlike papers that need to move back objectivity in order to avoid financial oblivion, the CBC is (currently) under no such threat. Currently I am reading novak's memoir and he wrote about the media being in the bag for the left way back in '71 and the need for them to return to objectivity or face extinction. At the time it was the afternoon dailies that became extinct - today it is the morning dailies - the media equivalents of the automotive big 3. Will they change their habits and survive? I suspect not until the murdoch's and zuckermans take ownership.

Dante – “…the paper contains no statistical tests it's (sic) findings are meaningless. Good science involves statistical interpretation of data”.

Have you read the actual paper? All 19 pages worth, dense with data and correlation analysis?

It would take me the better part of a day to referee such a paper, to assess its data and methodology, statistical approaches, identify deficiencies and omissions, validate the conclusion, and to decide whether it was an important contribution.

And you cavalierly misrepresent it?!

Mewling incompetent. Charlatan.

Watch for a headline like this one to appear in 2009:

Al Gore To Stop The Menacing Sun

Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama has just signed his name to a new Democrat sponsored bill that will see $10 Trillion given to Al Gore's firm, to be used on a project codenamed "EndSolarNow". Once completed, multiple rockets will be launched into outer space and a large black cloth-like material thousands of miles long will be spun out in space to prevent all sunlight from reaching Earth.

Dem. House Leader, Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, "This is the most brilliant idea Mr. Gore has come up with to date. Not only will he save the lives of my grandchildren, but it'll prevent me from ever having to get another facelift."

Fighter for the planet devoid of humans would be much more convincing if he were to self-destruct much like the assignment instructions on Mission Impossible! Interesting how the enviro-wackos want to eliminate one way or another (tax and regulate them to death for example) people but exclude themselves.

I send the CBC a note on there feedback link outlining that Al's video was found wanting by the British high court when it comes to the TRUTH.
There web page related to the airing of the video looks like typical cut and past job without researching the topic or warning to the public that An inconvenient truth is a political movie.

Robert W. What makes you think that Pelosi had any humanoid offspring that lived long enough to give her grand-children

John @ 6:27,

nope, but then I don't notice the CBC anyday except for 90 minutes on 11 November, then it gets ignored again for another year.

I just love computer models....garbage in...garbage out, until you get the results you want. I'm sure Al Gore is working on another model as we speak. After all....he invented the internet.

Interesting article...shows that the details of the climate are still being worked out. Does not, however, negate the fact that greenhouse gases are still the larger controlling factor.

Bill D. Cat....the article talked about variations in the sun's MAGNETIC ACTIVITY...not it's temperature. If it was as simple as you imply...I'm sure researchers would have come to those conclusions.

"""""After all....he invented the internet."""""

and here I thought he only invented gorebull warming

Al Gore has really stepped in some deep global warming do do. He has guaranteed the world that the northern polar ice cap will be gone in five years. I couldn't believe it either till I saw the video.

To view is comments on video, visit the following site:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
then click on Mr. Gore's pic.
Happy viewing. You might also want to watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" found in the video section.

This author describes a mechanism, different from Svendsmark (sp?), but also tied to a 22 year magnetic cycle, as has a South African geologist correlated the 22 year cycle to droughts and floods in South Africa.

However, these remain contraversial.

However, however, the global warming hysterics dismiss out of hand the, perhaps too obvious, possibility that maybe, the Sun might, just might, have a larger impact on climate than they adduce to simple Solar Optical Output.

Eventually, Gore, Flannery, Hansen, Stern, Suzuki et al. will be reviled by the people and hopefully run out of town naked, stripped of all their illegitimately gotten gains from global Warming.

Deeznuts at January 2, 2009 11:29 PM says:

Does not, however, negate the fact that greenhouse gases are still the larger controlling factor.

Simply making a statement does not make it true. In fact, looking at history, your statement is patently not true. Just re-iterate holy rote and all demons will be banished eh?

Posted by: john at January 2, 2009 6:27 PM

Anyone notice the CBC yesterday?

Not since they went on strike. Did that strike ever end?

I always thought scientists were smart people. Well, if they're uncertain about whether the sun effects temps here on Earth, why don't they try turning it off in their computer models. I don't know why, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that it would be a hell of a lot colder without that yellow ball in the sky. Call it a hunch.

Do we know what the sun is? No, not yet, but it isn't a fusion reactor nor, a neutron star. Both the earth and the sun have similar temperature profiles, and while the earth's is due to an external energy source, no one has realized that it could be as well as for the sun. The Electric Universe.

Apparently some of you decided not to read the entire article.

No where does it make any statements regarding TEMPERATURE...only correlations between UV and precipitation patterns.

Secondly, it clearly states that the problem with the research is that it contains "no statistical tests" and therefore the conclusions could "arise readily by chance, even for extended periods".

RW...you're right, it doesn't make it right. However, piles and piles of research confirming it does. Prove me wrong then, show me research that shows greenhouse gases (our atmosphere) are (is) not the larger controlling factor of our climate.

No scientist has said that the sun has no effect on our climate. The question is do the observed changes in our climate correlate with changes in the sun. There has yet to be any research that would suggest this, let alone rule out our effect on the earth being the most powerful cause.

Bruce...what the heck are you talking about?

Tenebris: I'm giving Dante the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he was trying to be arch. But I can only agree with your conclusion; one hundred and thirty years of data, and the "scientist" at the end of the article says there aren't enough "statistics"?

As the old joke said "Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action". 130 times sounds fairly statistically significant to this aging and decrepit EE/MBA.

The biggest problem was that we didnt listen to our parents when we where kids"CLOSE THE GODDAM DOOR YOUR HEATING UP THE OUTSIDE"! see we should have listened!

The Greenies have the best idea ever. Bail out the logging companies so they can kill more co2 eating trees. That dizzy lizzy is so smart, I don't know what the world would do without all these bright ideas.

Oh, and dont forget "best idea" she also wants to get all the pulp and paper mills going again after how many years of trying to shut them down!

Tenebris wrote: Have you read the actual paper? All 19 pages worth, dense with data and correlation analysis? It would take me the better part of a day to referee such a paper, to assess its data and methodology, statistical approaches, identify deficiencies and omissions, validate the conclusion, and to decide whether it was an important contribution. And you cavalierly misrepresent it?! Mewling incompetent. Charlatan.

I sincerely hope you're joking, Tenebris, because the degree I spent four years on (not to mention the current degree I am working on) involved an ungodly amount of analysis of papers that were both good and bad. During that time, I learned quite a lot about which studies were done by idiots who should never have been published and which ones were worth my valuable time. This paper has no statistical analysis of the data, which (for those of you pretending to have a clue about this hint hint) means that the author cannot prove a direct correlation between solar activity and rainfall in Australia. Big whoop if he thinks they're related, if he can't prove it with statistical analysis of the data it's not a valid conclusion. That's called garbage science, people. That's something a first year undergrad would know.

(And by the way, who needs a day to evaluate a paper? If it takes you more than ten minutes you're incompetent.)

May I correct myself: my distaste is redirected towards one Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton as was quoted in the article Kate linked to, who apparently never read the paper. In his results section, Baker actually gives several statistical analyses of his data, although the Pearson coefficients he uses are not exactly convincing.

Calling the paper "chock full" of statistical analysis is still quite laughable considering out of 19 pages only a few sentences are devoted to it; none of his charts even include confidence intervals.

I'm sorry Deeznuts, buy

... piles and piles of research confirming it does.

No, there are not piles and piles of research confirming it. There is lots of research that demonstrate warming on a century scale, but then other research demonstrating this is not at all unusual on larger time scales is ignored by the global warming hysterics.

There is also lot's of research tied to "global warming" as it is a sure fire way to get a government grant.

There is also the geological record of CO2, which wasn't constant up to 1850, which demonstrates that the Earth's "temperature" did not run away when CO2 concentration was many times greater than today.

It's all down to climate models that are created to demosntrate the desired effect.

Well, if the statistical analysis was not included in the pictures part, I can see how you missed it...

Deeznuts,
There is no primary evidence that a change of a few hundred parts per million in CO2 concentration is the "controlling" factor in our climate. In fact, the current cooling, which has been going on for a decade, even if you throw out '98, kind of shows that CO2 is not in complete control of the climate.

All evidence that minor changes in GHG concentration are the dominant factor in climate come from computer models which are guesses in themselves.

Even according to the IPCC, what they do is start by attributing the temp differences over the past couple decades to CO2 and other GHG, then work backwards (if you want to call bullshit on this, I will happily provide you a reference.)

BTW, your side is the one demanding trillions of dollars from the world economy, so I think the burden of proof lies with you. Go ahead and spend the rest of the day trying to find such "proof". Good luck with that.

"...piles and piles of research confirming it does" (support that greenhouse gases are the larger controlling factor of our climate)

Well, the "piles and piles" part is right, but it's not piles of legitimate scientific research. It's piles of something else that stinks.

It's piles of cherry-picked and massaged data from questionable and geographically-specific and isolated collection points fed into software that can be tweaked at will by politically-motivated people who are paid by government grants and they refuse to disclose their methods and accept no criticism.

Pull the other one (or my finger, if you want my response to AGW alarmism).

Deezenuts: "Secondly, it clearly states that the problem with the research is that it contains "no statistical tests" and therefore the conclusions could "arise readily by chance, even for extended periods"."

I couldn't find a link to the original article - maybe you can provide one - but the chances of a random occurrence following a similar pattern for over a hundred years? Slim and zero, and Slim left town recently. Six sigma events and all that..

i read that they have added one second to the international clock because the earths rotation is slowing. we are all going to fry. my god, panic quickly. increase the rotation speed. ha.

Nothing conclusive just the normal process of science.

1) The correlation is interesting but doesnt prove anything, so to speak. If it yields a prediction that can be tested then this is the power of it. Hence the focus on precipitation. It is objectively measured, unlike surface temperature and is a good simple test. Unlike the AGW models where I cannot think of one single prediction that has held up...and not just missing by 10% but by multiple quantum. Anyway, they have a model so we will see if it holds up

2) The other interesting piece is that there is a mechanism proposed that can be examined, poked and prodded, and appears to be supported by theory. Once again this is something that AGW models have been missing. AGW models engage in lots of hand waving once you get past the 1st step of saying CO2 is a GHG...a true statement, along with any other gas or vapour in the atmosphere, including water vapour. Talking about how much it affects things is missing, henc the lack of predictive power.

The solar theory/hypothesis is interesting, but like CO2 I just dont know the answer, since neither has accumulated enough evidence and proper predictions to become uncontroversially accepted.

Interesting paper, because the implication is if there is a link between solar cycles and precipitation, it may be a secondary effect by the way, which is why the mecahnism needs to be understood, then you have now made a solid pitch that "weather" and "climate" are strongly affected by the sun. this doesnt invalidate CO2 as a contributor but it probably invalidates any prior AGW model since the sun is never considered part of the model, it is always held as a constant.

It also shows that whatever effect manmade or man induced CO2 has it can easily be washed out by "natural" cycles. So at best man made CO2 is an additive not a catalyst.

The policy implications flow from there, as they should. Get the science largely correct and then you can make proper policy choices.

Right answer+ wrong method = bad science, and bad science is like multiplying by zero...you always get zero as an answer...

This paper will be reviewed and jusged along with others based on its predictive qualities. 2 years from now it might be considered a breakthrough or a joke, or more likely some elements of it will hold up and it will move the gears of science frward another inch or two.

No, Dante, I am not joking. You’ve blown off a paper which (a) you have not (properly) read, or (b) wish to deliberately misrepresent. I did you the courtesy of assuming (a). Read the paper carefully. I am not saying that it is holy writ, merely worth taking seriously. The paper does contain statistical analysis. Whether it is sufficient to the fact is a secondary concern. Your categorical statement is false. I’ll presume field bias on your part, and undue infatuation with statistical rigor - I assume you work in a field where experiments can be replicated for statistical precision. While the work may have undoubted deficiencies, it is not garbage science.

“And by the way, who needs a day to evaluate a paper? If it takes you more than ten minutes you're incompetent.”

Sigh. Do you publish? Have you read your referee reports? Do you think such feedback takes only 10 minutes? Yes, one can (usually) determine obvious trash in 10 minutes, in ones own field. Stop being so impressed with your own insight and learning.

(Oh, and BTW, one does not “prove [something] with statistical analysis…”)

My brother has sent me a link to the "Green Agenda" here is a taste.
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank
consultants to the United Nations

Here's one from one of favorite power brokers.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

Deeznuts, what the heck am I talking about?

The AGW crowd wants to tax the use of carbon fuels, retard their use and have us bow to the IPPC pseudo science. CO2 is not the driving force of climate change. To single it out as such and to shape a world economy around this fallacy is ludicrous. People who think CO2 is evil are small minded and have absolutely no clue about proper science nor the vastness of the universe and its' mechanics.
CO2 does not drive climate, the universe drives climate. Our knowledge about climate is in direct correlation to our knowledge about the universe, which is infantile.
To ask the world to swallow the science is settled hype p*sses me off. To shape the future to this philosophy is insane.

The statistaical analysis argument is bogus. Statistical analysis doesn't validate anything -- look at the nonense of using tree rings to derive global temperatures. The true test of validity is: prediction based on theory produced via accurate observation. Typically, the AGW religionists try to discredit a valid contribution to understanding aspects of climate. Rememeber the three kinds of lies: "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Stephen: "If it yields a prediction that can be tested then this is the power of it."

Um, come here often? What we are so exercised about is precisely that the AGW crowd makes so many predictions that don't pan out. 100% rise in CO2 should result in 3 metre rise in sea levels? (Jeremy Siegel)

From a global warming site: "The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the “pre-industrial” value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius."

Er.. why are we using a log scale? Why not a square law (which occurs naturally in gravity and electromagnetism) instead? Oh, right.. the square law can be measured and authenticated, but the log scale for CO2? Not so much.

As I've noted above, I have considerable experience with numbers and statistics. This is why the AGW crowd drives me wild; they have no time for any rigorous statistical analysis; they love to use the fallacious "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" form; and when the absolute stats turn against them (posted at SDA over and over again), they either turn to "ad hominem" attacks or ignore them. Any wonder that people with scientific educations (e.g. "me") tend to ignore or denigrate the AGW crowd?

Marice Strong represents the evil one downstairs, lurking in the cellar of every human mind. When that wacko moves upstairs, to the main floor, he starts running the show. Unca Mo and his ilk have a satanic hatred for all mankind - the devil hates man but loves God; he thinks that we people are unfit to worship God and he wants to alienate God from us. Unca Mo and his ilk allow themselves to do the Devil's work by hating people. Evil himself, laughs at the like of the puny, ugly, Unca Mo but he gives him and his ilk power over good people to turn good people against God.

Evil is way more powerful than us humans but God (good) is way more powerful than evil. People should just ignore the likes of Unca Mo - he just wants to collect money for 'hot air'; he is not and never was concerned about the health of people, he is concerned about ridding the planet of people because he considers people filthy. Money from the sweat of others is never any good. Stealing money from others is the root of all evil, IMO. Money should never be allowed to be powerful in itself but right now it is the key to power.

Lorrie Goldstein and Kate have had a handle on the Climate thingie from Day One - and so did Ezra and his journalists at Western Standard. It is a hoax folks - we cannot control the weather. End of story. We can control the pollution, however, with reasonable practises that most people are most willing to help with...big pharma has problems with focusing on pollution...hence the fanatical msm yappers babbling about controlling the weather (impossible) instead of cleaning up the air, water and land.

The idea of jambing all the world's people into cities is to isolate people from the beauty of nature - keep them out of tune with God. In Canada, we have miles and miles of emptiness - people are not able to make a living outside cities so they move to town. The gument and special interest groups have 'claimed' all the productive and beautiful land for themselves...the land should be for sale to all citizens and the citizens, themselves could and would buy Parks (eg. Stanly Park, Butchart Gardens). The Native Indian people who collectively own reserves should be forced to dismantle the reserves to private property, pay taxes and live as citizens of Canada. Same goes for the Hutterites and all other 'collective property' no deals for group ownership - including churches and 'charity' organizations.

People who own and care for their land are good citizens and good people. Free and independent people require freedom from their fellow man to think - in cities, full of people, mankind forgets his/her individuality.

RW: You're confused my friend. I stated that there are piles and piles of research confirming the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. There is piles and piles of research demonstrating the role the atmosphere plays in the earth's climate. That you cannot deny...it's fact.

Tim: You're also confused...re-read my post. Nowhere did I state that a change in CO2 is the controlling factor in earth's climate. I said that the atmosphere is. Please show me evidence of this 10 year cooling. I have yet to find a SCIENTIFIC PAPER showing so.

I don't have a side dude...and who's demanding trillions...what are you talking about? Last I heard it was the automakers demanding money.

PiperPaul: You have no idea what you're talking about.

Kevin: Read the article dude...last line. The link to the original paper is in the article. You last comment is retarded...if you don't need to prove it then why do you insist that AGW needs to be proved?

Bruce Wayne: Great generalization...just what is "the AGW crowd"...I believe it's government who makes tax decisions. What I want to see is new technology rather than relying on the old. You seem to be ok with claiming unsupported statements as long as they don't fall on the AGW side. The universe controls the climate? Huh? Anything to back that up? Who's shaping the world economy around it? No one is trying to shape the economy around it whatsoever...the way the world's economy works has everything to do with central banks.

Whether or not CO2 is the factor, and whether or not the earth is actually going through human induced climatic changes doesn't matter. What matters is that oil and the wars fought over it, wasteful consumption supported by destroying living systems through non-sustainable resource extraction, and social inequality are what plague our planet and our species. They are all connected. Demanding that new technology be invested in, fighting back corporate globalization, and consuming responsibly are ways in which we can stop this madness.

Deeznuts 8:41 pm -- your last paragraph is a pile of regurgitated socialist crap -- firstly, this whole sustainability concept is just an artificial marketing construct -- the laws of conservation of mass, energy, angular momemtum, and charge all still apply as far as I know. The real resources in any society are men's minds and hands - both of which socialists want to control and restrict.

Secondly, please can't you come up with some better meaningless dribble than the old socialist cliches -- "social inequality" -- who actually decides what "social inequality" is? -- you? --
"Wasteful consumption" Who decides what wasteful consumption is? -- you? --
"destroying living systems" -- what is a "living system" anyway? Who decides what constitutes these so-called "living systems"? you?

Thirdly,If you want to 'save the world' and you don't like some corporation, ie oil and gas producer -- just don't buy their product, moron --no one is forcing you to buy anything produced by any corporation.
If you believe in using solar power or wind power then buy your own or build your own -- but quit bellyaching about "investing in new technology" which really means you want everyone else to pay for your pet (idiotic) ideas.

What plagues our planet are idiots like you, who think they know what is right for everyone else.

Old Chemist: Please explain this seemingly complex connection between sustainability and "an artificial marketing construct". How is replacing forests after you cut them down "an artificial marketing construct"....or mine reclamation, or sustainable agriculture for that matter. And what do the laws of physics have to do with your argument?

People are much more than resources...it is a very poor society which looks upon its citizens as mere tools.

For your information I don't label myself with these foolish political ideologies and generalizations.

As far as definitions go...we could just use common sense...that's always a good choice.

Hmmm..social inequality might look like this.....

"A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#21st_century

Wasteful consumption? Well I guess that's up to you....but in a society where self-worth is judged by how many WANTS one can fulfill I'm sure you won't have trouble spotting it.

What is a living system? You're kidding with this one right? The entire planet is a living system. Look at the moon...now look at earth...can you see them yet?

Actually, yes, I am forced to buy from corporations...or remove myself from the system all together...which isn't a realistic choice.

Pet idiotic ideas? What are you talking about...I don't invent anything, I don't work where technology is pursued, I have no stakes in it. Technology is the one and only thing that has allowed man to progress. It was the invention of stone tools that helped out ancestors survive, it was the invention of the light bulb that freed us from the dark and it's technology that frees us from monotonous, manual labour, improves our health, and enriches our lives.

A piece of advice, the insults hurt your argument, they make it appear weak and in need of artificial support from name calling.

I pretty sure this thread is dead, however, Deeznuts, give The Chilling Stars by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark a boo. It's the stars baby.