climate change it's silly to talk about climate change unless you specify the time scale you are discussing. nobody does this. i think that's why there's so much room for name calling. scientists use a model of solar forcing and greenhouse feedback. there is some debate about the collected data. but then, there always is. and there is some debate about the relative strengths of the two factors. if they are weakly coupled then the sun drives everything. we're at the mercy of the heavens. and nothing we do has much effect. on the other hand, if they are tightly coupled, ie the feedback is strong then any little change we introduce gets magnified a hundredfold or more. the ipcc says the solar forcing is weak at like 10% of temperature changes. that seems awful low to me. even insanely. but hey it sure explains the chicken little act. the u of m guy thought forcing was very strong. like 90% of the temperature change. that sounds awful high to me. even insanely. but that explains his position that life will be pretty much the same. just in different places. i think he owns land in alaska. so he might not be completely unbiased. i don't have all the data i want to make my own calculation. but the back of the envelope estimates i can do suggest about 60% solar forcing. historically. more recently it looks more like 40%. but that's for only the last 25 years or so. which is a relatively short period of time. so my confidence level is substantially lower. but it's still worrisome. to say the least.  ¶ 7:58 AM