"So if some small factions of scientists have been wrong about theories in the past, therefore larger factions of scientists should be considered wrong about current theories? That seems to be your argument here."

That is a valid argument, if the scientists are basing their "predictions" on computer models that are based on their (government funded) beliefs, rather than based on scientific fact.

The "chicken little" scenarios that I listed all had one thing in common: Scientists who insisted that it is scientifically sound to take a brief period of activity, and project it into the future to create a doomsday scenario.

If you understand science, the burden of proof lies on them, not me. It's not up to me to disprove their theories; it's up to them to remove doubt.

The whole "Global Warming" argument has become politicized to the point that most people aren't even interested in finding the truth -- they base their beliefs on their party, or who is funding which research. I'm not in that category. I'm simply a skeptic, and will remain so until adequate proof of the link between global warming and manmade factors is produced.

Re global warming, I note that those asking for "proof" of your position, that the evidence favors natural solar cycles as the driver of climate temperature change, never notice that the various theories are so far all simply that, hypotheses, of which NONE has been "PROVEN." The manmade global warming hypothesis is certainly the weakest, based as it is upon the THEORY that CO2 changes are a driver of temperature change, and that the only things supporting this theory are computer models, not direct observation. Indeed, CO2 levels appear to change several centuries AFTER temperature changes. An immutable law, until time machines are invented, is that causes cannot follow effects.

Your position is supportable by evidence that the entire solar system warms with sun cycles. This is quite suggestive, but is not PROOF as yet, to be sure.

But I love the letters thread that follow.

And I suspect that if Joan Walsh is as smart as I think she is the only reason Paglia gets published in salon is all the entertaining dust that gets kicked up every time one of these smoldering piles of randomly arranged right wing tripe gets published.

What a guilty pleasure this is to gather in awe and mockery of this poseur's psychotic rantings... not unlike watching a train wreck, and enjoying the commentary thereon... how awesome was that, when the flaming caboose hit the playground full of kindergarners! Or perhaps like the decadent French who would visit insane asylums because they liked to watch. If our fate for this decadence is indeed the guillotine, that will have two upsides... one, our disembodied heads will no longer be able to read Paglia, and two, our headless bodies will still have more common sense than she does. Now, back to four long weeks of the existential void...

based as it is upon the THEORY that CO2 changes are a driver of temperature change, and that the only things supporting this theory are computer models, not direct observation.

Complete lie. Gardeners have directly observed the greenhouse effect for centuries, that's why it's called the greenhouse effect. Furthermore we have loads and loads of proof from ice-rings to tree trunks, to geology, that co2, contrary to your assertion, often precedes warming on a global scale as well. Even further, it makes perfect sense that the effects seen in a greenhouse are mirrored on a larger scale. Why should scale change the basic equation that co2 stores solar energy? Answer: it does not, and any child should be able to use the first law of thermodynamics to prove that fairly easily.

Your lies don't change the science, as much as you may wish for this to be true.

Indeed, CO2 levels appear to change several centuries AFTER temperature changes. An immutable law, until time machines are invented, is that causes cannot follow effects.

Source please. Jesus Daily News does not count.

On January 7, second-term Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia and two friends prayed over a door. It was not just any door, but the entranceway beneath the Capitol that President-elect Barack Obama will pass through as he walks onto the inaugural stage to take the oath of office. “I hope and pray that as God stirs the heart of our new president that President Obama will listen and will heed God’s direction,” Broun proclaimed.

Standing beside Broun, Rev. Patrick Mahoney launched into a prayer originally delivered by Billy Graham at Richard Nixon’s inauguration in 1969. “For too long we have neglected thy word and ignored thy laws,” Mahoney preached. “…We have sowed to the wind and are now reaping a whirlwind of crime, division, and rebellion. And now with the wages of sin staring us in the face, we remember thy words.”

While Mahoney prayed, Rev. Rob Schenck turned his palms to the sky and muttered, “Yes” and “Have mercy” over and over. Then, he dipped his fingers in a jar of oil and painted several crosses on the door’s brass framing “as they did the furnishings of the tabernacle in the temple to the use of God and his word,” he prayed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-14/inaugural-freak-show

Blaine Walgren's letter and your response were both delights in keen observation, even keener logic and in a fairness lacking in political discourse of late. Thanks very much, both.

Regarding those left-wingers who display ungentlemanly natures and no loyalty, who turn on anyone who does not adhere to the far-left line, they are pit-chihuahuas nipping at your ankles. Keep kicking them!

I enjoyed your note. The simple truth is that psychopathic rantings can be fun as long as 1.) the psychopath is not in the same room with you, and 2.) he or she does not have the power to tax you or send you off to war.

How else to you explain the success of Oprah, The View, Dr. Phil, Rush and MoveOn?

I will say that whether you agree or disagree with Paglia, it's always fun reading, and she makes a decent attempt to add a bit of creativity to her insults -- something the other aforementioned psychopaths could take a cue from.