We thus find that there is no significant correlation of the CRF curve from Shaviv’s model and the temperature curve of Veizer, even after one of the four CRF peaks was arbitrarily shifted by 40 m.y. to improve the fit to the temperature curve. There also is no significant correlation between the original meteorite data and the temperature reconstruction. The explained variance claimed by [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] is the maximum achievable by optimal smoothing of the temperature data and by making several arbitrary adjustments to the cosmic ray data (within their large uncertainty) to line up their peaks with the temperature curve.

That was one of the nicer comments in an article which was published in EOS, the house newsletter of the American Geophysical Union. There was a reply by VandS that is behind the subscription wall )also here a further reply to the reply to the reply with the first reply…. and a rebuttal by Rahmstorf

Anyway, a “single NYT article” is not by any means the only thing that I’ve read. It’s just the easiest and most recent thing that came to mind when you asked for an example of good “denialist” research, i.e., research showing that human-emitted CO2 doesn’t, in fact, cause 100% of all global warming that has ever occurred.

Enough of your mud-slinging. Have you even read realclimate.org? Or are you basing all your insulting epithets on nothing but a single NYT article?

This was a much worse error than the angle thing, IMHO, of course.

What the New York Times said about Veizer wasn’t some journalist’s characterization: It was Veizer’s own words:

“More and more data,” Jan Veizer, an expert on Phanerozoic climates at the University of Ottawa, said, “point to the Sun and stars as the dominant driver.”

Do you have evidence that Veizer was misquoted here? No? Then enough with the idiotic pretense that you’ve proven anything whatsoever about the Times’ story.

Functional: Well, given that the NYT didn’t exactly give the full enchilada on even Veizer’s work, what are the chances that its representation of Geigengack, Rohde, Rothman, Cerling is true to fact? How about you actually read what the authors themselves actually write in their reports rather than trying to learn high-level science from newspapers…

Of course, given that you can’t make an argument without preemptively making up strawmen and then demolishing them, I’m sure you won’t do that. So once again, good day.

The author’s complaint about being misquoted is about an entirely seperate issue from the one discussed in the posts. The author wants it clear that Solar fluctuations drive global warming in the timeframes we look at. The cosmic ray driven variations are much smaller and occur over periods of hunreds of millions of years. His gripe is about the use of the term cosmics rays instead of solar.

Points for Robin. Severe Ice Ages are becoming less likely. His study says that over the next several million years, ice ages will become less severe and eventually disappear. So in 50 million or so years, less ice ages.

And of course, I didn’t mean to say that there is a 50/50 chance of the temp going up or down equal amounts year to year. I meant that factors beyond our control determine how CO2 affects our climate. Let’s see some good solar climate forcasts. ‘til then, it’s worthless. Why are we to believe that current levels of solar activity will be the norm in the future? (even if they are, or they go up, will CO2 concentration increases increase warming forcing significantly further?) And what happens if they decrease? Does warming stop? Do we need to worry about cooling?