Quote:No, it's not. Read my post.Just been looking this stuff up, actually. Turns out, the solar cycle is a fickle mistress, and while 11 years is normal, it's not 11 years this time around. It's a little late.
So, if we really want to take the solar cycle into account, what we need are the actual data for solar cycles, not just to roll back by 11 years, which is (apparently) not appropriate in this particular case. Cycle 23 began in 1996, so 1998 was the third year into a cycle, whereas 2009 is not yet even year one, so far.
Quote:No, they're not. Science discussion takes place at seminars, colloquia, and conferences. It also takes place over the phone, in personal communications, and occasionally at the local pizza joint. Believe me, as a lifelong scientist, and a card carrying one for 36 years, I know. Peer reviewed journals are where established results are permanently archived.Fine. If Kandrathe wants to present at seminars, colloquia, and conferences his remarkable evidence about CO2 being a "red herring" prior to publishing, then my comments stand, duly amended to include these other methods of scientific discussion.
-Jester