Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   German scientists have found a significant piece of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2899 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Oct 2002 at 11:53 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

49 Comments     (+0 »)
2002-10-20 11:58:49 AM  
Yeah, zat is zee ticket!
2002-10-20 12:00:44 PM  
Does this mean freon is OK again?
2002-10-20 12:06:12 PM  
The sun has an effect on the Earth's climate?

Yeah, sure, and the sky is blue.
2002-10-20 12:20:33 PM  
O no!!!what will the environmental "whack O's" blame our climate changes on now------could it be that these changes are,,,,, NATURAL????
2002-10-20 12:22:35 PM  
I knew the Silver Surfer was involved!
2002-10-20 12:22:54 PM  
that changes everything. I'm going out to buy a pre-catalytic converter V8 powered swamp buggy for my daily driver.
2002-10-20 12:26:37 PM  
Nutshell: fluctuations in solar activity effects cloud formation patterns which effects climate.

In other news, turning my light switch on and off effects the brightness in my room AND my electric bill. Who'da thunk they'd be connected...
2002-10-20 12:28:02 PM  
we must regulate the sun immediately
2002-10-20 12:31:59 PM  
Bush knew, did not a damn thing about cosmic rays, and if he could he wouldn't because csmoc rays are known capitalists.
2002-10-20 12:34:53 PM  
then that would mean that....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*snore*zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
2002-10-20 12:36:04 PM  
Cosmic rays also imbue humans with super powers. It all evens out.
2002-10-20 12:46:13 PM  

Wait, wait. Does this mean that current models aren't necessarily 100% accurate? And that scientists may be wrong about what factors are influencing climate change?

Better watch out, Dr. Max Planck. The "Big Green" money and lobbyists are gonna have a field day discrediting you.

Hehhehheh. How many people think it's ridiculous and stupid when I substitute "Big Green" for "Big Oil"? I'm curious.

2002-10-20 12:47:53 PM  
Oh no you mean the sun does actually heat the earth. Will wonders never cease? And the next thing they will report is that the radiation from these "cosmic rays" is potential harmful to the skin if over exposed.
2002-10-20 12:51:05 PM  
Sweet! Flame on!
2002-10-20 12:52:44 PM  
wow, I have no idea what that was talking about., flame on.

har har.


I'm spent.
2002-10-20 12:57:39 PM  
Skwidd: By all means. In my experience, lots of people don't like to admit that the Green lobby is just as big and throws just as much money around as the Oil lobby. The only difference is that oil's money comes from producing something that society needs. Green's money doesn't. Hehheh.
2002-10-20 01:02:51 PM  
This is such a lie. Everyone knows The Globe has been doomed since the invention of deoderant. Well, at least everyone in France.
2002-10-20 01:13:45 PM  
No! no! no!, it's people smoking and cows farting. They're wrong!
2002-10-20 01:15:22 PM  
No farking way, man. Climate change is all YOUR fault. You and your automobile-air-conditioner-underarm-deodorant-using lifestyle. The earth is farked. We're all doomed to either another ice age and/or global warming because you don't live like a Bangladeshi Mud Person.
2002-10-20 01:21:57 PM  
Who gives a fark about climate change? We're all gonna be nuked before the ice age anyway!
2002-10-20 01:28:43 PM  
Some of you idiots might want to make five minutes in your daily, oh-so crowded schedule to actually read the article. Have environmentalists said that, gee, the sun doesn't affect the climate? No? Holy shiat, that's almost practically the same thing as saying "yes" and then shoving their communist agenda down the throats of the god-fearing Americans!
2002-10-20 01:36:18 PM  
DOSman: You took the words right out of my mouth....sort of.
2002-10-20 01:38:48 PM  
sure, blame it on the cosmic rays... we always need a scapegoat. Personally, I blame El Niño. Afterall, El Niño is spanish for The Niño.
2002-10-20 01:40:02 PM  

Heeheehee! Let the flames grow!

You seem to misunderstand what we're saying, FifthColumn. We're basically saying that this is just more evidence that the alarmist literature is attempting to predict the state of a chaotic system which is, by its very nature, unpredictable.

Let's analogize: Remember the four food groups? And how that turned into the food pyramid with 6-11 servings of grains per day? And how recently the nutritionists have decided that that's not right either? Basically, they don't know what they're talking about. 5 years from now they'll decide that they were wrong again. Some Joe Blow on the street could make something up, talk completely out of his ascot, and have as much chance of being right as this elite brainpool of scientific thought.

Same deal with climate change. The elite brainpool is working off of maybe 20 years of decent case study due to satellites and maybe 80 years of incomplete and inaccurate records since 1900. This is such an unbelievably small sample of the potential number of states that the global climate could be in, there just isn't enough evidence and knowledge about the system to make reasonably accurate predictions. Shoot, the weatherman can't even get rain predictions right for the next week. Isn't it rather arrogant to assume that we can determine the state of the global climate 50 years from now?

So stop the alarmist rhetoric. When the weatherman on TV can tell me whether or not it's going to rain one month from today with 100% accuracy, I'll start caring about what their models say about global climate change.

2002-10-20 01:40:43 PM  
Last one off this rock has to explain the mess.
2002-10-20 01:43:03 PM  
"By all means. In my experience, lots of people don't like to admit that the Green lobby is just as big and throws just as much money around as the Oil lobby"

Now that has to be a candidate for stupidest and most ill-informed comment fark has ever seen!

Well done Airhed13!
2002-10-20 01:45:52 PM  
Harmonia: Follow the $$$ that your favorite candidates get in their elections. I doubt that you've spent the number of hours going over all the public-domain contribution info that I have.
2002-10-20 01:51:39 PM  

I hope everyone will step it up so they can communicate with you.[image from too old to be available]
2002-10-20 01:55:29 PM  
Airhead, you have the evidence , but just cant be bothered sharing it?

Sad and weak.
2002-10-20 01:57:44 PM  
Everyone needs to chill and smoke a doob. The world will and was always going to end...whether we were here or not. Enjoy it while its still here and so are you.
2002-10-20 01:58:13 PM  
OK, I'm waiting for the greens (formerly the reds) and enviromental wackos to start screaming about how these cosmic rays are America's fault. Or how this german sturdy is just another part of the great right-wing conspiracy to undermine their supositions and weird-science rational for decrying and attacking capitalism and freedom. Waiting...
2002-10-20 02:41:13 PM  
Not so! I have it on good authority that global warming is caused by my '85 BroncoII. Nader told me so.
2002-10-20 02:42:47 PM  
AirHed13 really is an airhead.

First: Just because you don't have conclusive scientific evidence about something doesn't mean you should ignore common sense. So what you're saying is, since they don't know what's causing climate change, I guess we should all just drive SUV's and turn up those air conditioners! Burn some more coal and oil! After all, WE DON'T KNOW, so I guess what WE DON'T KNOW can't harm us right??? Shouldn't we all try to reduce greenhouse emissions simply because they MIGHT be part of the blame? 50 years ago nobody knew cigarettes were bad for you. What you don't know can't kill you right?

Second: You brought up the fact that the weather is a chaotic system. Then you go on to say that you'll listen to the environmentalists when the weather man can predict the weather with 100% accuracy. The very definition of a "chaotic system" is that you CAN'T predict what will happen. Chaos theory says that a chaotic system is inherently unpredictable. Nice circular logic there.

I guess since we can never know what's causing global climate change, we should all just pollute our heads off until we figure it out right? Never mind that breathing coal dust and car exhausts gives you cancer. That we DO know. Just like second hand cigarette smoke kills you, so do these emissions. So whether or not they are responsible for global climate change, *I* don't wanna breath that crap in!

What we don't know can't kill you. That's a GREAT way to look at things eh?
2002-10-20 02:45:04 PM  
German scientists are always cool.
2002-10-20 02:51:00 PM  
The Fantastic Four surrender.
2002-10-20 03:25:55 PM  
Scientists that admit they don't know what's going on? What a refreshing conclusion. Most just say whatever all the other sheep say, so they can keep the grant money flowing in. Doesn't take a PhD to know which side your bread is buttered on. Gotta hand it to the Krauts, though. They've produced some of the past two centuries' best physicists and mathematicians. Almost makes up for that whole genocide thing back in the '40s.
2002-10-20 03:36:31 PM  
First: So society is supposed spend lots of money, accept government dictated lifestyle changes for everyone, based on propaganda from Big Green? We are supposed to buy into all thats in the Kyoto agreement based on "common sense"?

Ok, you true believers go live in the earth-friendly caves, it's just common sense.

Big Oil = Always evil-bad
Big Green = Always infallible, trustworthy and good
2002-10-20 03:50:39 PM  
no really... farking stupid scientists havent figured that out till now. come on, cosmic rays=energy, energy = heat, heat makes things expand or change expecialy water and clouds are made of water DUHH.. :/
2002-10-20 04:06:20 PM  
Nbrsix you got it half right.

Big Oil = Always evil-bad.

I don't think the big green guys are always right, (hell they sometimes say and do things worse than big oil), but big oil companies are looking for one thing and one thing only: PROFIT. They don't give a flying fark about the environment or the health of others. So yes, big oil = always evil bad.

It's always about MONEY MONEY MONEY!

There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many reasons to reduce fossil fuel emissions BESIDES the environment. How about health? How about efficiency? How about losing dependence on foreign Iraqi oil? Maybe I'm crazy but wouldn't it be nice if L.A. had a few less smog days? So many reasons, yet in the end the dollar speaks louder than anyone else. Wouldn't it be nice if America wasn't so dependent on Iraq for oil? Think about that next time you oil lovers step into your fuel eating SUV's.

And why all the pissing and moaning on "lifestyle changes"??If it's for the good of the country, then I don't see why people shouldn't change their lifestyles. Stop being spoiled brats and give a little! Buy a fuel efficient car. Turn off the farking light when you're not using it. Do stuff that's GOOD FOR EVERYONE ELSE instead of just good for you.
2002-10-20 04:23:40 PM  
Does it really matter whether pollution causes climate change? Personally, I just don't want to be trying to breath air that's so polluted I can see it (which is sadly the case in some parts of the US). And reducing pollution doesn't mean living in the mud with no technology. We have the technology available to build vehicles with no emissions and scrubbers for industrial plants. We also have technology for nuclear power (which, though it produces some nasty waste, at least it's a heck of a lot easier to store than coal or oil smoke). Come on, people. We have options that allow people to have their SUV's and not pollute. We can't do anything about the cosmic rays, but we can do something about the air we breath.
2002-10-20 04:44:40 PM  
How to be a Good Democrat:

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than US nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of the city do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinmen are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

21. You have to believe that this letter is part of a vast right wing conspiracy

Funny, although I don't quite agree with persecuting gay people ...
2002-10-20 05:16:15 PM  
I was going to call on number 6, since their doesn't seem to be a contradiction, but ya....
2002-10-20 05:20:06 PM  

1) No. A lack of help to stop it is just that: a lack of help to stop it.
2) If only parents would do it...
3) Ridiculous.
4) Ditto.
5) It's not a requirement. Most go with what the best scientific evidence says. (Not that it's a guarantee that it's right.)
6) You're confusing the terms. Gender roles==woman stays at home. Homosexuality==love having sex with men.
7) The contradiction is?
8) Business is a double-edged sword. Governments don't create prosperity. You go to governments for justice--like removing one half of a double-edged sword.
9) Silly.
10) Not true.
11) Who believes this? Anyone?
12) True. Many democrats do not believe the 2nd amendment is in our interest. (I think it is. We are allowed to disagree with each other.)
13) ??
14) !
15) Not a requirement. Many democrats people do believe affirmative action is racist (in a way), but necessary.
16) She's a dick.
17) They believe it is working. Communism failed. Not the same thing.
18) The first part is a mystery. What are you referring to? The second was minor.
19) No. Display your xianity all you want.
20) No. That's a bad thing.
21) No. You're just some guy.

Finally, the one thing that does apply to the democratic party is variety. There is no real party line. There is no rush to agree with a democratic representative. We don't claim our reps represent us; we just try to get them to. And we all differ on uncountable points.

Ever hear the joke that ten democrats have twenty opinions. It's too often true. And this applies to your list, and that makes it...
2002-10-20 05:31:22 PM  
I think the report is saying that the enviroment is ALSO effected by cosmic rays. Not that it's ONLY effected by cosmic rays. It's safe to say that bug SUV pumping out toxic gasses is a bad thing, otherwise why do people kill themselves by rerouting exhast fumes into thier cars?!?

then again, Cosmic Rays would explain why I turned orange and rocky. "It's Cobberin' time!!!"
2002-10-20 05:35:38 PM  
DasNibblet. I refer you to the Newsmax article

Hillary Praised as Gay 'Role Model'

Sorry, guys, we never had a chance with her...

hehehehe... Also on hand for the awards ceremony, the woman Mrs. Clinton handpicked to be her husband's attorney general, Janet Reno, who drew some of the crowd's loudest applause

This article just keeps getting funnier...
2002-10-20 05:50:37 PM  
Hey hey, another American approach to science. Scientists say they didn't fully understand something, so this must mean scientists are wrong about everything! But that means they were wrong about they really DID understand, but then they couldn't have been wrong about everything! AHH MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE!

Stupid white people and their circular logic. :/ Don't you understand anything about cause and effect? There's never just ONE cause of something. There isn't even just one kind of cause. There are indirect causes, direct causes, immediate causes (which can almost never be agreed upon), etc. Scientists know that causation is near impossible to settle on, so they work with correlation. That's why science changes so much. They come up with theories, apply them, work out the kinks, and update them. Remember highschool english and how your papers had rough drafts, first drafts, second drafts, and so on? It's kinda like that. Because people make typos, should we just stop writing anything?

So what if cosmic blah contributes to rising temperatures? Does that change the fact that pollution has adverse effects? Like hell it does. It still aggravates asthma, creates smog layers, and makes me want to shove the lit end of cigarettes up their respective smoker's urethra. It still contributes to diseases and birth defects. Granted, I have nothing against people dying--shiat happens. I just have this really big problem with getting sick so someone else can make money.
2002-10-20 08:15:31 PM  

Ok, good points. Don't know if I agree 100%, but worth some thought.
2002-10-20 09:36:02 PM  

MegaDethHead:Adopting your format...

First: I said nothing of the sort; you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that the lack of conclusive evidence is most certainly a reason to ignore alarmist literature and rhetoric. I neither said nor implied that it was a reason to ignore common sense. Is there too much pollution in Mexico City? Sure there is. Do we know that Mexico City is going to be responsible for a worldwide flood 80 years from now? No. Should something be done about the pollution in Mexico City? Sure, seems to make sense. Why? There's clear evidence that it's detrimental to the local health.

What I'm trying to say is, there are plenty of reasonable arguments for fighting pollution in a place like Mexico City. Why resort to hyperbole and alarmism?

It's like an answer to the question, "Are alternative fuel sources the best solution to what some people believe is a world-wide oil crisis?" No. It's a solution, certainly. In fact, it's a pretty good one. The problem is it ignores the political, social, and fiscal reality of the situation.

Low-emission and emission-free cars have been on the market for years, now. How many of you posting comments own one? Raise your hands. Now consider how few of you rose your hands and how, generally, Fark is a predominantly liberal forum. Why don't you own one? Is it because they aren't available? No. Anyone can go and buy a gas-hybrid car if they want to. Visit the dealership and ask. They aren't bought because the national infrastructure doesn't exist (fiscal reality- Who's going to pay to make that infrastructure exist?), the cars are expensive and (IMHO) rather ugly (social reality- Would you rather your friends and co-workers see you driving a fuel-efficient Yugo or a Corvette?), and what happens to our relations with the Middle-East if we were to stop buying oil? (political reality- you think our relations are explosive now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Don't get me wrong, these are all problems that can (and I think eventually will) be overcome, but until they are dealt with alternative fuel sources are not the best solution. They carry far too much baggage for the immediate future. The best solution, at this time, would probably be fuel efficiency and common-sense driving. And that's something that car companies are working on, believe it or not.

And as for the last note in your part one, "50 years ago nobody knew cigarettes were bad for you. What you don't know can't kill you right?" It can still be real, but it should never be passed of as scientific fact unless it is scientific fact. Disastrous global climate change is far too often passed off as fact when it really, truly is not.

Second:, you state, " is a chaotic system. Then you go on to say that you'll listen to the environmentalists when the weather man can predict the weather with 100% accuracy. The very definition of a 'chaotic system' is that you CAN'T predict what will happen. Chaos theory says that a chaotic system is inherently unpredictable." Congratulations. You can read. That is precisely what I said and precisely what I meant. Now, do you think you can use the ol' noggin' and figure out what I was saying? I'll make it easy and lay it out for you- I figured somebody wouldn't understand it.

B if and only if A. But A will never exist, therefore never B. If the weatherman can predict with 100% accuracy, then I'll admit that the environmental alarmists' facts bear a great deal of scientific merit. But the weatherman will never be able to do that, so - fill in the blank. I actually did state that aspect of a chaotic system in my first paragraph, by the way, "...a chaotic system which is, by its very nature, unpredictable." I am normally very aware of what I'm saying. I'm not quite sure where you're getting circular logic, though. Weather is a chaotic system- just about the most common case study of one, in fact. Therefore it is unpredictable. Where's my circle?

I already addressed your last paragraph there, but I'll tell you what- You show me a scientist who says that second-hand smoke is deadly, and I'll show you a scientist who says that it isn't. Sure, if you force someone to breathe second-hand smoke from 20 cigars in a 10x10x10 room for 12 hours a day you'll notice an affect. But then, phenolpthalein was found to be a carcinogen in similarly ridiculous circumstances.

Here's some interesting text from March 8, 1998 at

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

There's more, of course. Suffice to say, there's always a lobby somewhere. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on. Never take what you're told by "scientists" at face value and without a little critical thinking of your own because you know what? Scientists are people with agendas too.

2002-10-21 06:16:42 PM  
Airhed13 wrote: "In my experience, lots of people don't like to admit that the Green lobby is just as big and throws just as much money around as the Oil lobby."

What kind of lazy propaganda is that? I mean, how far up what grease-painted clown's ass did you have to jam your arm to come up with that? I'm betting "past the elbow" and "Rush Limbaugh".

Pathetic. If you want to make stuff up, fine, but why not aim for a little plausibility? According to the GAO in 1991 (under Papa Bush, a year I happen to have figures for), the petrochemical lobby spent more than $30 billion internationally on government influence. And they've consistently spent more every year since WWII.

Where do you think your "Big Green" comes up with that kind of money? Are they funded by Bigfoot's secret diamond mine or something? Get real. Wise Use (a pro-industry self-described "stealth lobby") outspent The Sierra Club and the WWF throughout the last decade.

And if you think "WWF" is a wrestling reference, then just stay out of the debate.

Propaganda is all well and good, but take a little pride in yourself, man.

"The only difference is that oil's money comes from producing something that society needs. Green's money doesn't."

Petrochemical money comes from sustaining an industry and a commodity market. There's nothing intrinsically necessary about it; it's the model we use. Not the same thing. Green money, per se, is spent on different things that we also use. Both are "needed" by society.

Trying to pretend otherwise is just lazy self-delusion. Get over it.

And, anyway, if you just read the freaking article, you'd see that the last two paragraphs say that the cosmic ray theory SUPPORTS the human-influence model, not that it detracts from it. Assclown. Read the article first and make sure you understand what you're whining about.
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.