Scientists Blame Sun for Global Warming

[sunsettommy]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Better take a closer look.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm

What is your intent posting this link?

Was it to show that since 1998 there has been no increase in the warming trend?

or

Was it to show that since 1979 there has been a warming trend?

or

Was it to show that no year since 1998 has been as hot?

Why not explain why you posted this link several times.

[sunsettommy]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

30 years?,100years,1000 years,1,000,000 years,10,000,000 years. What relevance does 30 years have on a place that is billions of years old and has changes it's appearance and temperature constantly?

North America was a tropical zone at one time for cryin' out loud. The critters that were then are no more. The earth changes with or without man, and another giant meteor hitting the earth will change it again.

Now tell me how the relevance of 30 years of temperature means anything and how it can change earth's evolution as it's going to change anyway.

Ok,

But what was Bob Carter talking about?

[sunsettommy]

That is natural for glaciers. If you went to one that is expanding like they are in other parts would that mean we have global cooling. Climate has always been changing. That is a fact. Most warming over the last hundred years took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a cooling. Since 1998 the temperature has been basicly flat with no increase.

False.

It's not false.

It is false.

Look up the referred GRU data that Bob Carter mentioned in his article.

[sunsettommy]

The topic is Global warming and the Sun.

http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m....gifunction=form

Nice link.

But what are you trying to say with that link?

[sunsettommy]

computer models which don't match the known historical records

...

When they are made to match

So they don't match and they do match...?

It's not irrelevant given the size. Either it's global warming or it's not. Which is it.

It's global warming.

I posted those records because they are considered more reliable

Reliable at telling you the temperature trend of the US only. They cannot tell you the temperature trends over other regions. Temperature trends of different regions differ. Some regions warm, some cool. Overall more regions are warming than cooling - ie the average is a warming. That's what global warming is.

and if you take a close look the US ground records they do more closely match the US satellite records. Including the spike around 1998.

More closely match than what? And what are these US satellite records? Don't you mean global satellite records? And what relevance do US ground records have alone when it represents less than 2% of the earth's coverage? Why ignore the bigger picture?

Are you that complicit in the fraud that you have to come back with nonsense like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/hansen.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11...4132.shtml?s=ic

Actually Shoggoth makes a good point that while the U.S. records many be good.They are but a blip as compared to the Earths suface area.

The world overall is in a warming phase.

I know that Hansen is a loose cannon but really why dredge up that link?

[sunsettommy]

Are you that complicit in the fraud that you have to come back with nonsense like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/hansen.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11...4132.shtml?s=ic

I don't understand why you post links to media op-ed articles that have no bearing at all on the post you replied to, but I might join in posting links.

Here for example is the excellent correlation again between the global surface record, and global satellite records for the lower troposphere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

And this one is a bit more on topic - It's called "Climate Fraudit"

http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/0...ate_fraudit.php

Tim Lambert is really bad.He took a beating at the Climate Audit website.

Is there someone better?

[sunsettommy]

Without reading this thread, I have to say global warming is 100% caused by the sun. Without a sun there'd be no warming at all.

Here's some more light reading for you all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../05/nwarm05.xml

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/nclim12.xml

and this

Wrong problem, wrong solution

# Readers' responses to Christopher Monckton's first article [PDF]

Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report

Tilting at windfarms: It would take a windfarm the size of greater Manchester to match the output of one nuclear power station

In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph's website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week's article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold.

The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.

Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.

I am always suspicious of scaremongering pronouncements from people.The various people making extraordinary claims of impending runaway warming of the future are always the ones with control of the research and funding.

The "consensus" claim is a long running lie.It is a tool of the politics.

[sunsettommy]

Quaternary Science Reviews

Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred from radionuclide records

SNIP:

Received 12 March 2006; accepted 21 July 2006. Available online 13 November 2006.

Abstract

Identification of the causes of past climate change requires detailed knowledge of one of the most important natural factors—solar forcing. Prior to the period of direct solar observations, radionuclide abundances in natural archives provide the best-known proxies for changes in solar activity. Here we present two independent reconstructions of changes in solar activity during the last 1000 yr, which are inferred from 10Be and 14C records. We analyse the tree-ring 14C data (SHCal, IntCal04 from 1000 to 1510 AD and annual data from 1511 to 1950 AD) and four 10Be records from Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, GRIP, Milcent and Dye3) together with two 10Be records from Antarctic ice cores (Dome Concordia and South Pole). In general, the 10Be and 14C records exhibit good agreement that allows us to obtain reliable estimates of past solar magnetic modulation of the radionuclide production rates. Differences between 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland indicate that climatic changes have influenced the deposition of 10Be during some periods of the last 1000 yr. The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 614 6213; fax: +1 301 614 6307.

[B. Max]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Better take a closer look.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm

What is your intent posting this link?

Was it to show that since 1998 there has been no increase in the warming trend?

or

Was it to show that since 1979 there has been a warming trend?

or

Was it to show that no year since 1998 has been as hot?

Why not explain why you posted this link several times.

I don't know what link you're talking about.

They are likely different links to different graphs.

Here is another one. Shows no warming since 98.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png

[sunsettommy]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Better take a closer look.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm

What is your intent posting this link?

Was it to show that since 1998 there has been no increase in the warming trend?

or

Was it to show that since 1979 there has been a warming trend?

or

Was it to show that no year since 1998 has been as hot?

Why not explain why you posted this link several times.

I don't know what link you're talking about.

They are likely different links to different graphs.

Here is another one. Shows no warming since 98.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png

From YOUR post # 15 a link YOU posted but not read by you since you missed this quote about the source Bob Carter used to make his claim.It is right in the very first paragraph!:

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter

(Filed: 09/04/2006)

Excerpt:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

YOU posted the link.

It is obvious that you never looked it up since they do not at all support his insane claim.

Bob made a fool of himself.

You want follow him?

[sunsettommy]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Better take a closer look.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm

What is your intent posting this link?

Was it to show that since 1998 there has been no increase in the warming trend?

or

Was it to show that since 1979 there has been a warming trend?

or

Was it to show that no year since 1998 has been as hot?

Why not explain why you posted this link several times.

I don't know what link you're talking about.

They are likely different links to different graphs.

Here is another one. Shows no warming since 98.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png

You mean this one also from Junckscience?

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagn...s/global/nh+sh/

They show a warming every year from 1998.

[B. Max]

It is obvious that you never looked it up since they do not at all support his insane claim.

Bob made a fool of himself.

You want follow him?

How many do you need. Three four, a hundred. The only fools are those duped into the man made global warming hoax. Those who advocte that theory have no proof of such, and border on being criminals.

[sunsettommy]

Meanwhile from John Daly:

Satellite data

The record shows a clear warming trend even from 1998.

Why you resist the obvious?

[B. Max]

They show a warming every year from 1998.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess.

[sunsettommy]

It is obvious that you never looked it up since they do not at all support his insane claim.

Bob made a fool of himself.

You want follow him?

How many do you need. Three four, a hundred. The only fools are those duped into the man made global warming hoax. Those who advocte that theory have no proof of such, and border on being criminals.

What is the matter with you?

Bob Carter told us:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase...

He mentions in his article this SOURCE and none else.

CRU is the place to see if it supports his claim.

I have several times referred to it.Why not YOU go look it up?

[B. Max]

Meanwhile from John Daly:

Satellite data

The record shows a clear warming trend even from 1998.

Why you resist the obvious?

It looks flat with no increase and no decrease. Just put a line through the middle from 98.

[sunsettommy]

They show a warming every year from 1998.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess.

LOL,

Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them.

My link:

HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2

Your link:

HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies

Both are found at this single link:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG

Do pay any attention to the link addresses?

[sunsettommy]

Meanwhile from John Daly:

Satellite data

The record shows a clear warming trend even from 1998.

Why you resist the obvious?

It looks flat with no increase and no decrease. Just put a line through the middle from 98.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It is mostly RED!

Red means increase.

Blue means decrease.

You are losing this debate easily.

[B. Max]

Meanwhile from John Daly:

Satellite data

The record shows a clear warming trend even from 1998.

Why you resist the obvious?

It looks flat with no increase and no decrease. Just put a line through the middle from 98.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It is mostly RED!

Red means increase.

Blue means decrease.

You are losing this debate easily.

That's not what you look at. You put a line through the middle to get the average. The average did not increase.

[sunsettommy]

http://www.john-daly.com/nh-sh.htm

Go look it up and see all the red since 1998.

From 1979 to 1994 it was a cooling trend.

From 1994 to 2006 it is a warming trend.

Why lie to yourself?

[B. Max]

They show a warming every year from 1998.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess.

LOL,

Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them.

My link:

HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2

Your link:

HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies

Both are found at this single link:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG

Do pay any attention to the link addresses?

Near surface.

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.19 °C

[sunsettommy]

Here is the RAW DATA that explodes your delusion about Satellite data:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

I start at 1998,

1998 1 0.529 0.522 0.535 31. 0.089 0.136 0.042 365.

1998 2 0.673 0.722 0.625 28. 0.146 0.198 0.095 365.

1998 3 0.475 0.572 0.377 31. 0.194 0.250 0.138 365.

1998 4 0.773 1.034 0.512 30. 0.274 0.344 0.203 365.

1998 5 0.648 0.701 0.595 31. 0.333 0.406 0.261 365.

1998 6 0.574 0.679 0.469 30. 0.380 0.455 0.305 365.

1998 7 0.511 0.712 0.311 31. 0.416 0.498 0.334 365.

1998 8 0.508 0.575 0.442 31. 0.451 0.526 0.376 365.

1998 9 0.461 0.609 0.313 30. 0.479 0.550 0.408 365.

1998 10 0.412 0.543 0.280 31. 0.501 0.579 0.423 365.

1998 11 0.166 0.237 0.094 30. 0.500 0.591 0.409 365.

1998 12 0.270 0.353 0.187 31. 0.499 0.604 0.394 365.

1999 1 0.124 0.284 -0.036 31. 0.464 0.583 0.345 365.

1999 2 0.216 0.361 0.072 28. 0.429 0.556 0.303 365.

1999 3 -0.039 0.047 -0.125 31. 0.386 0.511 0.260 365.

1999 4 0.063 0.372 -0.246 30. 0.327 0.457 0.198 365.

1999 5 -0.009 0.160 -0.178 31. 0.271 0.411 0.132 365.

1999 6 -0.125 0.136 -0.386 30. 0.214 0.366 0.062 365.

1999 7 -0.006 0.109 -0.121 31. 0.170 0.315 0.025 365.

1999 8 -0.065 0.043 -0.174 31. 0.121 0.270 -0.027 365.

1999 9 0.123 0.251 -0.005 30. 0.094 0.240 -0.053 365.

1999 10 0.054 0.071 0.038 31. 0.063 0.200 -0.074 365.

1999 11 -0.004 0.203 -0.210 30. 0.049 0.197 -0.099 365.

1999 12 -0.007 0.208 -0.221 31. 0.026 0.185 -0.134 365.

2000 1 -0.237 -0.144 -0.331 31. -0.005 0.149 -0.159 365.

2000 2 -0.013 0.074 -0.100 29. -0.023 0.126 -0.172 365.

2000 3 0.008 0.044 -0.027 31. -0.019 0.126 -0.164 365.

2000 4 0.121 0.304 -0.063 30. -0.013 0.121 -0.147 365.

2000 5 0.101 0.169 0.032 31. -0.005 0.121 -0.131 365.

2000 6 0.050 0.099 0.001 30. 0.010 0.118 -0.098 365.

2000 7 -0.017 0.068 -0.102 31. 0.009 0.115 -0.097 365.

2000 8 -0.057 0.146 -0.261 31. 0.010 0.124 -0.104 365.

2000 9 0.115 0.228 0.002 30. 0.009 0.122 -0.104 365.

2000 10 0.081 0.109 0.053 31. 0.011 0.124 -0.103 365.

2000 11 0.072 0.073 0.071 30. 0.018 0.115 -0.079 365.

2000 12 0.032 0.076 -0.012 31. 0.021 0.103 -0.061 365.

2001 1 0.049 0.117 -0.018 31. 0.045 0.125 -0.035 365.

2001 2 0.160 0.054 0.266 28. 0.058 0.124 -0.007 365.

2001 3 0.119 0.262 -0.025 31. 0.068 0.142 -0.007 365.

2001 4 0.275 0.321 0.228 30. 0.080 0.144 0.017 365.

2001 5 0.242 0.410 0.074 31. 0.092 0.164 0.021 365.

2001 6 0.053 0.178 -0.072 30. 0.093 0.171 0.015 365.

2001 7 0.145 0.276 0.013 31. 0.106 0.188 0.024 365.

2001 8 0.320 0.509 0.132 31. 0.139 0.219 0.058 365.

2001 9 0.186 0.283 0.089 30. 0.144 0.224 0.065 365.

2001 10 0.280 0.291 0.269 31. 0.161 0.239 0.083 365.

2001 11 0.266 0.349 0.182 30. 0.177 0.262 0.092 365.

2001 12 0.265 0.276 0.253 31. 0.197 0.279 0.115 365.

2002 1 0.360 0.485 0.236 31. 0.223 0.310 0.136 365.

2002 2 0.346 0.482 0.210 28. 0.238 0.343 0.132 365.

2002 3 0.341 0.456 0.226 31. 0.256 0.359 0.153 365.

2002 4 0.325 0.297 0.354 30. 0.261 0.357 0.164 365.

2002 5 0.346 0.342 0.350 31. 0.269 0.352 0.187 365.

2002 6 0.375 0.431 0.320 30. 0.296 0.372 0.219 365.

2002 7 0.312 0.484 0.140 31. 0.310 0.390 0.230 365.

2002 8 0.249 0.224 0.274 31. 0.304 0.366 0.242 365.

2002 9 0.346 0.344 0.348 30. 0.317 0.371 0.264 365.

2002 10 0.215 0.042 0.389 31. 0.312 0.350 0.274 365.

2002 11 0.334 0.308 0.360 30. 0.317 0.346 0.288 365.

2002 12 0.229 0.098 0.361 31. 0.314 0.331 0.297 365.

2003 1 0.426 0.549 0.304 31. 0.320 0.337 0.303 365.

2003 2 0.315 0.261 0.368 28. 0.318 0.320 0.315 365.

2003 3 0.176 0.175 0.178 31. 0.304 0.296 0.311 365.

2003 4 0.222 0.337 0.108 30. 0.295 0.299 0.291 365.

2003 5 0.260 0.454 0.066 31. 0.288 0.309 0.267 365.

2003 6 0.089 0.291 -0.113 30. 0.264 0.297 0.231 365.

2003 7 0.188 0.258 0.117 31. 0.254 0.278 0.229 365.

2003 8 0.173 0.368 -0.021 31. 0.247 0.290 0.204 365.

2003 9 0.275 0.439 0.111 30. 0.241 0.298 0.185 365.

2003 10 0.389 0.587 0.190 31. 0.256 0.344 0.168 365.

2003 11 0.307 0.395 0.218 30. 0.254 0.352 0.156 365.

2003 12 0.453 0.551 0.354 31. 0.273 0.390 0.156 365.

2004 1 0.335 0.321 0.349 31. 0.265 0.371 0.160 365.

2004 2 0.350 0.598 0.103 29. 0.268 0.398 0.139 365.

2004 3 0.405 0.580 0.229 31. 0.288 0.432 0.144 365.

2004 4 0.220 0.225 0.215 30. 0.288 0.423 0.153 365.

2004 5 0.086 0.245 -0.073 31. 0.273 0.404 0.141 365.

2004 6 0.077 0.088 0.067 30. 0.272 0.389 0.156 365.

2004 7 -0.104 -0.029 -0.179 31. 0.247 0.364 0.130 365.

2004 8 0.013 0.176 -0.151 31. 0.233 0.347 0.119 365.

2004 9 0.212 0.308 0.116 30. 0.228 0.336 0.119 365.

2004 10 0.332 0.386 0.277 31. 0.223 0.319 0.127 365.

2004 11 0.227 0.383 0.071 30. 0.216 0.318 0.114 365.

2004 12 0.189 0.185 0.194 31. 0.193 0.286 0.100 365.

2005 1 0.440 0.500 0.381 31. 0.204 0.303 0.105 365.

2005 2 0.321 0.319 0.323 28. 0.201 0.281 0.121 365.

2005 3 0.302 0.465 0.138 31. 0.192 0.271 0.113 365.

2005 4 0.430 0.625 0.236 30. 0.209 0.304 0.115 365.

2005 5 0.235 0.240 0.230 31. 0.222 0.303 0.141 365.

2005 6 0.263 0.491 0.034 30. 0.237 0.336 0.138 365.

2005 7 0.338 0.497 0.179 31. 0.275 0.381 0.168 365.

2005 8 0.171 0.309 0.034 31. 0.288 0.392 0.184 365.

2005 9 0.355 0.448 0.261 30. 0.300 0.404 0.196 365.

2005 10 0.382 0.472 0.291 31. 0.304 0.411 0.197 365.

2005 11 0.339 0.413 0.265 30. 0.313 0.414 0.213 365.

2005 12 0.240 0.317 0.163 31. 0.318 0.425 0.210 365.

2006 1 0.302 0.358 0.247 31. 0.306 0.413 0.199 365.

2006 2 0.297 0.516 0.078 28. 0.304 0.428 0.180 365.

2006 3 0.188 0.245 0.132 31. 0.294 0.409 0.180 365.

2006 4 0.109 0.183 0.034 30. 0.268 0.373 0.163 365.

2006 5 -0.062 0.175 -0.300 31. 0.243 0.367 0.118 365.

2006 6 0.097 0.283 -0.089 30. 0.229 0.350 0.108 365.

2006 7 0.129 0.267 -0.010 31. 0.211 0.331 0.092 365.

2006 8 0.177 0.235 0.119 31. 0.212 0.324 0.099 365.

2006 9 0.234 0.382 0.086 30. 0.202 0.319 0.085 365.

2006 10 0.278 0.267 0.289 31. 0.193 0.302 0.085 365.

93 months of increase and just 13 months of decrease.

46 consecutive warming months from late 2000 to mid 2004.Just two months was a cooling one since year 2000.

Most of the decrease was in 1999.

Still want to play this losing game of yours?

[sunsettommy]

They show a warming every year from 1998.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess.

LOL,

Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them.

My link:

HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2

Your link:

HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies

Both are found at this single link:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG

Do pay any attention to the link addresses?

Near surface.

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.19 °C

Source?

[gerryhatrick]

I've never seen a topic in this forum area by someone who accepts the reality of Global Warming post something that wasnt' somehow related to Canadian Federal politics.

This topic is unrelated to federal politics.

Post all the Global Warming denial topics you want. Just make them relavent to Canadian politics somehow.

[sunsettommy]

I've never seen a topic in this forum area by someone who accepts the reality of Global Warming post something that wasnt' somehow related to Canadian Federal politics.

This topic is unrelated to federal politics.

Post all the Global Warming denial topics you want. Just make them relavent to Canadian politics somehow.

Ok here ya go:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Comment...16/2377808.html

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...39009/story.htm

http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061115164939.zcez2rb9.html

Whew!

LOL