From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Nov 20 2001 - 17:17:24 MST
OK, here is why my interpretation of Bond's research contradicts the latest
news reports. My memory is not going bad on me. It appears that Bond has
radically re-interpreted his research in the last year. He actually did
claim that his research proved that the sun was NOT responsible for these
weather cycles as recently as last year. He now seems to interpret his
research to support the theory that a solar cycle is causing the weather
cycles. I cannot find any information about whether he has any new data, or
if he is reinterpreting his data in a different way now.
In any case, I can no longer support my previous statements concerning
Gerard Bond's research. Although they were accurate and confirmed by the
researcher himself last year, he now seems to hold the opposite opinion. I
can only assume that he has correct some errors or obtained some newer data.
In either case, it now appears that Bond now claims that his research
supports the theory that weather cycles are caused by slight cycles in solar
output.
A brief history of Gerard Bond's research is below.
In 1994, Time Magazine referenced Gerard Bond's research and stated that it
seemed to show that ocean currents were causing global weather cycles.
-
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/940131/940131.science.html>
In 1997, he announced his research findings. He specifically studied
Antarctic ice, ice-berg drifts, and the dropping of sediment as they melted.
At that time, he did not know the cause of the 1500-1800 year weather
cycles, but did not think it was related to solar output.
- <http://www.globalwarming.org/science/sea.htm>
- <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19233.html>
- <http://www.ee/lists/infoterra/1997/12/0024.html>
As of last year, he had decided that lunar cycles, not solar cycles were
definitely causing the fluctuations. He specifically linked the cycles with
tides and sea levels around the world, and specifically discounted solar
output as a possibility.
- <http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci4-8-00.htm>
- <http://www.globalwarming.org/science/sea.htm>
-
<http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1200/16_157/62195124/p1/article.jhtml>
- <http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/06/15/p2s2.htm>
- <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc090400.html>
Now we have a rash of reports in which he seems to be using the same data to
prove that solar output is cycling, and is directly causing these cycles. I
can find no mention of newer research, or a different description of what
his research reviewed. It seems to be a direct contradiction of his earlier
positions. I can only assume that some new data or new interpretation lead
to his new position.
- <http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/11/16/solar.cycles.ap/>
- <http://www.wvgazette.com/static/apnews/?story=ap0418n.php>
-
<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/wire/sns-ap-solar-cycles1115nov15.story
?coll=sns-ap-science-headlines>
There are many more reports and accounts of Gerard Bond's current position,
that it cannot be dismissed as an erroneous report. He reportedly has
reversed his position and now supports the solar-cycle theory with his
research instead of refuting it.
If anybody has any specific data about what caused the flip-flop, I would be
very interested to know.
-- Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <www.Newstaff.com> Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <www.Extropy.org> Cofounder, Pro-Act <www.ProgressAction.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:04 MST