>I read the article too, Mike, and agree with the way that you read 
>it.
> Russell's original post was incorrect, but Russell's last post 
> corrects his
> original.  The sad thing is that our government (US) has a 
> propaganda group
> that will promote a contradictory paper of questionable science so 
> the water
> will remain muddy.


Fancy that.

There was a typo in my original which I hadn't noticed and even when I 
read Mike's query and "expanded" on my original I didn't realise that 
my original said the opposite of what I intended it to. My apologies.

ie "The sun is essentially not to blame" is what he's saying.

FWIW, I am uncomfortable with the probability that his answer is 
correct, notwithstanding the obvious bona-fides of those involved and 
the fact that the question has at last been directly addressed 
publicly without obfuscation. Much prior material treated available 
data in such a way that their conclusions were suspect.

But, I am pleased to hear that this is a well researched and 
scientifically based conclusion and look forward to hearing more about 
the basis for their conclusions.


        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist