http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html



THE SUN MIGHT BE WARMING THE EARTH

Yup...that's the latest conclusion of those who dare to speak out against the Global Warming jihad. And there's new information that can't be making Al Gore happy. According to National Geographic News and a scientist...global warming is caused by.....the sun.

Imagine that! What have I been saying for years here?

Uh-oh....what now? Will Al Gore ever admit that he might have been wrong? Of course not...because the global warming movement has nothing to do with the environment...and everything to do with politics.

According to the report, simultaneous warming of the Earth and Mars by the sun suggest that recent climate change may not be caused by man. As proof, the report cites a NASA report that says the polar ice caps are also melting on Mars. Uh-oh...time to pass a climate treaty for Mars. Those Martians obviously need to cut back on their driving and install solar panels. But remember .. only advanced industrial nations on Mars will be affected. Developing nations will be exempt.

And there's more...scientists at the Danish National Space Center think global warming is caused by cosmic rays from exploded stars, not man. Are they right? Who knows. But the point is that there are reasonable people who disagree about global warming. This is something the media hides from the public. Anybody who dares to speak out against the global warming movement is derided as a Holocaust denier and a member of the Flat Earth Society.

But back to that Mars thing....perhaps Al Gore could move there and run up the light bill.




By: Boortz

but the earths temperature will rise 1.2 degrees in the next 100 years!

Interesting, if simplistic, theory but it ignores all the data regarding CO2 levels and temperature.

OK, add another 0.2 degrees in the next 100 years for CO2

This part is interesting.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

Really, our data is over such a small span of time, no sound conclusions can be drawn. That's like taking the demographics of this forum and applying that to the entire Earth.

I cant believe people who are supposedly scientific still think a consensus amounts to anything. wasn't it consensus that the earth was flat at one time too?
and I am glad you mentioned the wobble of Mars, because the earth wobbles too yet it never seems to be identified as having any part in our climate change. In fact nothing other then CO2 is identified as a reason for climate change. you would think things like wobble and solar radiation and galactic cosmic rays didn't exist to the man made global warming cabal.

the earth wobbles too yet it never seems to be identified as having any part in our climate change.

Not true, the articles talks about that too. The difference is the vast majority of climate scientists consider all factors and acknowledge that manmade CO2 levels are a part of the issue.

yes, funny how the little word "part" never makes it out to the useful idiots who thinks its all manmade

yes, funny how the little word "part" never makes it out to the useful idiots who thinks its all manmade
I've never met anyone who believes global warming is entirely the fault of humans. What kind of idiots do you know?

I've never met anyone who believes global warming is entirely the fault of humans.

Me Neither. Sounds like another exaggeration.

OK, then how many times do you EVER hear any other cause in the media or anywhere else for that matter? how many times has th words "solar radiation" or "wobble" escaped al gores lips? When has any environmentalist ever reffered to man made CO2 as a "part" of the global warming problem? I bet never. Maybe you may hear a scientist say it, but CO2 being a "part" of it doesnt work for the enviro-propagandist who want to control everything the west does in an effort to stop global warming.

Just because it's not the whole thing doesn't mean we should ignore it and just use as much energy as possible...

I've never met anyone who believes global warming is entirely the fault of humans. What kind of idiots do you know?

You beat me to it.

I was about to ask him the same thing.

It seems that the TRUE "useful idiots" in this isssue are those who allege that there are people claiming that global warming is *100% the fault of humans**.....when in fact no scientist or researcher in the world is making such a claim.

Of course, if these twits couldn't throw up their little --""but what about those idiots who think that global warming is entirely man made!?!?!?"" -- strawmen, they wouldn't have any part of the debate they could pretend to be refuting.

just do me a favor, find any democrat or environmentalist who ever used the word "part" and I will shut up.

OK, then how many times do you EVER hear any other cause in the media or anywhere else for that matter? how many times has th words "solar radiation" or "wobble" escaped al gores lips? When has any environmentalist ever reffered to man made CO2 as a "part" of the global warming problem? I bet never. Maybe you may hear a scientist say it, but CO2 being a "part" of it doesnt work for the enviro-propagandist who want to control everything the west does in an effort to stop global warming.

I think the point is for us to try to do what we can to alleviate the problem, and avoid behaviors that exacerbate it. Since there's little we can do about climate change caused by the Earth's wobble, or the radiation of the sun, except perhaps adapt, there's little point in discussing it as part of the solution to the problems presented by climate change.

I think the point is for us to try to do what we can to alleviate the problem, and avoid behaviors that exacerbate it. Since there's little we can do about climate change caused by the Earth's wobble, or the radiation of the sun, except perhaps adapt, there's little point in discussing it as part of the solution to the problems presented by climate change.
Exactly the point. Even if man-made pollution is only a small part of global warming (although I think it's a big part), it's the only part about which we can do anything.

Unfortunately the planets average temperature is rising, we can all see things like the Greenland ice shelf disappearing, theres been virtually no snow in the Alps this year, and whether you like it or not, the United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases.

gm, I looked at evidence concerning the theory you posted, and it was incredibly vague. Do you have a source for the actual numbers?

I dont think you need a source to know that people like Al Gore will exaggerate the human effects of global warming for political reasons and for more funding.. that is pretty much common knowledge

gm, I looked at evidence concerning the theory you posted, and it was incredibly vague. Do you have a source for the actual numbers?
Boortz needs no numbers; he is Boortz, the mighty, the "libertarian," and the sexy! Boortz Boortz Boortz!

I dont think you need a source to know that people like Al Gore will exaggerate the human effects of global warming for political reasons and for more funding.. that is pretty much common knowledge

Please elaborate, I'm dying to hear this "common knowledge".

It seems that the TRUE "useful idiots" in this isssue are those who allege that there are people claiming that global warming is *100% the fault of humans**.....when in fact no scientist or researcher in the world is making such a claim.

I sure got that impression watching Dole's movie. In fact he leaves it that ALL scientists except a few near-criminials in the pay of the oil companies think so.

Reading the article, I see that he doesn't leave human beings free of responsibility either. It stikes me as a matter of degree of cause. Since no one has actually demonstrated that greenhouse gases do what we are told they are doing (the case is strong but circumstantial and theoretical), I have often wondered about the claims so often made that all "reputable" scientists, or "the entire scientific community" thinks this is the situation.

Unfortunately the planets average temperature is rising, we can all see things like the Greenland ice shelf disappearing, theres been virtually no snow in the Alps this year, and whether you like it or not, the United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases.

Don't believe everything you read, and especially don't believe everything you see on the "Discovery" channel (although I like it a lot). Reporters pick and choose too, and it turns out that Antarctica is actually showing signs of getting colder.

That said, overall averages have crept up by a fraction of a degree in the last century, and seems likely to continue doing so.

There will be negatives but also positives. There will be a considerable time for humanity to adjust, and the changes are not much different from what has hit the world many times in the past.

The problem as I see it is not science but the political use and misuse of science. The science is nowhere near as clearcut as certain politicians portray it. They are chicken-little types using fear to promote themselves and their agenda.

The reality is that there really is nothing to be done even if global warming is entirely human caused. The economics of energy production will dictate what happens, and as oil becomes more expensive (as the reserves run out), substitution will happen--either that or living standards will drop.

Here and there a government intrusion, such as mandating fuel consumption standards, can do positive things for the economy and have a slight effect at the margin, but that is about it. Neither political party opposes such things when positive effects can be demonstrated.

I sure got that impression watching Dole's movie.

"I'M BOB DOLE! BOB DOLE IS A MOVIE STAR! BOB DOLE SAYS GIVE ME AN OSCAR!"

:lolhit:

Sun Energy Output At Over 1,000 Year Peak

Sami Solanki, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Switzerland, says the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years than over the previous 1090 years.

“We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.

The sun's brightness hasn't changed much over the last 20 years. But it has been brighter for the last 60 years than it has been at any time in the last 1,150 years.

According to scientists, the Sun’s radiance has changed little during this period. But looking back over 1,150 years, Solanki found the Sun had never been as bright as in the past 60 years.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Sunspots have been increasing in number as the Earth has been getting warmer.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

Variations in sunspot activity are probably behind the increases and decreases in solar radiation and consequence changes in Earth's climate.

During the Medieval maximum of 1000-1300 there was an extremely large Sunspot which is believed to have warmed the Earth higher than normal. There were no accurate measurements of the weather to call upon during this time but the discovery and colonization of Greenland by Eric the Red supports this hypothesis. Eric was exiled from Iceland for manslaughter and sailed west discovering Greenland. He then led many ships, filled with people who wanted to make a fresh start, to this new land. For 300 years Greenland flourished, new communities settled, trade with other countries grew, and the population increased. Around 1325 the climate cooled down considerably, people started to abandon the northern settlements. By 1350 glaciers covered the northern settlements, and the southern most settlements were dying out as well.

The Sporer minimum of 1400-1510 and the Maunder minimum of 1645-1715 were each known as a "little ice age." They were both droughts in Sunspot activity, and a link to a time of abnormally cold weather on Earth. In addition to finishing off the Greenland colonies, the Sporer minimum showed increased rates of famine in the world, and the Baltic Sea froze solid in the winter of 1422-23. Some of the more notable effects of the Maunder minimum included the appearance of glaciers in the Alps advancing farther southward, the north sea froze, and in London there was the famous year without a summer where it remained cold for 21 consecutive months.

The evidence supports the effect of Sunspot activity on the Earth's climate, but that is only one of many areas that effects us on Earth. On March 13,1989 a large Sunspot ignited powerful flares that tripped the circuit breakers a generator station. The started the collapse of the Quebec power system and left people without power for hours to days. These same flares damaged several man made satellites, and caused smaller outages all over the U.S and Canada. There are countless other times when large Sunspots have effected similar damage to various electrical systems on Earth.

The Sun could start going through a down trend in sunspot activity at any time. We could find ourselves back in a state similar to the Maunder Minimum with decades of much colder weather. Or sunspot activity could increase to an even higher level and temperatures could rise more than the amount some models project as a consequence of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide.

My guess is that the chances are greater for a reduction in sunspot activity than for an increase. Why? Most of the time the planet Earth is in an ice age. This is suggestive of the possibility that the Sun just doesn't put out enough heat to keep the Earth out of ice ages most of the time. Also, the higher sunspot activity reported above is at the high end of an over 1,000 year period. Therefore the odds seem greater that we will have more future years with lower sunspot activity than with higher sunspot activity.

My further guess is that a reduction in sunspot activity would cause more harm to humans than a further increase in sunspot activity. A decrease could put large amounts of farm fields out of production and would reduce the useful length of the growing seasons for other fields. The freezing over of rivers and seas along with snows and ice would interfere with transportation more than higher temperatures would.

Also, my guess is that it would be easier to reflect away excessive sunlight than to try to replace the heat lost in another cold period like the Maunder Minimum. For example, to reduce the sunlight hitting the Earth during high sunspot periods we could genetically engineer plankton to produce more of the chemicals they generate to make clouds. We could also try to engineer more snowfall around glaciers to increase the areas covered by reflective white snow. We could also paint more human structures white to reflect back sunlight.

But imagine trying to generate enough energy to make up for a reduction in solar radiation during a period of low sunspot activity. We could take some steps to compensate for reduced solar radiation. For instance, we could paint all human structures black to make them absorb more light to raise ground temperatures. Also, we could try to develop some really large scale methods for coating ice sheets with dark coverings. It may also be possible to reduce cloud cover by seeding clouds to cause rains to fall in areas where the water is needed.

One option for a period of reduced sunspot activity would be to increase the release of green house gasses. But it is not clear that the planet contains enough fossil fuels to make that possible. We'd probably have to shift heavily toward the use of coal. But even that might not generate enough greenhouse gasses to compensate for a period of no sunspots.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256798,00.html
Scientific "Truth"

The British TV station Channel Four is coming out with a scientific rebuttal to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" features experts in climatology, meteorology and other disciplines — from such places as MIT and NASA. The film disputes the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

One scientist calls the recent U.N. summary report on climate change "a sham" that included the names of scientists who actually disagreed with its findings. The show also asserts that efforts to reduce carbon dioxide are killing people in Africa — who must burn fires inside their homes because their governments are being pressured to use wind and solar power — and cannot produce enough electricity for the continent. The program airs Thursday.


Al Gore doesn't care about black people!

Leave it to Fox News to run with that... :rolleyes:

Leave it to Fox News to run with that... :rolleyes:
it's not a Fox News production:rolleyes:

it's not a Fox News production

Yeah, I know. Im sorta suprised it isn't.

I figured they would have put out a propaganda piece before now.

Yeah, I know. Im sorta suprised it isn't.

I figured they would have put out a propaganda piece before now.
just because it conflicts with your agenda doesn't mean the news is propaganda.

The news IS mostly propaganda... and it sure ain't makin bush look very good so you can guess which side they choose.

Its like you hear all this noise about all the supposed "negative effects" of bush's presidency.. there have been some, but others which have been claimed are questionable.. and then here comes something negative caused by Al Gore.. and it's INCONCEIVABLE!!!! Can Al Gore do any wrong to you dharma?

Would this be a bad time to mention that the ice caps on MARS are melting as well? Must be all those probes we sent there, dammit.

whether you like it or not, the United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases.

The Chinese are set to pass us in a couple of years. If you think those guys are going to pay any attention to this global warming bilge, you're in for a sad surprise.

Question I have to ask is what would AlGore and his ilk would be doing if we were experiencing the kind of dustbowl drought that hit the Mid West in the 1930s? The dustbowl came and then it went. People couldn't do anything to prevent and it wasn't the actions of people who made the dustbowl go away. THAT was nature, dammit. What makes people think a warming earth is the fault of people and what makes people think the Kyoto Treaty is going to make the spectre of Global Warming go away? Especially considering that developing countries like India and China aren't going to follow it, dammit.

People are trying to say the reason the polar caps on Mars are melting is because of the "wobble" on mars is making the caps face the sun... meanwhile.. magically the "wobble" on earth has no effect on our caps, its the SUV's that are melting them.

The Earth's atmosphere protects us from the sun. Mars' atmosphere is much weaker. We are becoming more susceptible the the sun's rays because the atmosphere (ozone layer) is being depleted. This is even worse considering the fact that the suns rays are getting hotter. Get the picture now?

THE SUN MIGHT BE WARMING THE EARTH
Really? I thought there were giant stoves that kept the earth warm.

The Earth's atmosphere protects us from the sun. Mars' atmosphere is much weaker. We are becoming more susceptible the the sun's rays because the atmosphere (ozone layer) is being depleted. This is even worse considering the fact that the suns rays are getting hotter. Get the picture now?

Fantasy, the ozone layer doesn't get depleted by CO2. The blame for that was laid at the feet of chloroflauracarbons (I just KNOW I spelled that wrong.)

The mistake we're making is that we're comparing tempuratures on Earth from the past several hundred years, the time of the little ice age. I'm not sure how far back the little ice age goes, but I do know that the Vikings we able to raise cattle in Greenland and wine grapes were grown in England. For a while anyway, then it started getting way too cold for either activity. The History Channel did a great documentary on the Little Ice Age and what it was like before temperatures plummeted and what the effects were on civilization.

Before the Little Ice Age, temps were much balmier on Earth. Food was easier to grow, new places like Greenland were open for agriculture.

We really don't know whether or not man is causing the earth to warm or whether it's just a cycle the earth is going through.

God, there are so many things I could bring up in this discusion, dammit. Did I mention that back in the 70s, scientists thought that the earth was on the brink of an ICE AGE?

Gee whiz, dammit.

Really? I thought there were giant stoves that kept the earth warm.

and I thought it was deoderant and car exhaust

:hahanot:

Just because it's not the whole thing doesn't mean we should ignore it and just use as much energy as possible...

I think we should use as much energy as possible, just not waste it. Standards of living, especially of the poor, are very much dependent on available energy. Only the wealthy should be asked to spend the money needed to use more expensive energy sources in order to avoid greenhouse gasses.

The unfortunate fact is that it would require really unreasonable impositions on everyone, especially the poor, to do anything meaningful about greenhouse gases, if this really is the problem. The politicians make it seem the problem is soluble, or at least engage in scare tactics, but when in power they are helpless too. (If Gore were really serious, he would be more open to nuclear power. He is a politician, in my mind, of the worst sort).

I think, however, that the natural depletion of oil will solve the problem, if it is a real problem, anyway, since, as prices rise, consumption will decrease and alternatives will become economical. Using crops to generate methane seems the best, since CO2 is absorbed in growing the crop and then released when burning it, resulting in net balance. (While at present this is only economic in Brazil without subsidy, it is still more economic that other proffered solutions, such as oil shale--which would be an environmental disaster).

A recent development, the discovery of ways to make truly absorptive material coatings (reflecting less than .5% of incoming energy at all wavelengths) raises hopes that solar generators may also become cost effective in far more situations than now.

Fantasy, the ozone layer doesn't get depleted by CO2.

Let me endorse what you say. Further, the ozone layer doesn't let more heat in. This is a completely separate issue from the one of any global warming that may be caused by the increase in greenhouse gasses. .

International treaties are now in place and are working to stop the insertion of ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere, and this problem is on its way toward solution. It is a much easier nut to crack.

(This illustrates that when the problem is soluble, politicians of all stripes will get together and solve it. It is the will-nigh insoluble problems, such as global warming and greenhouse gasses, that some politicians will chose to demagogue).

just because it conflicts with your agenda doesn't mean the news is propaganda.


Fox is all about Propaganda masquerading as news.

They are the Pravda of the Republican party.

Did I mention that back in the 70s, scientists thought that the earth was on the brink of an ICE AGE?

Yeah, thats one of the predicted effects of Global Warming, the melting ice caps cause a huge influx of cold water to the oceans which shuts down the Gulf Stream.

Can Al Gore do any wrong to you dharma?

He has not yet done anything wrong to me, Decka.

We really don't know whether or not man is causing the earth to warm or whether it's just a cycle the earth is going through.

Ok, I disagree with that statement but let's assume it's true. What's wrong with taking a precaution and trying to lower our CO2 emission?

Ok, I disagree with that statement but let's assume it's true. What's wrong with taking a precaution and trying to lower our CO2 emission?

If our CO2 emissions have about a 2% effect on what happens.. than why worry about it anyway?

Why go around the world preaching fear into people to stop driving their SUV's to save the world when its really something else that is causing the side effects?

Ok, I disagree with that statement but let's assume it's true. What's wrong with taking a precaution and trying to lower our CO2 emission?

Good question.

Look at it this way, if Global Warming is wrong then the most we have to lose is some money and we end up with fuel efficient cars and lots of alternative energy.

If Global Warming is right then the most we have to lose is the survival of our species.

Is it worth that gamble just to play partisan "gotcha"?

Good question.

Look at it this way, if Global Warming is wrong then the most we have to lose is some money and we end up with fuel efficient cars and lots of alternative energy.

If Global Warming is right then the most we have to lose is the survival of our species.

Is it worth that gamble just to play partisan "gotcha"?

Sounds like a religious question I heard...

If there is no God... than all we have to lose is going to church once a week and praying every now and again.

If there is a God... then the most we have to lose is an eternity of damnation

Is it worth the gamble just to play religion vs. athiest "gotcha"?

It's called Pascal's Wager, Decka.

Problem with using it in regards to religion is that it pretty much applies to all religions. It is more of an argument against Athiesm, instead of bring pro any particular religion.

It's called Pascal's Wager, Decka.

that i didn't know

Problem with using it in regards to religion is that it pretty much applies to all religions. It is more of an argument against Athiesm, instead of bring pro any particular religion.

that i did know

Ok, I disagree with that statement but let's assume it's true. What's wrong with taking a precaution and trying to lower our CO2 emission?

That is the problem--how? The nostrums offered by politicians have their own problems and are much more expensive, implying lower living standards. The reality is that even doing this will not effect CO2 emissions much anyway.

"Pascal's Wager" is the name applied to the Christian argument (accredited to Blaise Pascal, who did state it clearly, but it has been around forever and comes up naturally in theism debates). This name is used to deride many arguments of this sort where Pascal's specific argument doesn't apply.

Whether we like it or not, we all make Pascal's Wager. My reaction is that I cannot think much of a god who punishes and rewards just on the basis of what we happen to believe, since cultural and genetic and accidental factors play such a huge role.

Especially I can't think much of a deity that rewards people who take the Machiavellian approach that Pascal, as he framed it, would have to take.

The Buddha is reported to have made a similar argument, but one I think is not quite so crass. He said that his Way might be wrong, but, nevertheless, if it helps one with happiness and having a full life, then why not? (Buddhism teaches that one should not practice Buddhism unless one finds it helpful and fulfilling, and this will not be so for everyone).

The question is not whether we should lower CO2 emissions, I think everyone agrees that would be good. However, should we force down emissions by penalizing businesses and the economy? Is it worth taking the economic hit? Personally, I think not.

The question is not whether we should lower CO2 emissions, I think everyone agrees that would be good. However, should we force down emissions by penalizing businesses and the economy? Is it worth taking the economic hit? Personally, I think not.

I don't think it is worth the gamble not to.

then stop driving and STFU.

That's the problem you see, people keep telling us this shit yet none of them do anything but flap their lips. Caring about something doesnt solve it, only action solves it. And carbon offsets are bullshit. It is either important or it isnt. When I see people who are convinced humans are helping to destroy the earth give up some of thier luxurys I will be convinced. The way I see it, people who say they want to "Stop" global warming yet still drive cars and do everything we do that harms the environment are no different then the people anti war protestors attack for supporting the war but not signing up or having children in the war.

Trav, individuals on their own cant put a dent on Global Warming, big business, especially oil companys and power companys, being given tax breaks to find 'alternative fuels', is the only way ahead, unfortunately this statement will fall on deaf ears, why, theres no way the US is going to go green while China pumps more and more shit into the air daily.

I agree and disagree with Trav...

You CAN be knowledgable on something without being an "expert" or "doing" something.. like with me and nutrition for example. I know that if i want to get shredded ripped for summer, I should stop drinking, cut out fatty sugars, eat more veggies and natural foods, etc. The thing is, i'm not doing that. However, i can tell anyone that if they want to lose weight for summer, doing that works, even though i myself am not doing it.

The difference is... i have done it in the past and have seen the results... drastic human effects on global warming cannot even be proven. Like i said before, humans are probably responsible for less then 5% of the global warming.

No need to strike fear into people for 5% IMO

Trav, individuals on their own cant put a dent on Global Warming, big business, especially oil companys and power companys, being given tax breaks to find 'alternative fuels', is the only way ahead, unfortunately this statement will fall on deaf ears, why, theres no way the US is going to go green while China pumps more and more shit into the air daily.

with posts like that can't you see why it apppears global warming reduction seems to simply be way to curb the power of big buisness? I mean, we cant do anything on our own, but if we can get big buisness to pay up, well then that's doing something!
look, I am all for a clean environment and easing pollution, but it appears that we are headed towards a global tax to stop global warming. Then the UN will just waste all the tax money and nothing will happen. It just stinks to high heaven, that's all.

Sounds like a religious question I heard...

If there is no God... than all we have to lose is going to church once a week and praying every now and again.

If there is a God... then the most we have to lose is an eternity of damnation

Is it worth the gamble just to play religion vs. athiest "gotcha"?

Wouldn't God know that you are only going to church in case he exists to avoid damnation?

The difference is... i have done it in the past and have seen the results... drastic human effects on global warming cannot even be proven. Like i said before, humans are probably responsible for less then 5% of the global warming.

No need to strike fear into people for 5% IMO

Evidence of this "5%"? Until you can provide some evidence of the claims you've been making, I'm going to continue to believe the scientists.

Wouldn't God know that you are only going to church in case he exists to avoid damnation?

Striving to "know" and follow God is what gets you into heaven to begin with... so of course he would know.



Evidence of this "5%"? Until you can provide some evidence of the claims you've been making, I'm going to continue to believe the scientists.

I said it was my estimate..

and what scientists are you going to believe? The real ones or the ones on Al Gores payroll?

That's the problem you see, people keep telling us this shit yet none of them do anything but flap their lips.


Thats a lie.
Lots of people are doing what they can but the problem won't be solved until the systemic problems are addressed and the whole system is changed.

Telling one person to "stop driving" is just stupid. One person can't do enough to change the environment on their own.
People have to work to live and public transportation sucks in a lot of places.

A lot of us do what we can. I have a car that gets very good gas milage. I don't have a hybrid yet but I plan on getting one. I am installing solar panels on my new house in order to offset my electrical usage. Oh, and I recycle.

It is a hell of a lot more than you are doing, sitting around whining about conspiracy theories and attacking people who are trying to do some good.

I am all for a clean environment and easing pollution, but it appears that we are headed towards a global tax to stop global warming. Then the UN will just waste all the tax money and nothing will happen. It just stinks to high heaven, that's all.

Thats the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard.

:rolleyes:

The only people I personally am 'attacking" are the ones who are attacking me in the name of faulty, biased science. If anyone wants to buy a hybrid.. good for them, good for the environment. But don't try to scare the masses saying that just because you drive an SUV our planet is going to be hard-boiled in the near future... that is irresponsible... because there is LOTS of proof to say we as humans have VERY LITTLE effect on the actual "effects" of global warming.. like melting ice caps.

and what scientists are you going to believe? The real ones or the ones on Al Gores payroll?

he believes the consensus. Consensus is not science. The consensus is only good for shutting out those who do not consent from speaking out against the consensus. It is true for man made climate change as well as darwinism. If you got 100 scientists calling 50 frauds who is Joe Blow going to believe? Does that make the 50 not scientists? nope. Could the 100 scientists be wrong? yup, and often are. The earth being flat was consensus at one time too. So was the sun revolving around the earth.

Thats the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard.

:rolleyes:

of course, massive government agencys creating new taxes, thats a real stretch.

he believes the consensus. Consensus is not science. The consensus is only good for shutting out those who do not consent from speaking out against the consensus. It is true for man made climate change as well as darwinism. If you got 100 scientists calling 50 frauds who is Joe Blow going to believe? Does that make the 50 not scientists? nope. Could the 100 scientists be wrong? yup, and often are. The earth being flat was consensus at one time too. So was the sun revolving around the earth.

so true.. since there is no actual proof that evolution and darwin theories are correct.. that itself is based on faith.. which is dare i say.. a religion?

The only thing that bothers me about Al Gore is that he has so much to gain as long as global warming remains a problem and that humans are causing it. His groupies/yes-men want him to remain positive in the media, so they want him to be "right". Gore recieves BOATLOADS of funding as long as there is something humans can do to stop global warming. If it was discovered(and maybe already has) that the sun was the guilty party, Al Gore would become unimportant. Thus.. Al Gore is bias, and will MAKE SURE that global warming remains a human problem.. and not a natural one.

I said it was my estimate..

and what scientists are you going to believe? The real ones or the ones on Al Gores payroll?

Are you a climatologist? You seem to think that you know more about global warming then the people who are experts in climatology.

Al Gore's payroll? What, he's the Godfather all of a sudden?

The earth being flat was consensus at one time too. So was the sun revolving around the earth.

That's great argument for supporting the belief that global warming is untrue. It's also great for supporting the belief that aliens are plotting to invade the planet before year 2020.

Either way, your examples come from a time before the scientific method even existed.

Are you a climatologist? You seem to think that you know more about global warming then the people who are experts in climatology.

Al Gore's payroll? What, he's the Godfather all of a sudden?

I'm talking about the ones who jack off Co2 levels... and ignore what the sun is doing. Is it even proven that CO2 even directly warms our planet? And While CO2 has risen, its not even near the highest amount of CO2 thats been in our atmosphere over the earth's lifespan. Let me check.. yep, i'm still here.

Lets see here..

A. The sun burning brighter than it has in over 1000 years.. fact

B. Rising CO2 levels are directly causing the warming of our planet.. theory

Another theory? holes in the stratosphere, letting in radiation. Never heard about that one did ya?

You can't prove that the rising CO2 levels are the one reason our planet is warming. It might be PART of it.. and chances are a SMALL PART.. but don't scare people about CO2 levels when there is an elephant in the room named "The Sun".

A. The sun burning brighter than it has in over 1000 years.. fact

There's more CO2 in the atmosphere then there's ever been in the last 650,000 years, fact. The levels of CO2 rose after the industrial revolution, fact.

B. Rising CO2 levels are directly causing the warming of our planet.. theory

Let's take a look at Venus, who's atmosphere is mainly CO2 with a side of nitrogen. Venus' surface temperature is hotter than Mercury's, despite the fact it's twice as far away.

The CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect which makes the planet as hot as it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Another theory? holes in the stratosphere, letting in radiation. Never heard about that one did ya?

Gee, there's holes in the Ozone layer? Thanks Decka, you're going to be my main source for information on all things regarding global warming.

I wonder what caused the Ozone depletion. Oh yeah, humans.

You can't prove that the rising CO2 levels are the one reason our planet is warming. It might be PART of it.. and chances are a SMALL PART.. but don't scare people about CO2 levels when there is an elephant in the room named "The Sun".

CO2 levels on Venus makes it hotter than Mercury despite Mercury being twice as close, fact. Our planet is warming, fact. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is rising, fact. This rise in CO2 started after the industrial revolution, fact.

Connect the dots. Please.

Either way, your examples come from a time before the scientific method even existed.

OK, so any scientific advancement we use today from that period should be thrown out?

We are becoming more susceptible the the sun's rays because the atmosphere (ozone layer) is being depleted. This is even worse considering the fact that the suns rays are getting hotter. Get the picture now?
In addition to what's already been said....

Correction: The ozone layer has actually shown signs of healing.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_050916_ozone_hole.html

Fox is all about Propaganda masquerading as news.

They are the Pravda of the Republican party.
Yeah, and the Pravda is the Pravda of the Democratic Party. What's your point?

Evidence of this "5%"? Until you can provide some evidence of the claims you've been making, I'm going to continue to believe the scientists.
Do you have evidence that it's not? Do your scientists? Look, I'm not about throwing caution to the wind with reckless abandon, but by the same token, I don't think we should penalize businesses and the economy based on the whims of a few academics.

OK, so any scientific advancement we use today from that period should be thrown out?

No, it's just not as reliable as today, particularly when you rely on a "scientific" consensus that existed before there were even "scientists."

P.S. I don't think flat earth theory has been a prevailing theory among educated people for the past 2000 years (the Greeks knew the earth was round, contrary to elementary text books which act like Columbus discovered that the Earth was round)

Do you have evidence that it's not? Do your scientists? Look, I'm not about throwing caution to the wind with reckless abandon, but by the same token, I don't think we should penalize businesses and the economy based on the whims of a few academics.

"Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago (Figure 1). During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

A. The sun burning brighter than it has in over 1000 years.. fact


Could someone provide a source, besides Decka or Trav, for why this is a "fact?" How bright the sun was a 1000 years ago sounds like a tough thing to study.

Btw, brightness of a star is not the same as how hot a star is.

you cant tell how bright something was, but if you can tell what the temperature was before humans were around you would have to assume the sun did the heating so you would know how hot the sun was realitive to what it is now.

you cant tell how bright something was, but if you can tell what the temperature was before humans were around you would have to assume the sun did the heating so you would know how hot the sun was realitive to what it is now.

The planet heats and cools for reasons besides the brightness of the sun, as evidenced by the greenhouse effect.

In other words, you're making a huge assumption. Provide some evidence, besides your subjective opinion.

it is a huge assumption to say the sun is involved in earths climate? wtf?

It's also great for supporting the belief that aliens are plotting to invade the planet before year 2020.


Do you know something about an invasion coming after 2020?


:bombout:

it is a huge assumption to say the sun is involved in earths climate? wtf?

*sigh* It was a brief post and that's not what I said. Let me rephrase for you: It's a huge assumption to assume that past heating and cooling of the Earth was caused only by variations in the brightness of the sun.

of course, massive government agencys creating new taxes, thats a real stretch.

The UN isn't a government.

Well, there can be all sorts of causes from the sun. If I'm not mistaken, the temperature of the sun is not uniform, it changes. Solar flares can also make quite a difference, the effects could even last decades. Yes CO2 emissions are rising, but I don't think there's a definitive answer as to how much CO2 actually affects the temperature of the Earth's surface. I'd be willing to wager that it would take a lot of CO2 to have the same effect as a little extra heat from the sun.

Yeah, and the Pravda is the Pravda of the Democratic Party.

Wrong, Pravda was in the Soviet Union.

Wrong, Pravda was in the Soviet Union.
Have you no sense of humor?

Well, there can be all sorts of causes from the sun. If I'm not mistaken, the temperature of the sun is not uniform, it changes. Solar flares can also make quite a difference, the effects could even last decades. Yes CO2 emissions are rising, but I don't think there's a definitive answer as to how much CO2 actually affects the temperature of the Earth's surface. I'd be willing to wager that it would take a lot of CO2 to have the same effect as a little extra heat from the sun.
Agreed.

Well, there can be all sorts of causes from the sun. If I'm not mistaken, the temperature of the sun is not uniform, it changes. Solar flares can also make quite a difference, the effects could even last decades. Yes CO2 emissions are rising, but I don't think there's a definitive answer as to how much CO2 actually affects the temperature of the Earth's surface. I'd be willing to wager that it would take a lot of CO2 to have the same effect as a little extra heat from the sun.

That would be a bad wager. Venus is a great example of how much influence atmosphere has on the surface of a planet.

So, does anyone want to back up any of the sun-warming claims with any actual data, or is this a rumor based on Travh's assumptions and Evil Homer's private wagers?

Have you no sense of humor?

Of course, but you didn't indicate you were joking.

Were you?

*sigh* It was a brief post and that's not what I said. Let me rephrase for you: It's a huge assumption to assume that past heating and cooling of the Earth was caused only by variations in the brightness of the sun.

I never said how bright the sun was caused anything. Just like the earth, and mars, and every other planet the suns tepmerature fluctuates too. It seems that whenever the sun puts off more energy, the planets temperatures go up. no suprise there. The earth is not isolted in the universe. We are subject to all sorts of energy and radiation from our sun and from outside our solar system, even outside our galaxy. So yes, if we had as much CO2 as venus we would be dead. That doesnt change the fact there are forces outside our atmosphere that play a huge roll in our climate, probably the biggest role.

The only thing I've seen about the sun warming is that ice is melting on Mars. But it is nice to see people trying to deny human causes for global warming by pulling things out of their ass

Of course, but you didn't indicate you were joking.

Were you?
Of course, I was. The joke was implicit. The Pravda was the official newspaper of the Communist Party.

...probably the biggest role.

And this is where I disagree. That is just your opinion.
I will take the word of the vast majority of climate scientists.

Of course, I was.

Oh, ok.
It wouldn't have suprised me in the least if you were serious. You should have indicated you were joking. Add a (j/k) or a smiley face or something.

The only thing I've seen about the sun warming is that ice is melting on Mars. But it is nice to see people trying to deny human causes for global warming by pulling things out of their ass

what are you saying? that the sun is a minor player in earths climate? I have a little science project for you Einstein. Go outside right now, feel how hot it is, then when the sun goes down, go outside again, it will be colder. what caused that? the sun and the suns absence. I swear, I know you are all for human caused global warmiing, but you sound like a complete moron if you deny the sun is involved. sounds like the only thing you need to pull out of your ass is your cranium.

And this is where I disagree. That is just your opinion.
I will take the word of the vast majority of climate scientists.

I can not believe this. if the sun went out completly would we still worry about global warming? this is just ridiculous. the sun IS the heat for crying out loud. Will you at least acknowledge that the earth flys through space in our orbit around the sun, and the sun flys through space in its orbit around the galaxy? I swear you people sound like you think the earth is at the center of the universe and everything revolves around us.

Trav you seem to be confusing the climate itself with the phenomenon of climate change.

Is this any help.

Trav you seem to be confusing the climate itself with the phenomenon of climate change.

no i am not confused. Climate changes, that's what it does. If was always supposed to stay the same it would be called something else. calling climate change a phenomenon is like calling fire hot. it is what it is.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm


I'd say these are all fairly impartial sources. I'm not saying that greenhouse gases don't play a part, but I don't think we need to get into a panic.

My real quibble with this whole thing is that everybody is jumping to apocalyptic conclusions based on a bare minimum amount of data. Further proof that the discussion has moved from a scientific one to a political one. Even using 2000 year old ice core samples is insufficient. Not only is the time frame ludicrously small, that data also fails to illuminate the underlying factors. You can't necissarily determine the causes by looking at the result.

The only "fact" about this whole thing is that we know absolutely nothing. We have theories and guesses, but that's all they amount to. In general we have very little knowlege about the planet. Right now, the magnetic poles are weakening, and will soon flip, and we haven't got a clue as to the cause. If I looked on the news and saw that there was a murder in a nearby county, and I went out and sealed my house, bought body armor and a cache of automatic weapons, that response would not be unfounded, but still rediculously extreme. Why should we behave the same way here?

no i am not confused. Climate changes, that's what it does. If was always supposed to stay the same it would be called something else. calling climate change a phenomenon is like calling fire hot. it is what it is.

You still sound extremely confused about the difference between normal climate fluctuations and the phenomenon of "Climate Change" (Global Warming).

Have you seen "An inconvenient truth"?