Read the Sunspots (Best Global Warming Article...EVER!)

[Guard Dog]

Article too big to post. Here are excerpts:

 

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

 

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

 

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

 

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

 

LINK!

 

 

 

I have stated often enough that the rhetoric behind global warming being man made is a lot of political screed. It is a base and cynical attempt by politicians/ideologues to gain a measure of control over the lives of other human beings (granted a goal of most politicos). Liberal/Socialists like Al Gore state emphatically that the warming trend is man made then attempt to quell debate by waving a hand and saying "the science is settled". No, it certainly is not. Even a few of you on this board respond with those exact same words even when confronted with contradicting facts such as the increase in surface temps on Mars and Venus at roughly the same rate as Earth. I guess it goes to show when logic and political ideology conflict, ideology wins every time.

Edited June 21, 2007 by Guard Dog

[WITHTEETH]

Yes, sleep easy, we can now drive our cars everyday, chop down all the trees, and burn all the coal we want. Nothing will happen if we send all this carbon and pollution into our atmosphere.

[Laozi]

Your thoughts on this are known and have already become tedious. You wish to subvert a commonly held view on something you yourself have a tenuous grasp on at best. Worse of all you portray yourself as someone not indoctrinated by ideology.

[Musopticon?]

Yeah, enviromental weather fluctuates, it's been known for decades. However, we still destroy the athmosphere a heck of a lot faster than before.

[metadigital]

I think we should hurry up and habitate another planet.

[WITHTEETH]

I think we should hurry up and habitate another planet.

It would take 3 earths to make the entire planet industrialized like the US and Europe already is. With all the resources the consumers use and not recycle etc...

 

in 40 years our population has doubled, in another 40 can you imagine 12 BILLION people here!? That is scarey.

 

Stephen Hawkins said the only way we are to survive is if we habitat other planets too.

Edited June 21, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Dark_Raven]

Reading sunspots will cause blindness. Staring at the Sun will do that.

 

 

I think we should hurry up and habitate another planet.

Venus would make for an excellent planet for 3/4 of the population.

[Skynet]

I think we should hurry up and habitate another planet.

Venus would make for an excellent planet for 3/4 of the population.

You mean Mars? As I remember, Venus would be a lousy spot compared to other planets and moons for habitation.

[Atreides]

I think we should try living in inverted fishbowls with fancy lighting, cultivating seaweed and seafood in the sea.

[Gorgon]

oHH LOOK LOOK I found something that reinforces my ill informed beliefs on teh inarweb, what are the odds of that, lols

[Tale]

I think we should hurry up and habitate another planet.

Venus would make for an excellent planet for 3/4 of the population.

You mean Mars? As I remember, Venus would be a lousy spot compared to other planets and moons for habitation.

No, she meant Venus. Trust me. Inhospitable planet, 3/4 of the population. Definitely Venus.

[Sand]

Well, I always have the thought that while our pollution does have an effect on the environment, it is just one factor out of many. We should keep mindful of our fossil fuel usage and still seek alternatives, not just because it would be better for the environment but also because our fossil fuels are indeed finite. I don't think we need to go to one extreme or another on the enviornmental issues, but keep in moderation.

[Lare Kikkeli]

My personal opinion not based on any scientific research is that chopping all the rain forests is probably the biggest reason for global warming. Too bad we can't just bring them back huh

[taks]

Yes, sleep easy, we can now drive our cars everyday, chop down all the trees, and burn all the coal we want. Nothing will happen if we send all this carbon and pollution into our atmosphere.

oh boy, hyperbole and a slippery slope combined into a one-sentence, two-fallacy thought.

 

btw, europe has already reached a problem with a negative replacement rate, the US is on the way (other than immigration) and once the large developing nations become developed, they will too. the world population won't grow nearly as fast as you indicate.

 

taks

[taks]

Stephen Hawkins said the only way we are to survive is if we habitat other planets too.

didn't even notice this appeal to authority and didn't actually count the hyperbole in the first statement.

 

taks

[Sand]

My personal opinion not based on any scientific research is that chopping all the rain forests is probably the biggest reason for global warming. Too bad we can't just bring them back huh

Actually the rain forests, expecially the Amazon, is the Earth's primary oxygen supply. If that goes to the way of the dodo Global Warming would be the least of our worries.

[taks]

besides, trees aren't nearly the sink they often get made out to be. the suckers "exhale" CO2 at night.

 

taks

[Sand]

Yep.

[Walsingham]

Er.... yes they do, in fact they exhale CO2 all the time. But at night the net effect is exhalation. However, the really important thing about trees is that they use carbon to build themselves. As one person put it to me recently, we should be growing and burying them.

[WITHTEETH]

Yes, sleep easy, we can now drive our cars everyday, chop down all the trees, and burn all the coal we want. Nothing will happen if we send all this carbon and pollution into our atmosphere.

oh boy, hyperbole and a slippery slope combined into a one-sentence, two-fallacy thought.

 

btw, europe has already reached a problem with a negative replacement rate, the US is on the way (other than immigration) and once the large developing nations become developed, they will too. the world population won't grow nearly as fast as you indicate.

 

taks

[mkreku]

I don't see the need to argue about this at all.

 

If the "environmentalists" are wrong.. so what? Will it kill you to try to use energy saving light bulbs and drive cars designed to consume less gasoline?

 

If the environmentalists are right.. well, then at least we got a head start.

 

It's a win-win situation, no matter what. Unless you believe in conspiracy stories about our governments trying to control our lives and minds through environmental issues..

[Sand]

I do think that we should conserve and take care of the environment no matter what. Just because it isn't dire does not mean whe can just tear it to pieces.

[metadigital]

Stephen Hawkins said the only way we are to survive is if we habitat other planets too.

didn't even notice this appeal to authority and didn't actually count the hyperbole in the first statement.

Am I the authority?

 

 

 

 

 

No?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poo.

[taks]

If the "environmentalists" are wrong.. so what? Will it kill you to try to use energy saving light bulbs and drive cars designed to consume less gasoline?

nothing wrong with that, the problem lies in policies that limit CO2 production via other means, namely manufacturing goods. contrary to popular belief, gasoline is _not_ the primary contributor to man-made GHGs. plus, we'll run out of oil in the future, maybe 50 years, maybe 100, either way that's a non-issue. ultimately, limiting CO2 means limiting production which hinders economic growth.

 

It's a win-win situation, no matter what. Unless you believe in conspiracy stories about our governments trying to control our lives and minds through environmental issues..

the trillions of dollars it will take to put changes in place can hardly be seen as a "win" if they're wrong. science is about getting it right, not outcomes.

 

taks

[Musopticon?]

I read somewhere that if half of America turned off their lighting, closed fridge doors, etc for one night, an immense amount of energy could be saved.

 

Any truth to this?