Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden.

 

It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai.

So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by WITHTEETH

Always outnumbered, never out gunned!

Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0

Myspace Website!

My rig

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

2010spaceships.jpg

Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

"Who could blame Skynet? He's such a cute, innocent, steel-bolted robot."

-Gauntlet

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

michael-moore-urges-democrats-to-embrace-hollywood.jpgRonWhite300.jpg

Always outnumbered, never out gunned!

Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0

Myspace Website!

My rig

Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer.

 

@\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?"

Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy."

Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

:sorcerer:

 

 

 

 

 

No?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poo. :p

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden.

 

It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai.

So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...