No, that is almost totally wrong. Observations were that temps are
increasing, and CO2 and other greenhouse gases were an easy to identify
culprit. If you see smoke you are going to look for fire, not for peacable
scouts trying to light a fire by using wet wood.
Yup! Now where would the new glaciers be forming?
They have changed their minds so many times about this subject that belief
in the AGW scare tactics is waning.
e.g. "Global Warming" has now been relabeled to "Global Climate Shift".
e.g. They told us the oceans would rise about 20 metres or more until people
informed them that ice takes up less space when melted. Suddenly the ocean
levels would only rise by one metre.
e.g. We were originally told that ice core samples showed an increase in
temperature each year when CO2 levels were higher. Later scientists have
discovered they were reading it backwards and the warmer temperatures caused
more CO2 to be released from the oceans.
e.g. Global climate temperatures have decreased over the last 20 years
despite higher CO2 levels.
The list of retractions is endless and no credibility has been maintained. I
would like to know how they measured world average temperatures, accurately,
to one tenths of a degree over 100 years ago.
Was Chicken Little right? This is story from decades or more back and it
still is being promoted today.
"zxcvbob" wrote in message
They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year.
It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
Just because anthropogenic climate change is a scam doesn't mean we
*aren't* burning up our fossil fuels at an alarming rate. The two
issues have very little to do with each other.
There are so many good reasons to conserve and to develop alternative
energy source (including national security for the Republicans) there's
no need to make up a bullshit reason -- except Al Gore and his buddies
are trying to get rich off of it.
That alone give me cause for concern. I mean usually one changes the
name when the current one takes on a malodorous conatation in the minds
of Populace. Global Warming->Climate Change, Timeshare->interval
ownership, Liberal->Progressive. The list goes on.
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
Yep. But there is a relatively logical theory behind AGW. In the case
of conservatives vs progressives, I don't know of the "theory", as do
you, I think, because otherwise you wouldn't ask!
Have to get back to wood working now the temps are lower and the family
about to go home ...
The "logic" part that bothers me is this. They have data going
back about 600,000 years that shows I think 3 cycles of CO2
and temerature. That data came from ice core samples.
Melting them in a lab, they captture the gas and determine
the CO2. The ratio of isotopes in the samples gives a
proxy for temperature.
Let's assume that data is correct. The "logic" problem
is that when the data is graphed, in each of those
cycles, temperature begins to rise for a few hundred
to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2 increases. Now,
if CO2 is causing the warming, why is it not the other
way around? I have heard that question asked of
global warming scientists and have never heard them
On the other hand, I have heard an ocean
scientist from MIT explain that the world's oceans are
huge reservoirs of CO2. As the earth warms from
increased solar energy output from solar cycles,
the oceans slowly warm,
releasing the CO2, just as a warming soda bottle
would. That explains the increase in CO2 and the
delay in timing.
If anyone has the manmade glolbal warming
proponents answer to why temperature leads
CO2 increase, I'd love to hear it.
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely
correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a
site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to grind
one way or the other proved impossible.
The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations in
the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2. The CO2
then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of feedback
circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider
authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of
climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the climate.
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Typical. The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a
puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored.
I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that
told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine
for butter was necessary or you would die. And that
eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta instead of meat
would make you trim and healthy. Remember who
started that govt song and dance? George McGovern.
Only problem was that it was all wrong. Now
America has an obesity epidemic with record
diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning
transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with
carbs is out too.
Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying
some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. We need the really
polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. There should be
very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Google
CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" Caveat: Charlie is a
scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that
was a luxury.
But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and
temperature. If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we could
be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises
temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. Once started,
that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. But now we aren't dealing
with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
years. Greeenland might have been called green because for a relatively
short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed green
while Iceland was ice. Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings
when they named things. When temps became more like the average, they
disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). Now we are dealing with short
time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by
limiting CO2. Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of
unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the
stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. I'd rather
have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
Yeah, a FEW scientists were decrying transfats and
corn-derived fats long ago.. But most of them were in
agreement and supporting the govt recommendations that
they were both perfectly safe and healthy. And those
scientists that dared to question transfats were dismissed
as loons. Based on those mainstream scientists
findings, the govt told Americans to eat transfats and to
make bread, pasta and other refined carbs the core
of their diets.
Now, with an epidemic in obesity, diabetes and heart
disease, it turns out those mainstream scientists and
the govt were wrong. That is the relevant analogy.
What a joke. Since when was butter a necessity? I see
the UN delivering food to starving people and have yet to
see them dropping in trucks of butter or margarine. Nor
during my lifetime has the price of butter been so
significantly different than that of margarine.
And if you believe that price delta has saved people,
then what about the cost of eliminating CO2? That
already is costing lives as the diversion of agriculture
to bio-fuels has tripled the price of corn, soybeans,
Those past cycles started with temp rising, followed by
CO2 rising anywhere from a few hundred to 1500 years later.
I don't believe anyone knows with 100% certainty
exactly what caused those cycles to start.
So, how do we know that the current cycle isn't being
driven by exactly the same things?
What did they do back in that short period to stop Greenland
from becoming green and get it reversed?
I have no problem with taking some of the easy steps,
those that are either free or cost effective, to reduce CO2
It's the notion of going hell bent, spending trillions of $$$
that no one has, making the USA more uncompetitive with
China, etc that scares me.
1. New Evidence Debunks Manmade Global Warming
New research from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific
organizations indicates that cosmic rays and the sun — not manmade carbon
emissions — are the major factors influencing global climate.
“The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new
evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate
Change) and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating,” writes
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, in Canada’s Financial
“The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities
as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.”
The findings, published in the journal Nature, come from CERN, the European
Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centers for
scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than
600 universities and national laboratories, according to Solomon.
CERN — the organization that invented the World Wide Web — built a stainless
steel chamber that precisely re-created the Earth’s atmosphere.
“In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American
institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done
— demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in
Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.” And the cloudier it is, the
cooler it will be, Solomon notes.
“Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach
Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it
shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the
temperature on Earth.”
So when the sun’s magnetic field is strongest, fewer cosmic rays impact the
Earth, which in turn leads to decreased cloud formation and warmer
The link between cosmic rays and global warming was first proposed by two
Danish scientists in 1996, and was immediately denounced by the IPCC.
But CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby, a British experimental physicist, accepted
the Danes’ theory. He told the scientific press in 1998 that it “will
probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the
increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”
It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to proceed
with his plan to create the chamber that replicates the Earth’s atmosphere
and has produced the recent results.
But CERN “remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit
its success,” observes Solomon, author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned
Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political
Persecution, and Fraud.”
CERN told Kirkby and his team to downplay the results by stating “that
cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”
Solomon concludes: “CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the
path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate
science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.”
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.