'Sun Not Behind Global Warming'

Ironic that a pro- and anti- sun is responsible for global warming stories came in.

I guess it highlights how much we don't know. I wonder why no one is posting pro- and anti- pollution articles?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

You know, with all the panic and fear concerning global warming, I for one have come to the point where one thing to me is certain:

I really don't care anymore.

Everyone is jumping on the carbon bandwagon, and at the moment their star is rising.

In 10 years, who knows?

In the past Earth was warmer that it is now, this is an irrefutable fact. Far as I can tell from my own research, Earth is cooler now than it's over average covering the span life has existed here.

Is it the Sun? It it COwhatever?

You know what?

It doesn't matter.

Earth has always been in a continual state of change, and it is only man's supreme arrogance that assumes that the way things are now is the way they are supposed to remain forever and ever.

This group of scientists after funding block A say thus, another block of scientists after funding block B say something else.

The controversy certainly does keep the money flowing though, doesn't it?

Myself, I'm of the opinion that there a ball of hydrogen we orbit that generates the heat that drives the weather.

Depending on who you believe, it either contributes or it does not.

One thing is certain, in the scale of eons and millenia, the span of 100 years is so short as to not even be a blink in geological time.

And 20 years isn't even that.

To bank everything on either 20 or 100 years and say it is because of this or that is utter foolishness at best.

At worst, it is another bunch of people scurrying to get increased funding by pandering to the panicked masses who hang on every word they hear come from the all knowing mouth of the media.

That's the way I see it, and if you don't agree, too bad.

My point of view is precisely that, my own.

Still, it is interesting to note that the only "greenhouse gas" that can be taxed by the governments of the world is the ONLY one they talk about.

It's enough to make one wonder just what is driving this current wave of carbon frenzy in the first place.

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

Carbon is only one factor, however, the media 'hype' is designed to have precisely the effect shown above...that people will get sick of it, think change in inevitable anyway, and that its just different funders on different sides of the debate, and that 'science' simply can't make up its mind.

None of those are true. It's your opinion and if you want to be suckered by the press thats your right and business, but this isn't the site to advertise being a patsy of corporate advertising. Only a tiny minority of scientists dispute human effects on climate change, and surprise surprise, those are the ones getting paid by oil companies. In newspapers you may have seen a recent article about how 'increased CO2 is GOOD because it helps plants grow better', they even maintain that it is responsible for the increase in food production.

This, of course, is horseshit and scientists know almost nothing about this process. The only positive studies on this claim are on soybeans (which have been found to change structurally and not simply grow better), orange trees (the one done by the researcher who has since started a climate change 'think tank' even though he's a biologist but whose funding comes from, you guessed it, Exxon), and a Smithsonian study on Switchgrass. Meanwhile, the fact that crops represent the tiny fraction of the plant world that are C4 plants, and therefore are chemically unable to change at all due to increased CO2 is never mentioned.

Keep in mind that although the world was 'hotter' before, it was also 'colder' too, there's a lot of history, but as mentioned above, CO2 is just one of many, and part of the reason it is being targeted is because of how those studies can be packaged. So IF you can make people think that change is inevitable (true, but not the point: it's inevitable that you will die, but not inevitable that you kill yourself right now), and that there MAY be some good out of increased CO2 and that the whole debate is about CO2, THEN you've pretty much won the policy debate. After all, it doesn't take work for companies to write policies that relax regulations or at least don't increase them, but it takes work and lobbying for people to get governments to do something about it. So as long as most people 'don't care' and are more concerned with who wins CBC contests then all is right with the world.

You still haven't addressed my point that carbon is the ONLY factor they go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on about.

You'd think that it was the only contributor.

As for my point that it's the ONLY one that can be directly taxed, you are strangely silent. Gee I wonder why.

As for the Sun's "brightness", no one ever says whether or not that's for the visible portion of the spectrum that our eyes can see or not.

The debate on what is really causing global warming is taking on all the trappings of a religious crusade, and I for one will be won over by evidence and not the shrieks and shrills of whatever chicken little society has the mike today.

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

“I really don't care anymore.” “It doesn't matter.”<br />
<br />
The first person reported to have said “I am not by brothers keeper” - was Caine. <br />
<br />
I don’t share this mind of Caine. I am concerned about the fate of my grandchildren, and of others. But, my point of view is precisely that, my own.<br />
<br />
It is “disingenious” to make the claim that CO2 is being portrayed as the sole cause of global warming/climate change.<br />
<br />
It is also “disingenious” to claim that Carbon is the only gas that could be taxed. <br />
<br />
It is “dubious” to rely on the judgement and “evidence” of a man whose previous documentary showed silicone breast implants are safe and even reduce the breast cancer risk. (SEE: <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/</a> )<br />
<br />
-----------------------<br />
<br />
Our future depends on decisions made now.<br />
<br />

"It is “disingenious” to make the claim that CO2 is being portrayed as the sole cause of global warming/climate change."

Two words for you: PROVE IT.

Everywhere you look, it's whats being trumpeted.

“disingenious”?

Using that word might win you a scrabble game, but it's worth buttkuss in this debate.

You also make a serious error in assuming that I am not concerned about the use of fossil fuels as contributing to pollution.

I just don't buy the current global warming snake oil.

I live here too, and so will MY children etc.

I have done everything I personally can do, and beyond that there is no further room to care.

So kindly take your moral high ground and relocate it somewhere the sun doesn't shine.

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

Doc:
I wonder why no one is posting pro- and anti- pollution articles?

Me:
Fragmented priorities?
The inability to identify, locate and strike the dual root cause of all?

Economics, the creation of legal fictions: Houses of fiat money where ‘profit’ trumps right living?


Deacon:
I really don't care anymore.
Me:
And why should care be shouldered by the few to benefit the many who would slice open a throat in a heart-beat to get ahead or seem to be ‘bigger’ than their fellows?

Bracewell:

don’t share this mind of Caine. I am concerned about the fate of my grandchildren, and of others. But, my point of view is precisely that, my own.

Me: sharing and my own as used in the context which they are seem like a set up for incongruent beliefs
I am concerned with those who share concerns common to me



---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

Obviously the sun is the main cause of global warming. Without the sun there is no global warming. As to the assertions that trapped sunlight ,(sunlight that is continually deflected about in the earths atmosphere due to CO2 ), is the major cause of global warming, where is the evidence? Don't throw a bunch of pseudo intellectuals opinions about as though that constituted proof. Most of these guys don't mention chemtrails and the ones that do say they are contrails. If they don't notice something as blatant as chemtrails in the atmosphere then their observational powers are suspect,. This is a clear indication that they are suffering from a disconnect with reality.

Try telling that to the brainwashed zealots.

---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.