Posted on 10/09/2005 6:41:34 PM PDT by neverdem
The truth about global warming(now on mars) - it's the Sun that's to blame This is the thread for the Telegraph's story.
THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EARTH'S UNSTOPPABLE 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE
The truth about global warming......Climate changes and what man does has very little to do about it.
Exactly right and any and all who are "willing" to be intellectually honest about this subject will come to this factual conclusion.
The only problem is the MSM tries (for domestic political reasons) to hide the facts on this subject as much as possible.
"atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are increasing"
As proven by what?
What methods, locations, periods, altitudes?????
Pshawww. I've got a rooster who makes the sun rise every morning by crowing at it.
If I kept that rooster caged up a little later each day, I could reduce the amount of sun we are being exposed to.
< /sarcasm >
OK, if you really, really think carbon emissions are the cause of global warming put the blame where it belongs (Jane Fonda) and support building 400 new nuclear power plants.
OK, if you really, really think carbon emissions are the cause of global warming put the blame where it belongs (Jane Fonda) and support building 400 new nuclear power plants.
What a sanctimonious asshole. "Oh, we know what going on because we're the anointed, but Joe Sixpack is just too dumb and too focused on reality TV for us to convince him."
Models have improved greatly in the past 30 years but still can't anticipate all the ways the atmosphere will respond as greenhouse gases climb. The dozen models in use today predict average temperature increases of 3 to 11 degrees by the end of the century.
Scientists and engineers love their models, but one should run a model against actual data and show that the model matches the data. This is not yet possible for geo warming models, hence the models can't be run backwards and predict things either. Expecially since we don't know what the sun was doing in the Eocene period.
With new evidence that the solar heat has been increasing by about the amount of the warming we should all realize that while climate change may be occurring, it may not be time to dump the family car. But it may be time to build higher levees.
""atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are increasing"
yup . . . . ain't it peculiar how the only mention of propaganda $$$ is pinned on the "skeptics"?
The other truth:
Mankind is responsible for 2% of the co2 which enters the atmosphere each year. *IF* that 2% is all it takes to cause all of these dire situations, short of mass suicide, how can we cut co2 emissions enough to matter??
I read an interesting article some time back (didn't save it unfortunately) that took the position that the US could reduce co2 beyond Kyoto requirements by planting 15 billion dollars worth of trees each year.
If, for the sake of discussion, that is true, what would the enviro wackos say to that solution?
We need to bring back pirates.
There's a lot of CO2 in Diet Coke, which is why he later switched to iced tea.
It's not that the skeptics think that the earth is too stable for change, it's that they think that the forces of nature are so large that man's role is not as significant as the greens think. They think, like the earth-centric solar system proponents of old, that humans play a much larger role in the grand scheme of things than they really do.
Also, they are like people who think they see UFOs all the time. They have the global warming template, and they plug everything into it. Then they castigate others who dare look at information without plugging it into the trendy template.
I don't have problems with nuclear power, but if your addressing that comment to me, I guess you didn't look at the links in comment# 1.
Someone has to keep the record straight and the scorecard accurate.
And in breaking news, President Bush had a bowel movement yesterday on AF-1 that caused a 7.7 Earthquake in Pakistan and India.
Michael Moore will have his movie out by Christmas.
OK. This would do more to alleviate the greenhouse effect than any other proposal I've seen. (The Kyoto Treaty would just make things worse, but more expensive.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.