The real question is, receivingendofsirens, why are you so adamant to disbelieve the mainstream science behind global warming? I believe you said it's because of a lack of evidence (correct me if I'm wrong), but that can't be it, because there are vast amounts of evidence; yet you're so persistent to believe what you do, despite the fact that there is next to no evidence to support that.

It's just illogical.

Okay Matty boy, I want to see YOUR data, not some misinformation sh*te thrown at a government to pacify numb nuts like you, WHERE ARE YOUR RESULTS FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIMENTS ….????

Remember the old weapons of mass destruction…???? Bet you wanted to go to war back then as well…???

No one is denying the fact of climate change or global warming its just how fu**ing stupid do they think we are to base all this change on one single molecule, sorry kid if we had to depend on people like yourself for the future of this planet we might as well push the button, pull the plug, kiss bye-bye and thanx for all the fish, type of thing right now….

Pull your finger out kid, this ain’t no ‘my source is bigger than your source’ crap, just sit down and think about it before you carry on with your lame arse argument….. Trust me, I am sitting here with both barrels Locked and loaded waiting to show you up for what you is kid, go on punk make my day…..!

Meanwhile back on the ranch…..


Ciao for now….

I've got to agree with you. As a astrometeorologist, I totally am in agreement concerning your post on the so-called "manmade global warming." My findings show that it is the Sun that is responsible, or what is called Solar Forcing. I also agree with you that the frenzy about global warming has a lot to do with money. Great post Receivingendofsirens.

thank god some supporters finally arive!!!! bout damn time lol....

No, you're right. Apparently it's more like a "You actually have data, we don't" situation.



So are you just going to continually refrain from posting anything remotely persuasive?

Actually Raptor, what Receivingendofsirens has been saying is correct. When I was a reporter back in the late 1980s, nearly all of the conventional scientists laughed at the idea of global warming. I remember it very well. There was a huge debate. They even mocked that the Earth was warming at all. However, it was warming, but it was NOT manmade ~ but forced by the condition of the Sun ~ which is responsible for climate change ~ not man-made warming. There is no way at all that we can influence the entire planet in the way that the Sun does. It just is not possible. The Sun is that important, and is the major reason for climate change on Earth.

Now, when Bill Clinton entered office in 1993, this began to change, with Al Gore as vice-president, tens of millions of dollars in funding began flowing into research on global warming, and all those scientists that were laughing in the late 1980s, and early 1990s, jumped on the bandwagon as the money flowed to study climate change. A total turn-around. And all to make a buck. It was sickening to see. But it happened, and continues to happen.

However, there is plenty of research clearly showing that the Sun is the reason for all climate change on Earth. I have my own reasons as a astrometeorologist, since according to my expertise forecasting climate and weather events, it is well known that all the cycles of climate and weather begin in space with the Sun as the prime mover of all climate change on the Earth.

What Receivingendofsirens has posted is right on the mark, and many scientists around the world agree, as I do, that man-made environmental changes, while making an impact on our climate, is NOT the reason for global warming. The Sun is the reason, and the Earth goes from warming to cooling and back again according to the cycles and conditions of the Sun's activity.

See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

And ~ http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/

This research clearly shows how the Sun's activity forces Earth's climate. In fact, we are now in the 27th year of the Sun's forcing of global warming, and will enter a new cycle, starting in the year 2016 when the Sun's cycles will lead to a cooling of the Earth's atmosphere ~ peaking around the year 2030. However, through that time, we can expect the effects of solar forcing of global warming to continue into the 2010s until the new cycle of cooling finally asserts itself in the mid-to-late 2020s and into the 2030s.

With global warming taking centre stage in the climate change debate, the idea that Earth might be heading towards an ice age seems outdated.

Yet scientists studying microfossils from deep-sea cores have discovered that we may still have much to learn about the cycles of ice advance and retreat that have affected Earth for a million years.

Periods of ice advance are known as glacials, while the warm periods are known as interglacials.

In the past, it was thought all interglacial periods lasted for around 11,000 years, in line with Earth's natural orbital cycle around the Sun, but new findings show events on the planet's surface may also influence the timing of ice advances and retreats.

It is important that we understand these natural climatic rhythms as our current interglacial has lasted 11,500 years and could potentially end at any time.

Although the current human-induced high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere are thought to be unprecedented in the recent geological record, some scientists argue that it's possible the changes we are making by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ultimately help usher in the next ice age.

"There are operations within the climate system that we still don't fully understand," explains Professor Chronis Tzedakis, from Leeds University, UK.

"It's possible that our pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could somehow lubricate the flipping from one state to another."

Core value

Professor Tzedakis and colleagues studied tree pollen and tiny fossilised marine creatures called foraminifera from a sediment core taken close to the Tagus river estuary off the coast of Portugal.

Sea water contains two major isotopes, or types, of oxygen, O16 and O18. The O16 isotope is lighter and evaporates more readily than the heavier type.

When this happens during an ice age, O16 ends up being locked away in ice on land and the remaining seawater becomes enriched with the heavier O18 isotope.

Fluctuations show up in the chemical composition of foraminifera, which means they can be used to deduce the amount of ice volume that was around at the time they were alive.

Meanwhile, preserved pollen discharged into the sea by rivers reflects the extent of forest cover, which is known to increase and decrease with warming and cooling.

Extracting both sets of data from a single core provides scientists with a picture of changes occurring both on land and the sea.

Advance and retreat

In the 1990s, researchers had investigated the interglacial prior to the one we are in now, which began 132,000 years ago. So Professor Tzedakis' team opted to look farther back in time to the interglacials that started 240,000 and 340,000 years ago respectively.

They expected to see a similar pattern to the last interglacial findings, which had revealed the warm period lasted 16,000 years and that there was a 5,000-year time lag between the ice retreating and the appearance of forests, and again between the ice advancing and the trees disappearing.

However, the new findings showed up a completely different cycle of events.

"Much to our surprise we found that pattern was not replicated," said Professor Tzedakis.

"We didn't have a big lag between the onset of the interglacial and establishment of trees plus there wasn't the persistence of forests into the period of ice growth."

Of particular interest was the pollen data from the interglacial beginning 240,000 years ago as this showed the opposite sequence of events.

Here, the forests seem to have disappeared after 6,000 years of warmth, despite there being no detectable change in the amount of ice cover.

The decline mirrored reductions in atmospheric methane observed in ice cores from Antarctica, suggesting it was a global rather than local event that prompted their demise. Following the disappearance of the trees, the ice sheets then gradually advanced.

The scientists believe this shows that different mechanisms operating within Earth's climate system can impinge on the underlying orbital controls of glacial-interglacial cycles.

In the case of the trees disappearing from Portugal before the advance in ice they believe an unknown global event, which may have also caused lower atmospheric methane levels, prompted them to die back.

Global impact

If vast areas of heat-absorbing forests in Siberia were also affected and replaced by tundra, this would have increased the solar energy reflected back into the atmosphere, in turn cooling the planet's surface temperature and encouraging ice growth.

It is this unusual turn of events which has got the scientists thinking that our impact on global climate could yet prompt the return of another ice age, despite the fact that global temperatures are currently increasing.

They now plan to extend their research to look back at one more interglacial, which began 400,000 years ago. This has the best potential to shed light on future climate change as the natural geometry of the Earth's orbit was the same at that time as it is today.

It's a fascinating period," says Professor Tzedakis. "It appears to have been quite warm and wet and to have lasted a long time; possibly 30,000 years. Within the context of our present study it will be important to see how the forest reacted within the ice-free period."

Although today's unnaturally CO2-rich atmosphere is not replicated in climatic records of the recent past, the information gleaned from cores provides a means for scientists to test the accuracy of models designed to predict future climate changes.

At the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, scientists are finding that land cover has an important role in influencing climate.

"We're increasingly finding that we have to include the effects of changes in land cover in our models," said carbon cycle research scientist Chris Jones.

"Both [man-made] and natural changes in forest cover have a significant effect on climate, so being able to understand how changes in cover worked in ancient climates is extremely useful."

Source

You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to screw something over. You're right, we, humans, are not that smart at all. That is why we are screwing up the weather. This isn't weather manipulation at all. The process of manipulation means that there is a means of control of the given situation. Are you saying that we have control?



Hey, ever realize that science changes? Yeah, it actually happens! Theories get proven wrong. Amazing isn't it?

thank you theodore.... it is much appreciated

Quite to the contrary Raptor. There is plenty of evidence to support what Receivingendofsirens has been saying. He's correct and logical about it. See the two links on climate change in my post above. There is even more evidence that the Earth's climate is forced by the Sun ~ not by man-made activities.

Now, that is not to say that we humans do not have impact on our environment, because we do, via pollution, etc., but, there is just no way man-made global warming is real enough to change the entire climate of the planet. It is not. It is all about the Sun ~ it is the Sun that does that, and there's lots of evidence that has already proven this. But, you know, money talks, and it has been money that has been fueling mainstream science on this, and other topics related to climate change.

Moreover, mainstream conventional science, not that long ago, were totally against even the idea of global warming, much less man-made, but any warming at all. It's true. Receivingendofsirens is right. I totally agree with him. And he's right to be mad about it too because all that money is going right down the drain.

He is adamant about mainstream scientists being behind the "global warming" frenzy because it is true. I witnessed it myself. Scientists and climatologists I knew back in the late 1980s/early 1990s who were totally mocking global warming went pro-global warming as soon as the money started flowing into research coffers. And, much of the so-called "evidence" of global warming has been corrupted data made to support man-made climate change, or, global warming. It is all true.

It is not surprising considering the vast amounts of money that has been pouring since the mid-1990s into climate change research, and the groups that started up to keep the "man-made global warming" mantra going. It really is a shame considering that the reality of the situation is that all that money should be used to clean up the mess on the Earth that we humans have created with chemicals onto the land, in the oceans, and in the air. We could save millions of lives just clearing the air from industrial pollution and allowing kids to breathe clean air while they play.

The really sad part about the whole man-made global warming debate is how easy many scientists & groups have allowed themselves to be swayed by the almighty dollar at the expense of science. Those scientists who have contended that global warming is real ~ but NOT man-made ~ are being assaulted by the mainstream who, in my view, have completely sold out to join the man-made global warming bandwagon.

Sorry raptor but some of us don’t have shares in goo-goo, gaa-gaa I can’t think for myself search engines…..

I’m sorry but having an intellect that enables moi to see the BS meter going off the scale when a representative of a flawed government spouting ridiculous claims that had already been seen as misdirected misguided, sexed up data, basically the governments first tried to deny global warming then discredited over half of the scientific community who had submitted years of work to help with the analysis only to have that work sabotaged and in some cases lost and all in the name of what…..?

So, you are just picking up this argument at the tail end, some of us actually rationalised this whole thesis and settled it years ago……!

Fools like you guys who just keep pulling this flawed data from the same old sponsored sources will finally start to listen to the actual science and scientist who are working independent and in that have nothing to gain other than the fact that they are remaining true to their cause, they believe science is a good thing but when it is being touted like this by politicians who are pimping up a whole new business market, you have to take a step back and see it for what it is…..

It isn’t co2 causing climate change its climate change that is causing co2 and methane and hydrogen and on and on its goes…..

The relationship with sunspots and global temperature is where you should be pointing your mouse kiddo, goooo on, I dare ya…..

Anyhoo, job done

Ciao….

Thanks for finally posting something at least remotely convincing, I'll have a read over it.




Yeah, you're right! I really am a fool, expecting to actually see evidence to back up a hypothesis!
Listen, I don't disbelieve that solar activity is the cause, I'm completely neutral on that subject. But the thing is you're all trying to convince us to believe you by posting hypotheses, not evidence. How can you possibly expect to persuade anyone? It's such a simple concept, I don't understand why you can't grasp it.

I have put published, peer reviewed scientific papers, you have posted nothing but what you have said. This is not information posted fr governments, most of the articles are from the Journal Nature, one of the most respected scientific journals in the world.
Climatology is not my field, but I do know people who work in the field.
You have conclusively failed to back up what you claim.
You comments are asinine and unfounded.
If you have nothing worthwhile to post (which in my eyes you have not), then don't critise me for actually doing what you haven't and forming a concise, backed up arguement.

Well are you so arrogant you feel no need to back up your arguement? Would you like to disprove the points I made earlier?
You have failed to do any of that all you have done is banded insults around.



No there is not, there is far more evidence for a greenhouse gas climate change than anything else. RES also said we are going into an ice age and global warming is geothermal, he is just deluding himself and he has yet to find what he even agrees with.
As I have said no one is yet to refute the points I have made. But at least you can puit together a worthwhile arguement and make unlike some others and I thank you for that.

With regards to your links the second one is arguable in it trys to show global warming using temperature measurements in loca-lised (sorry spam filter if if just type it) areas, rather than globally, hence ignoring that the hottest years on record have been 1998 and 2005 with the intervening years making up the majority of the top ten hottest years on record. Also trees in the Arctic would most definatly suggest parts of it have warmed considerably.
An eleven year sunspot cycle would also not be responsible for such unprecidented changes in gloabl temperature (and they are unprecidented, this year has seen the earliest cherry blossoms record by two months, the previous record was late March, it is now the start of January).
There is clear conclusive evidence of exponential CO2 production by humans, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, we are seeing unprecidented weather cycles and there is currently ther highest concentration of atmospheric CO2 for 25 million years.

Astrometeorologist? As in weatherman? How often does the weatherman get it right, especially in a four season climate?

I'm not buying it either. They're just trying to make people freak out so they can cure them with their medicine. The old "we'll cause chaos and then create a solution so the public will eat our b.s." thing.

Yes I'm sure thats what J. H. Mercer had in mind when he published West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster for the institute of Polar studies at Ohio state university in 1978.

there is just as much evidence for the opposite information as well. its just harder to find because of the hysteria of myth-fueled global warming.

yes we could very well possibly be. all the evidencei see shows the opposite than runaway global warming. temperature anomalies happen with an ensuing ice age as well, as shown in the posted graphs and ice core samples.



NO, i said that the earths heating on the planet is mostly volcanic and solar activity. thats what i said. volcanic activity accounts for around 50 percent of the Co2 in the atmosphere. we humans certainly do not cause the other 50 percent or a large portion of it either. there is no possbile way we can track such a statement at all. they would have to monitor each individual vehicle in the world, each plant, etc, etc. sorry cant do it. so the closest they can get is a rough estimate, which accounts for absolute bologne.

also, looks at the main page, like i said before, there is a dramatic increase in volcanic activity around the world.



seems that your global warming and Co2 is thinning matt.

It a capital O for Oxygen.
No your only highlighting part of the articles and ignoring that we could be worsening global warming with aerosols. As I said it is the difference we make to the atmosphere that can alter the balance. Like most things in nature, small alterations make a large difference. There has always been volcanic produced CO2, however human produced CO2 has dramatically increased over the last 150 years, that is what makes the difference.

Does it hurt to be wrong in saying that we are causing global warming?

Does it hurt to be wrong in saying that we are not causing global warming?

Which one is more deadly? The choice is yours.

You said it, but you provided absolutely no evidence at all. You're wasting your own time, as well as every one elses.

i didnt have to abotu the solar part.... theodore already found what i was looking for....

im gathering info for a post on the volcanic part raptor.... ease your chops main.

Really, it's a wake up call to start adapting to the changes. The earth won;t stay like it is forever.. there will be major changes in the futur. Our pollution can have a greater effect on the natual process.. However, if we lessen what we put out into the atmosphere, and ground, and water.. we might beable to survive longer.

so an increase in volcanic activity is meaningless then huh? yes small alterations do make a large difference but that doesnt mean it equals to global warming.it can also lead to an ice age as well. also the article states that there very well could be a dramatic decrease in aerosols and greenhouse gasses than previously thought. thats NASA info too btw

its ok though global warming is thinning and thinning day by day... the more research that comes out the more they doubt it than prove it.

We are ruining the enviroment and our future, simple truth.

Only in your mind. But you decided that before you saw any information anyway. I never said volcanic activity is meaningless, but it is always there, human influence is showing a trend towards fast heating, there is strong info supporting that, the planet is getting hotter as a whole and change is happening at an unprecidented rate its just coincidental that CO2 levels are at there highest for 25 million yeahs and we just happen to be producing a lot of CO2 as well.
Just becaus eyou choose ignorance btw, it doesn't mean an arguement has less ground.

And you have still failed to disprove the points I posted that you said you disputed, yuo have also not actually posted a real scientific paper.

the assumption is that since the world is warming that its our Co2 is causing it? haha....

ill let that one sit out there

but see heres where that assumption gets you in trouble, thats all it is. they dont have concrete proof. they never will. so how can you sit here and post like it is concrete?

i didnt have to, theodore already posted what i was looking for for the most part. still gathering my volcanic activity... theres a lot so i have to gather it all.

all i hear is science papers, science papers. your nature posts is yes highly respected because it follows the b.s. sorry thats all global warming is.

until someone proves it without government funding then ill believe ya, or basing their beliefs and hypothesis on someone connected to that in some way.

i told you to do that before the disproving and you have failed to do that, sir.

Okay, first off the argument for and against is not what I feel is productive in a world such as ours…!

The simple facts DO speak for themselves and we can google till our fingers wear out, the simple facts that a global POSITION is now in play and you only have to take a walk in the park to see that things have changed….

I will now go to bended knee and apologise to those who I showed aggression to, I just wanted to get this thing rolling… I really do apologise, sorry….

The world we live in is undoubtedly changing climate wise, the political agenda is one of capitalist nature and we are the ones who will be capitalised on, THAT’S MY BEEF here….

I have just done a simple google search using the format of ‘ solar activity and global warming ‘, the result of 1,090,000 so do the same search and choose which to believe. Its that simple and that is what we are up against, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE….?

I do not have a dogmatic approach to these things and this is not really my field of expertise, I just would like people to become a little more informed instead of just taking what information is delivered through a biased medium/media…

Its good to debate and information is the way to go when debating but to simply ask for evidence in this kind of market we can go from posting its down to cows and methane ( bull sh** ) to its down to YOU personally…..!

I am not guilty nor will I accept that any layman is guilty and then to be expected to pick up the bill for big business’s inadequacies, hell I’m sorry, if I had kids I would be fighting and shouting a hell of louder than this….!

I like to insight, I like to invite, its more practical to advocate general argument rather than just sit and accept what is pushed as general understanding….. If that makes sense….?

So I will continue to monitor this discussion and when the erg or need arises I’ll bring the truth to this debate, as yet it is unfolding nicely so please don’t stand on rock steady foundations be prepared to step on new ground as and when it is presented…..

I’d rather you get there under your own steam rather than you have presented on a plate as the experience is more rewarding once you get there….

Ciao for now…

Btw, fedaykin you’s on the money…..

1. The Anomalous Forty+ Year Acceleration of Earthquake & Volcanic Activity

We begin with two graphs which directly and elegantly confirm the validity of Edgar Cayce's remarkable 1930's predictions that long range geological changes would occur after 1958 and begin to accelerate in 1998. In an effort to prove or disprove certain comments and predictions made during the 1930’s by a well known psychic, Edgar Cayce, Mandeville undertook a study of the Earth’s patterns of tectonic activity during the 20th century. Since the only data which permitted an examination of the behavior of the entire Earth were the records of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, these records were compiled by the author into databases from which two primary summary charts, "Chart 101 Worldwide Trend In Seismic Activity" and "Chart 102 Worldwide Trend In Volcanism" were prepared. Both charts show a dramatic major increase in such activity in a steady progressive upward trend over a period of at least forty years. The increase in earthquake and volcanic activity easily seems to be at least fourfold.

Chart 101: Worldwide Trend In Seismic Activity



This chart was carefully constructed to provide a consistent data series since 1973 which is statistically valid. It clearly reveals that worldwide seismic activity, defined in this chart as the number of earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 and over, has increased by a fourfold factor

Chart 102 – Worldwide Trend In Volcanic Activity



As with Chart 101, this Chart of world volcanism for the past 125 years was carefully constructed to provide a consistent data series which is statistically valid. Despite biasing the numbers to diminish the likelihood of seeing a trend, Chart 102 clearly reveals that worldwide volcanic activity has increased by a fourfold factor. Since some of the world's most active volcanic zones were excluded from the sample (generally because they are too remote and were not monitored well for most of the century), this graph likely understates the increase in volcanic activity.

Since 1992, which is the cut-off year for this chart, volcanic activity in the volcanoes of this sample has increased to over 15,000 activity days per year and seems to have reached a peak in 1998, a year which Cayce had mentioned some 60 years before as a year in which global activity of the Earth could be seen to have accelerated.



2. The Amazing Correlations Of The Position and Motions Of The Pole With Volcanic and Earthquake Activity.

Cayce claimed in the early 1930's that "cosmic forces" in the solar sysem created earthquake and volcanic activity. After surveying the geophysics of what might be involved, Mandeville concluded that the likely suspects were the Sun and the Moon since these were known to produce Chandler's Wobble. Chandler's Wobble is a constant bobbing of the Earth as it spirals around in a small circle which takes 14 months to complete. The circling motion varies between about 3 meters and 15 meters in a spiral which takes 6.5 years on the average.

To measure the effect of the Sun and the Moon on earthquake activity, Mandeville first plotted the position of the pole along the X Axis (Greenwich Meridian) as the Earth wobbled through its 6.5 year cycle. This created a 6.5 year waveform (called the X Wave in the Primary Axis Cycle). This waveform can then be integrated with charts of annual earthquake and volcanic activity in various regions of the world. Nearly everywhere, Mandeville found obvious correlations between the position and motion of the pole with increases and decreases in earthquake and volcanic activity. These correlations are sufficiently consistent to conclude that it is the stresses in the Earth's crust which are directly induced by Chandler’s wobble, along with additional stresses induced by the Sun and the Moon is various syzygy alignments (as found by many researchers throught the years), which create the Earth's earthquakes and volcanic activity. This fact in principle makes possible the prediction of the most probable "windows" for major seismic activity for any area.

Chart 103: The Tempo & Rhythm In World Volcanism Compared With The X Wave 1890-1993



Quite clearly the rhythm of worldwide volcanic activity directly reflects the tempo of the 6.5 year X Wave. This same direct correlation can be seen when just the activity in major arcs and groups of volcanoes is charted.

Chart 104: The Tempo & Rhythm In Japanese Earthquakes Compared With The X Wave 1963-1999



The same patterns of correlation with the highs and lows of the X Wave also can be seen with earthquakes in every area and window of time. As can be seen above, seismic activity in Japan tends to peak radically when the X Wave is low every 6.5 years. Given the immense size of the body of the Earth, the lag times which are probably at work, the great diversity in the type and layering of the outer strata of the Earth, and the constantly varying nature of the cycles of the EMS (Earth-Moon-Sun) system, one should not and indeed cannot, as one looks at the evidence, find ultra-simple correlation. But one can find, consistently, fairly clear, reasonably strong patterns of correlation which are easily seen without fancy statistical manipulation and despite any fancy statistical punditry of denial.

Chart 105: The Tempo & Rhythm In California Earthquakes Compared With The X Wave 1992



After establishing that Japan’s extremely active tectonic environment is highly reflective of the motions of the Earth’s crust as it bobs over and around the spin axis, Mandeville decided to zero into a much smaller time frame with a much small number of earthquakes to see if the same "connection" with the position and location of the pole could be found. Because of the highly accurate and complete record of earthquakes for California, Mandeville studied the outbreak of earthquakes in Southern California during 1992 (a year during which the X Wave was low).

Chart 105 zeroes in to find more exactly what the relationship is between Southern California’s quakes and the motion of the Earth’s crust over the spin axis. Normally, the Southern California area experiences some 10 to 20 events per week (magnitude 3.0 or more) but most of these are deep enough so that they are not felt on the surface and thus do not appear in the news media. In May and June of 1992, while the X Motion was at a low, Southern California began to experience swarms of up to 100 earthquakes per day.

Chart 105 shows how precisely this activity can be connected to the motion and position of the pole. Notice that when the X Wave is at its very lowest, there is vitually no seismic activity in Southern California. Almost all of the activity in the graph broke out when the position of the pole passed through a certain zone of numbers just prior to reaching the low point, or just after it. When the position of the pole began to rise up back through the same zone of numbers, another outbreak occurred. A similar chart for 1998 shows the same pattern.

Chart 106: The Tempo & Rhythm Of Volcanism In Fiji With The X Wave 1890-1993



Since the patterns of correlation were so clear for small samples of earthquakes, the author began to draw charts to compare the activity of small numbers of volcanoes in regional zones with the X Wave. Since the spreading rift zone of the Fiji-Papua Tectonic Arc is considered by many geologists to be the most active tectonic zone on the surface of the Earth, Chart 106 was prepared to compare its activity with the X Wave.

Chart 106 may demonstrate one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence about vortex tectoncs. The reflection of the X Wave in the peaks of volcanic activity for the vast arc of South Pacific Islands which compose the Fiji/Tonga-Papua Tectonic Arc is in nearly perfect rhythm for a substantial portion of the 20th century. This huge arc of volcanic islands begins in the Tonga Islands, passes through the Fiji Islands and continues easterly to parallel the northern coast of Australia and eventually join with Papua New Guinea on its northern side. The arc is created by the collision of the Australian Plate with the Pacific Ocean Bottom Tectonic Plate, which Australia is over-riding.

Amazingly, the frequency of peaks in volcanic activity for this great arc of volcanoes is even more obviously correlated to the X Wave than the composite of all volcanoes. The pattern of volcanic activity is so similar to the undalations of the X Wave that it appears that sharp pulsations in volcanic activity are directly induced by the wobbling motion of the Earth's crust just as apparantly major peaks of seismic activity are created in Japan and Southern California. No simple exact relationship in timing exists as with the earthquake correlation, thus the exact connection is somewhat more obscure, but it is impossible to suppose that the similar tempo of the two phenomena are not connected. They are definitely playing the same song on the same sheet of music.

Chart 106 also shows the same trend of increase in volcanic activity as does the composite chart for world volcanism. In fact, the increase is rather dramatic, rising to a high level of activity after 1970. Since 1992, the cutoff date for Chart 106, regional volcanic activity Fiji-Papua Tectonic Arc has maintained the same high level.

Has underwater volcanism increased as well? Unfortunately underwater volcanoes are not monitored in a consistent fashion, thus no data series can be created to accurately measure underwater volcanism. This is a severe scientific handicap because the increase in underwater volcanism is most likely the cause of the global warming phenomenon.

The steady increase in volcanism commenced in the later half of the 1960’s and has continued to climb since then. It is currently at levels at least twice as high as shown in Chart 102 while the Arctic summer ice melts for the first time in recorded history. Concern about global warming appeared in the 1970’s and this concern has increased, after several years of a major acceleration of volcanic actiivty, to all time record levels in 2000 and 2001 with much arm waving about the melting Arctic ice pack. Scientists debate about whether global warming is occurring and cannot explain how it is created. Climate specialists cannot find a "theory of climate" to explain or prove it. Some data seems to prove that the ground is heating up but not the atmosphere, accordingly some claim that humans are not to blame, perhaps cosmic factors.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that these are all connected in the same truth? It is highly likely that ALL of the hot air, as it were, as well as the water, are all connected as these charts demonstrate, directly to the ground underfoot which is ceaselessly moving at a more rapid rate. Isn't it most likely that underwater volcanism and heat venting has also increased by a large amount and this increase in heat venting is causing the heating of the oceans and the various symptoms of global warming in the weather and the biosphere?



3. The Revolutionary X Wave Correlation With El Nino

To add to the complexity of the Fiji-Papua Tectonic Arc, a great Pacific Ocean Rift is spreading very rapidly in the area of the South Pacific Islands of Vanuatu, which is to the northeast of the Fiji/Tonga Islands and is somewhat north of New Zealand. This spreading rift zone is THE most active tectonic zone on the Earth. And just a little more to the north of this area, along the Equator, the El Nino warm water syndrome forms every few years…

Since there is such a strong, close reflection of the X Wave in this tectonic zone, how can one avoid wondering if there could be any correlation between El Nino and the motions of the Earth's crust? Two final charts, Charts 107 and 108, demonstrate that the great rifts on the ocean bottom in the South Pacific are the birthing grounds of El Nino, and that collectively the spreading rifts and hot water plumes which rise from them in many places around the Earth must be the birthing grounds of the present regime of global warming.

Chart 107: Correlations Of Volcanic Activity With The El Nino



Chart 107 plots the El Nino years along with the active volcano days for the Vanuatu Islands, which are about as close to the great spreading rift zone in this part of the Pacific as one can get while still standing on solid ground. Once again an uncanny correlation in phasing appears. Volcanic activity increases for a couple of years, El Nino starts. If El Nino is caused by heat released by underwater volcanoes on the Pacific Ocean bottom, exactly this sort of pattern should be observable somewhere. How convenient that the pattern of connection shows as close as you can get to the most active tectonic zone on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean in the location which is closest to where the warm water begins to accumulate along the Equator to produce El Nino. How conveniently random!

The activity of many other volcanic groups in the Western Pacific can be plotted and compared with the El Nino years. They all show some of the same connectivity in timing.

Chart 108: Correlations Of The X Wave With The El Nino



Since volcanic activity in the South Pacific seems correlated at least to some degree with the El Nino years, it is logical to suspect that underwater volcanism could be the source of the increase in the temperatures of the mid Pacific which is known to cause El Nino. Unfortunately underwater volcanism is not very well monitored, especially in that part of the world. Consequently no direct evidence can be found which specifically links the heat vents in the Pacific Ocean bottom with the El Nino.

Nonetheless these nearby island volcanoes on Vanuatu and Fiji are pretty good smoking guns. The close connection in the pattern between Vanuatu’s volcanism and the El Nino years strongly implies that a direct pattern of connection between El Nino years and the X Wave of Chandler's Wobble should be seen.

Accordingly, Chart 108 was drawn up to plot the El Nino years over the X Wave. In this chart, the full size of the wobble (the highest and lowest points on the Greenwich Meridian) can be seen for each year, as it spirals over and up and down the Greenwich Meridian. Each El Nino year was plotted in a lighter grey.

The simplicity and clarity of the pattern which is revealed is astounding. Doubtless, the El Nino phenomenon parallels the rhythm of volcanic activity, is directly created by the 6.5 year X Wave, and it usually commences at the same cyclical moment in the repeat upswing and downswing of the X Wave. Accordingly, in principle, the El Nino onset periods are predictable simply by plotting and predicting the motions of the Earth's crust as it bobs around to create the small 6.5 year repeating spiral in the location of spin axis which is known as Chandler's Wobble.

Though not shown here in charts, the current progressive movement of the average location of the spin axis since ~1900 appears to be causing the escalation of earthquake activity and volcanism which is creating the much discussed "global warming" phenomenon. For unknown reasons, the spiraling motion of the Earth's crust in Chandler's Wobble is causing a steady drift of the center of the spiral in the direction of the Great Lakes. It has moved by some 50 feet since 1900 and this drift has been assumed to be normal. But it may not be normal.

Since about 1950, the spiraling motion of the Earth's crust has been moving down approximately Longitude West 90 completely out of the outer limits of its motions during 1900 and this progressive drift may be forcing the Earth into more aggressive shape-shifting in the tropical zones. The steady increase in tropical shape-shifting may be creating the long term increase in the amount of earthquake and volcanic activity as in shown in Charts 101 and 102.

In summary, then, the cosmic factors of the EMS (Earth-Moon-Sun) system are creating changes in the location and motion of the spin axis sufficiently to force a major new trend in the shape shifting of the Earth’s crust in the tropical zones. This shape shifting is pulsed in the frequency of the 6.5 year X Wave and it has directly induced a huge increase (possibly a fourfold increase) in the release of the Earth’s interior heat into the bottoms of the oceans during the past 50 years, most especially in the Pacific. Accordingly, then, the X Wave is causing El Nino and the progressively accelerating drift or shift in the location of the pole is inducing the release of a steadily increasing amount of heat with each El Nino, thusly increasing the severity of each cycle while accumulating as the trend which has come to be known as global warming.

It really is that simple. Unlike all other theories of Earth dynamics and global change, these truths are non-theoretical, are completely free of fancy mathematical sophistry, are strictly observation driven, and can always be found to be consistant with all of the data.

Source

The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

Source

Third coldest February in Fairbanks since 1904 - 21.4 degrees below normal
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FAIRBANKS AK - MAR 11 2007
...LATE WINTER CHILL CONTINUES...
SINCE RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT...THE AVERAGE HIGH TEMPERATURE IN
FAIRBANKS OVER A 3 WEEK PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 17 THROUGH MARCH 10
IS 16.1 DEGREES WITH AN AVERAGE LOW OF -9.0 DEGREES. DURING THIS
3 WEEK PERIOD...THIS YEAR...FAIRBANKS RECORDED AN AVERAGE HIGH
TEMPERATURE OF -5.7 DEGREES ... THE COLDEST RECORDED SINCE 1904.
THE AVERAGE LOW TEMPERATURE OF -29.8 DEGREES DURING THE SAME
PERIOD RANKS AS THE THIRD COLDEST SINCE 1904...WITH -35.0
SET IN 1932 AND -30.1 SET IN 1956 BEING THE ONLY OTHER COLDER
YEARS DURING THIS SAME PERIOD.

THE NORMAL DAILY TEMPERATURE DURING THIS PERIOD IS 3.6 DEGREES.
THIS YEAR THE AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE WAS -17.8 DEGREES WHICH IS
21.4 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL.

Source

whew this global warming is hot!!!!

Yes, I forecast the weather astronomically. Meteorology is a branch of astrology, where it orginated. You are talking about the conventional practice of meteorology, which only began about 100 years ago, more or less. Astrometeorology is much older, and forecasts long-range climate and weather.

Sorry to say, but your assertions are inaccurate. There's no need for name-calling. One can support or contend science matters without the need for such silliness, ok? Conventional climatology & meteorology is still quite young, and does not have enough legacy data to support that CO2 emissions are the total reasons for global warming. It is not.

What is the reason is Solar Activity ~ always has been ~ and always will be. Ice core samples prove that prior to any industrial pollution that is man-made that the Earth has cooled, and warmed many times over many centuries before the advent of human industrial production. It is a natural occurance. Astrophysically as well as geophysically. Causes to effects.

The current global warming of the Earth began in the year 1979/1980, and we are in the 27th year of this present solar forced global warming ~ all due to the Sun. The hottest year on record ~ 1998 ~ was the peak of this solar forced activity. We are on the downside of this solar forced world warming, which ends in 2016, when the Sun begins a new cycle, leading to a expected cooling of the Earth, which peaks between the years 2030-2034, more or less.

Of course there is evidence of CO2 production by humans in the 20th century. But how to account for the global warming of centuries past with little to no CO2 production?

We humans do have impact on our environment, but not to the extent enspoused by those pushing man-made global warming. It just is not possible that humans have influenced the entire world's climate with CO2 production and emissions. That has mostly ruined air quality, and disrupted ozone health (even the Sun has something to do with that) and if you look at the air quality data since 1900, you will see that this is true for the air, but NOT for the world's entire climate. That is forced by the Sun.

The effects of solar forced global warming have been with us since 1980, and will continue to be with us in the 2000s and 2010s. So, there will be more floods, heavy rains, large storms of heavier than normal precipitation, etc., but we will also witness more anamolous cooling events, with colder than normal temperatures, etc., going into the 2010s, and picking up its pace in the 2020s before peaking in the 2030s.

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

Source

some more to back you up theodore... a good read for sure

So the papers pre 1988 (the set of the ipcc) your going to ignore then? you'll ignore the university work will you?
You can nothing to disprove my statements at all. Your just rambling and you can't make a cohesive argument against me and you can't back up your claims regarding the links I have posted.

As previously stated, the arguements put forward by the channel 4 debunked and the programs director admitted to falsifying evidence . The scientists chosen all are affiliated to major oil companies.

Even if that were so, on that particular program, it still does not prove that man-made global warming is caused by Co2 emissions. There is just no way.

Listen, the climate science clearly shows that global cooling and global warming are natural occurances.

What is so difficult to understand about that? All the head-banging and the so-called "debate" about man-made global warming really skirts the true issue here. The point is that we humans do impact our environment. I am in 100 percent agreement with this statement, and am all for planetary improvement.

One-hundred and 10% for planetary improvement. Anyone who is not an environmentalist at heart is a fool. Why? Because all of us LIVE in the environment. Who wouldn't be against that?

However ~

To use the so-called "man-made global warming" as the sole reason for global warming just is not being honest about the fact that all climate change is forced by the main star in our system: The Sun.

I also don't like the discussion of global climate change being pitted by two battling forces ~ either for or against, environmentalist against corporations against governments against nations against neighbors against scientists, against , against....

The WHOLE point is that we all need to be able to live in clean, healthy environments, where all of us ~ plant, animal, and humans, can thrive, breath, live and grow.

We must all be able to adapt to the naturally occuring climate changes our planet has always gone through since it came into existance. The Earth is a water planet with a highly fluid atmosphere ~ this means the climate and weather always impacts on our lives ~ directly. Everything that happens on this planet happens for a reason. All you have to do is look up.

The Earth has its own balance, and its climate and weather balance begins in space and is forced by the Sun.

To argue that only CO2 emissions is the main reason for global warming is incorrect. It is not true. Look at the data that says so ~ that the Sun is the reason for global warming. This is why constant monitoring of the Sun's activity is vital to us all and where space weather science meets astrometeorology ~ forecasting advance climate and weather for the medium and long-range.

I am all for reducing CO2 emissions as fast as possible. These emissions are no good for the lungs of planet Earth, and interact in the atmosphere negatively. With the ignorant destruction of trees (the lungs of the planet) anyone caught destroying trees should be buried under the prison after conviction. There's a very good reason why President Theodore Roosevelt saved millions of acres of wilderness in America. Some corporations are learning the value of doing business the Green Way ~ and those companies are smart because they know that the bottom-line depends on them being kind to the environment.

Customers like that and reward corporations that are straight up and can prove they can do professional business without screwing up the planet. The one's that fake it, and try to cover things up lose customers, and that is bad for the bottom-line. Being Green is the way to go and the companies that have discovered this are going to be the major global players in just a few short years and for a very long time to come in the future. Being Green means more green in the coffers.

When the Earth is healthy ~ business is always good.

Trees provide us humans oxygen, and we all know how important oxygen is to the planet. Carbon is important too ~ but we have been playing around with this delicate balance that seriously damages our environment, so, while I am for major reductions of carbon into the atmosphere ~ I am in no way supporting the mantra that CO2 is the major cause of major climate change, in this case, global warming. The data just does not support it. And skilled scientists and climatologists know it too.

They know that the Earth's major climate change rights belong to one thing, and one thing only ~ the Sun.

How accurate are your long range determinations?

Does the natural process produce acid rain? Does no one garden and see for themselves what the growing atmosphere has become for vegetation?
If you live in a rain forest (not necessarily tropical) area check out the foliage sometime. It will likey be peppered with holes that aren't caused from insects. Most insects don't leave a scorched appearance around the holes.
What causes the acid rain? Carbon dioxide mixed with water?

Around 85-90% depending on the amount of time I have to work on large geographic regions.

The arrogant mark was ot towards you, it was reffering to JC2 saying that posting scientific data was not a good way to information and he didn't need to back up his point.

I'm also not saying that there arn't natural effects altering the planet, I know climate alters. However that does not mean our influence is not having a negative effect on the environment and there is plenty of data to show the we are responsible for speed of alteration to the climate. We also do not need to affect he entire climate, we only need to tip it to make a marked difference. As with past centuries we have already out done them for change and speed of change, to me the biggest indicator is the rate of change not the change its self. At previous wamr periods, we hadn't knocked down half the worlds rain forest which are major carbon sinks and we didn't burning so much carbon based material, I believe and there is evidence to support this, that our influence is a major factor in the rapidity of the climate change seen in recent years.
CO2 Global warming was reported in the 1970's as CO2 influenced.

I think it actually sulpher dioxcide mixed with water. SO2 is also a greenhouse gas however.

Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate that. The point about Co2 emissions is that much of the global warming debate surrounds these emissions as the main cause of global warming ~ and this is not true, nor accurate to be even close. Mankind cannot "tip" the balance of global climate change ~ only the Sun can accomplish this. People do not realize just how powerful the Sun's infuence is on Earth, and many are not aware that our climate and weather is solar directed.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Mans influence has alter the CO2 levels to over 400ppm which is the highest it has been for 25 million years. This means if we are recieving heat we have a lot more atmospheric CO2 than we are used to (as well as other greenhouse gases) trapping more heat within the atmosphere. This suggest we could alter the balance and I have post a lot of papers to that regard in this thread. Homo sapiens can have a great influence on the environment, sadly more than I would like.

Considering the young age of conventional climatology and the lack of legacy data to support this contention, I have to disagree. You can follow the rise of Co2 levels right alongside the rise of the Industrial Age. Although I do agree that Co2 emmissions are a danger, they just are not responsible for global warming. A player, yes, but not on the scale of world climate change to the extent that has been pushed into the climate change debate.

Again, it is the Sun that is the main actor here.