Theo, it seems that my sense of irony (which actually includes making fun of myself) is not only lost on you but is seen as a personal attack on yourself. A bit of a shame...

What I tried to point out to you re old references is that the papers I quoted were from betw. 2003 & 2006, hence more recent research, which indicate results that question his theories. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, a reference used in 1990 going into 2003 means he is using predicitions, no? Re taking you seriously, you fail to see the point - it's perfectly obvious that you are taking yourself very seriously. But...You claim to KNOW, apparently BE SURE about things that haven't been proven yet 100%.
Even Landscheidt knows the difference. From his paper you quoted: "Naturally, this first result does not yet provide striking evidence, but it opens new perspectives that should be explored by further investigations that yield more details. Hopefully, such additional results will make it less difficult to find a physical explanation of the potential relationship. "

Re my comment about his trying to find the weather in the chart, well, if you as an Astrologer don't understand what I mean... (and another humour-bypass, I'm sorry to see...)

It's misleading to surmise ignorance if someone doesn't agree with you...

Regards, SeaMare

I have already proved my point in this thread, you just refuse to accept it.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1648919
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1647531
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1646233

Then please do not write as if you know me, because, as I've said, you do not. As for climate science, you seem to be under the assumption that all of NASA and conventional climatologists are in agreement. They are not. For one, if you read my initial post, you will find that the stated aim of the IPCC is to blame humanity for global warming.

This premise was false to begin with and is one of the major issues of contention among scientists concerning global warming. All the scientific evidence clearly says the Sun is the cause of global warming, global cooling, and all that is in-between. Moreover, many of the same conventional climatologists were against even the thought of global warming back in the late 1980s and early 1990s before federal and international dollars starting flowing into coffers. Don't assume hat because some yaps working for NASA or any other agency has the rights on the truth. Like I said, even there, dollar is king, and when the dollar speaks they will turn a tune faster than a horse in heat. All this is fact. I covered this back then and know what I am talking about. I was there, and witnessed it for myself.

As for "refuting" the evidence of man-made global warming: there is none. It is a myth. It was never true to begin with. I've made this clear in my initial post. You can call anything I add, the links, my own evidence "irrelevant" if you want, however, I highly doubt that you know what you are talking about because if you cannot accept the fact that the Sun drives the Earth's total climate, then obviously, you are not living in the real world: because the SUN is the reason for all climate and weather on this planet and on other planets in this solar system as well.

Regarding classical astrology: another topic you've not a clue as to what you are talking about either, and one that you're clearly not educated on whatsoever. Learn your Plato, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe ~ all classical astrologers. So don't even go there until you've done your own research, which, you obviously have not done. Goodbye, and good luck.

SeaMare, if you know anything about history and science, then you would know that all previous research, hence, references, discoveries, etc., are built upon those of the past, so, I don't exactly find your point on reference convincing whatsoever. The problem with people such as yourself is that you jump on the newest bandwagon impulsively before doing any thinking for yourself, which is quite common these days. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you are selling. That dog just doesn't hunt.

As for your "humor" and "sense of irony" ~ well, I'd say work harder on your act. I'm sure you are funny though SeaMare ... it just needs to cook a little more to be tasty.

Folks, we seem to be going around in circles here with Theo advocating his position and everybody else attacking it. Theo is correct in stating that the sun is the main driving force in global climate. However, the effects of earth factors which can and do influence both global climate and local weather have to be acknowleged. When Krakatoa exploded, the dust cloud lowered the mean global temperature significantly and cause severe local weather changes. That is an undisputed, well documented, fact. Local topographical changes such as deforestation and burning have resulted in huge dust storms which affect weather patterns hundreds of miles away.

Given these factors it is surely reasonable to assume that while the sun is the main driving force behind the global climatic conditions, other factors must also play a role in cliimate. Among these must be pollutants like aerosols which affect cloud formation (and hence alter the energy recieved by the earths surface), and of course the so called greenhouse gasses like CO2 and especially methane. To dismiss the contributing effects of these factors is unscientific (and give Theo his due) he has not dismissed them but has stated that they are a minor factor when compared to the overall effect of the sun.

This is true, but when taken in context, a tiny primary influence can cause a feedback reaction the end result of which is completely at odds with the original impetus. Relatively small increases in CO2 can cause small increases in ocean temps which will cause vast quantities of dissolved CO2 to be released (warmer water has less dissolved gas) which in turn traps more solar energy as heat which in turn melts more ice caps resulting rising sea levels and so on and so on.

The IPCC mandate was to look into solely the effect that man made factors have on global climate and as such all their findings and recommendations are based on that mandate. Consequently while the effect of solar influences will be in the back of their minds they will tend to downplay these and focus on greenhouse gasses (and to a lesser degree on other factors like deforestation and dother local topographic changes which affect weather)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Thanks for standing on truth. I am actually horrified by the nonsense that people are pushing and buying into. This global warming hoax is the biggest con job devised. Just think that those who oppose the Al Gorian religion will be labled as religious heretics in a sense. What really concerns me though is that the sun is the cause, and I believe it will spike, just how hot will it get? Anyway, keep up the good work. There are those of us in the Savage Nation that appreciate real science.

Yes, I can explain it.

You are incorrect in your assumption.
Solar cycles have varied in fair predictability over the past 30 years, maximums coming between 1979-1983, 1989 and 1992, ands 1998 through 2002.
Our temperatures have risen and fallen over eons, just like they are now. The Sun has something to do with that, absolutely. You are venturing into a highly complex field, of which you do not understand all of the variables.

The Solar Activity Proxies which illustrate overall sunspot activity and cosmogenic isotope production have steadily increased for the past 100 years.
Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon are at a 100 year peak right now, another measure of solar activity which shows a decided increase.
Milankovcitch cycles clearly show cyclic changes due to perturbations in the Earth's orbit over eons of time, rather than changes due to solar activity flux. Those cycles clearly show that we are in a decided increase in solar activity and global temperature increase.

The field is highly complex.

I think when you refer to cosmic rays, you are neglecting vast amounts of information which clearly indicates that climate is due to the Sun...either its activity, or due to our distance and tilt in relation to it (which does change over time).


The current period of "global warming" has no evidence whatsoever to back up the notion that man's measily contribution to total atmospheric C02 concentration has any effect whatsoever on the climate of this planet, and has caused the small rise in global teperatures over the past couple of decades.

The fact is that science has shown us that over the past 1,000,000 years, there have been 13 staes of warming, and 12 stages of glaciation...all of those driven by a variety of factors, such as:

The precession of equinoxes and obliquity (variations in the Earth's axis tilt), and the eccentricity of our orbit about the Sun, which have accounted for our ice ages and warming cycles, and which have been rather regular over the period.


We have been on an overall upward temperature trend since the end of the last ice age.


There is absolutely nothing untoward about this recent warming trend.

What you are seeing is a solar powered increase in global temperature caused by natural forces, and nothing else.


If you draw a line with a pencil...an upward directed line, as would be representative of the current 10,000 year warming trend...and look at it under high magnification, you will see that your pencil line is rough---with spikes and valleys in it, natural variations in the carbon imprint upon the microscopically rough surface of the paper.


What you are seeing there is an illustration of the peaks and valleys in the current warming epoch on this planet. One peak on that line you drew is what we're looking at when we look at the past couple decades; much as we saw another one between 1920 and 1940...miniscule, insignificant spikes in a general trend line.


To think that man has something to do with this---something which is driven by forces so incredibly huge in comparison---is ridiculous, and somewhat egocentric.


There is no conspiracy involved with the current human-driven contention of man-made global warming.

It is an overt and completely transparent political maneuver, driven by a particular political ideology which wants you to feel so guilty about your conduct of your life, that you will submit to utterly draconian measures which will have to be funded by larger government and higher taxes in order to implement its programs of lunacy. True science does not conform to this idea. There are tens of thousands of scientists who think this idea put forth by Al Gore is little less than bombastic in its scientific lack of fortitude.


Moondoggy said something which is very pertinent:




He is correct. Man-made global warming is in fact a religion.

Our friend Theodore is a Classical Astrologer. But to the Classical Astrologer, or the conventional scientist, the Sun is the largest and most massive natural force that mankind has observed and is materially affected by. It's power makes any effort by man look microscopic by comparison...no matter how you look at it. Both of the approaches are correct. The Sun is all that, and a bag-o-chips (it is no wonder why humans in generations past considered our local star a God).

The Sun drives this planet, and always has. No man made effort can come close to making a dent in its primacy as an energetic force.


I think it is the decided decline in educational standards , especially in the sciences and mathematics, which allows an utterly unsubstantiated mythology to attain the status of a factual pending disaster...when all it really is is a weakly supported hypothesis, ebellished by an overtly leftist political ideology.

Thank-you Mid and the others here for some good work in keeping a little sanity in the mix. I have imported another of my posts from the "Mars Warming" article. Here is where it should have been posted anyway. I do sound a little peeved, I know and I'm brand new at posting anywhere so I expect to need a little breaking in but the degree to which the looney left is (literally!) condemning millions apon millions to death by poverty and disease and the tyranny of hysterical do-gooder imperialism is about the most appalling thing I could ever imangine. (Begin imported post) The effects of the sun cycles dwarf even those things that dwarf the things that dwarf the things that humans are doing which is another reason we should discourage people from goose-stepping to left wing, anti human, anti progress, freedom hating greenie weenie suicidal global warming hysteria. The left perverts everything it touches because at it's core it is fascist and ignorant and full of itself. Morally bankrupt, imperialist and appallingly genocidal. The Great Global Warming Swindle may have been an imperfect documentary, but it nailed the crux of it, which is that the left, (especially environmentalism) has become something horrific and evil. Hateful of human rights to an extreme degree. I used to be a (mild) leftist. What an idiot. I have lived among them and have looked in shock at the whole sad spectacle. Take it from Patrick Moore and David Horowitz and others who do have humility. The left will kill us all. I'm not saying you (MysteryVy) and I think we should be careful with the biosphere... I've just had it with their sick and murderous elitist lunacy. There. I feel better. Now before any of you greenie weenie phoney enviro freaknut lemmings start with your twisted nonsense... go here... please. You really gotta get out more. http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/book_review.php3

Yes, yes, and yes. Thank the stars again. Another person out there who actually sees the Sun for what it truly is and always has been ~ the most important natural force when it comes to the Earth and its climate.

And ~ MID is correct about educational standards when it comes to the sciences and mathematics. There is little education in areas of climate, basic astronomy, astrophysics, geophysics, etc. at the earliest grade levels. So many people lack basic knowledge about their own local star called Sol, and how it drives the Earth's climate, but take to political ideologies and their associated myths much faster than they do to basic knowledge about their own planet and its place in its solar system.

If some of these people who want to deny other nations the ability to generate power based on the myths of "man-made global warming" and the misinformation of organizations like the IPCC, politicians (including these very greedy 'scientists' making a living off pushing this myth on the world) and would take the time to seriously check out the real scientific data showing that the SUN is the cause of global warming, then all this silliness would come to a quick end ~ thankfully ~ and we all can get back to solving the problems humans are capable of reversing. However, global warming is not one of them.

Another excellent post. This is one of the most important posts because it further clarifies my contention that the Sun is indeed the cause of global warming, and that the IPCC's own mandate continues to be very narrow. The fact that the IPCC and their scientists continue to downplay the SUN shows just how narrow their "findings" have been and will continue to be until they get off the "man-made" global warming lie ~ and a lie it has been. Humans are not the cause of global warming and never will be. All the IPCC has to do is look up at that star in the sky we call the Sun.

the sun yes - and people are contributing to it's haste.

(why are some against a cleaner planet anyway? laziness ? creature comforts matter more than humanity? selfishness? all I think)

The Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history, with events ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth. Historically, natural factors such as volcanic eruptions, changes in the Earth's orbit, and the amount of energy released from the Sun have affected the Earth's climate. Beginning late in the 18th century, human activities associated with the Industrial Revolution have also changed the composition of the atmosphere and therefore likely are influencing the Earth's climate.

The EPA climate change Web site has four main sections on climate change issues and another section on "What You Can Do" to reduce your contribution.

For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be. See the Science and Health and Environmental Effects sections of this site for more detail.


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

never say never ---- and we are greatly contributing to a process that would other wise be natural and take care of itself. with all the co2's we have put into the ozone one hopes the earth can deal with them.

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


What's Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.
Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008.

Causes of Change
Known causes or “drivers” of past climate change include:

Changes in the Earth's orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.
Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)
Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1815 as “the year without a summer.”
Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).
These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling). For example:

Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth's orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 420,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2001). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low (see Figure 1).

Changes in ocean currents: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in ocean currents. Because ocean currents play a significant role in distributing heat around the Earth, changes in these currents can bring about significant changes in climate from region to region.


Rates of Change
Studies of the Earth's previous climate suggest periods of stability as well as periods of rapid change. Recent climate research suggests:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

stated like a true neocon. too bad for you they are being shown the door.

to those who think humans have not contributed to global warming -- they are foolish or naive.

your site your pressing is a wealthy corporate site . making money off fossil fuels - they have been busted trying to bribe scientists to refute global warming.

I guess your 'professional' took the bait. Right wing propaganda is all it is. 9 of 10 scientists agree humans are hasting and adding to global climate changes. our actions are hazardous.

that is fact - not the fantasy your pouring out.

if there were no humans would the climate be changing ? sure . As fast ? no. can the earth scrub itself clean of the pollutants in the air ? that is the million dollar question. and with all that is in the ozone compared to past history climate changes - it isn't pleasant.

that aside --- so you like polluting? do you care about what your kids inherit? guess not. cons can never balance the gov't books either. say spend less but the out spend democrats every time. it's democrats that are more fiscally responsible. proof is in the pudding not just rhetoric.

Republicans allege that Democrats are Tax and Spend Liberals. Is that true? Not really!
Indeed, it could be argued that the opposite is true- namely that Republicans are tax and spend conservatives.

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/tax_n_spend_truths.htm

Thanks Moondoggy. It's going to take some time before most of the population actually clears their eyes from the slimy film of "man-made global warming" before seeing what a con job has been pushed on them about reversing climate change. The arguments connecting pollution with reversing climate change such as global warming are not the same, and it is the similiar to the wacky eco-left arguments for keeping undeveloped countries, well, undeveloped. There are cleaner ways to produce energy, for sure, but it has nothing to do with planetary climate change since all of Earth's climate and weather is forced by the Sun.

True environmentalists know that there is a balance that the Earth has to maintain, and we humans on the surface can make changes to our lifestyles that protects the water, air, and land, while utilizing the resources of the planet to improve living conditions.

Carbon is natural to the Earth, and the Sun directly influences the amount of Co2 that is released into the atmosphere because of its activities of minima and maxima cycles and its torque motions relative to the Earth.

See ~ http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm

The oceans, for instance, release much more carbon into the atmosphere than mankind, and the oceans are driven by the activities of the Sun. People tend to forget that the Earth is a water planet.

However, what some do not understand is that all climate and weather begins in space. The Earth is part of the solar system and this system is ruled by the activities of the SUN, which causes all weather on all the planets of the system it rules, including the weather and climate of the Earth. We can do nothing about the Sun, only adapt to it, and forecast its activities in advance to prepare for the peaks and valleys of the resulting geophysical effects from the astrophysical causes.

According to my calculations, and those of others, we expect to see at least one more strong solar maxima around the year 2010. Most estimates have the next Sunspot #24 cycle as an historic one considering how timely the Sun recycles its magnetic field waves over the decades and this next one should be as strong or stronger than the 1958 maxima. There will be many effects on the Earth when the Sun doubles its magnetic field strength.

Moreover, Jupiter and Saturn will be starting their oppositions to one another beginning in 2010, and lasting to about 2012, and when this happens, we can also expect disruptions in electronic grids, transmissions, cell phones, and satellite relays, etc., etc., along with the climate disruptions when the oppositions are relative to the Earth at specific points during Earth's orbit around the Sun. My long-range astrometeorological forecasts for the world calls for increased heavy rains, the resulting floods, and larger storms for the years 2010 to about 2014, more or less, with increased above normal warmer temperatures, droughts, etc., for those years before things calm down a bit closer to 2016.

However, from this present time to 2016, we will see strange anomalous cooling events worldwide with increasing La Ninas, and decreasing El Ninos into the decade of the 2010s, with the colder events picking up intensity into the 2020s with what is called a mini ice age, or global cooling, peaking in the 2030s.

It's simply a matter of logic and science, not neocon rhetoric.
You are far too ingrained in the opposite pole anyway. If you think people who see the obvious about this are foolish and naive, I think the point is well made.

9 out of 10 scientists do not in any way agree with this man-made global warming hypothesis.




Nothing said by reasonable people herein indicates that anyone likes polluting. This argument has nothing to do with universal stewardship of this planet and its environment. It has to do with gross exaggerations about man's importance and influence on a system that dwarfs him in every respect.

I think it's encumbent upon all reasonable people to be worried about what their kids inherit, especially as pertains to ideologies put forth by people who prefer to believe rather than to know, and people who were brought up in a generation which has placed far too little emphasis on science and mathematics, and which has resulted in a generation of people who are swayed by those who capitalize on their ignorance--which is pretty much what this man-made global warming situation is.

Good grief, Ripley. Conservatives are not evil. We try to preserve and conserve what is good while the liberals stomp their feet and scream I hate you, I hate you, I hate you, and force, like true fascists, policies that have directly resulted in the horrible deaths of tens of millions of children. Witness just the nightmare of malaria, and that is only one example. How many did communism murder over the last century? A hundred million? Have you turned your compassion to the plight of the North Korean people lately? Starvation on a shocking scale. Those poor victims are literally shrinking (a couple inches last I heard) before your eyes. You can help them and all of the third world by acknowledging what the left has become. An enemy of freedom and prosperity and humanity and the environment.
Fossil fuels are not evil. "A wealthy corporate site making money off fossil fuels"? How in the name of God will we ever move beyond fossil fuels without making money? Fossil fuels have been a crucial step in building civilization and of course we are moving on to new chapters in the cleaner energy story, though not because of, but in spite of the hysterical left. Remember the screams over the Alaskan pipeline? Not only did it not ruin things but the carribou have about quadrupled because of it. Seems the warmth puts them in a romantic mood. I don't like pollution which is a major reason I am so disgusted with the left right now. And I used to believe in the left. Just without really knowing why. I have personally planted about a half a million trees with my own hands. That takes alot of effort, especially in steep terrain. Overseen the planting of another 12 million or so. I helped reduce slash burning in the Pacific Northwest by demonstrating the viability of selling the hardwoods instead of burning them in place. What have you done? If you want to see more pollution and poverty and disease and oppression and hellish deaths by the tens of millions the left is already bringing it to you. Has been for some time. That is a main point of the book on eco-imperialism. The right is trying to save these victims. That is why I am taking the time to appeal to your sense of common decency. You are probably a person of really good intentions. I'm sorry to have to hammer you so, but please... step back and take a breath of humility. I did and I changed. Thank God.




You are fully entitled to your opinions libertyworld, but make sure you word them in a less offensive manner in the future. I've removed several lines from your post that are offensive and insulting.
BurnSide

Earth, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune are the planets that have inside heating mechanisms in this solar system. The sun creates heat and light, yes. If the sun were too hot, the plants wouldn't grow, but in places on earth, they thrive. And yes, put a crystal of some sort, any sort, in the sun and it will get very hot. Cover the same crystal with layers of earth and it will stay cool. The sun is not causing our rise in temperatures yet. What needs to be done is find out what is in the polar ice caps that diffuses the oxygen. Oh, and all of the junkyards of rubbish creates methane and methane diffuses oxygen. Keep driving cars, junking cars, throwing away food and rubbish and household garbage and the sun will definitly become a factor.

You are fully entitled to your opinions libertyworld, but make sure you word them in a less offensive manner in the future. I've removed several lines from your post that are offensive and insulting.
BurnSide
[/quote]
OK burnside I'll cool down, but I would submit to you that the term neocon is offensive and insulting because of what it means to those who use it, which may be why I was admittedly a little harsh in that case. I do appreciate the forum too.

Yeah, you're right Theo, the sun will cause the warming when the atmosphere rolls up from the poles. It is already melting the ice, no doubt, because the ozone is rolling up. Somebody reported the ice cools the earth. Well, so does the oceans and the oil. The El Nino and the La Nina are two currents of water that effect some climate I suppose. How much the warmer current is getting warmer, I don't know. But, the ozone is the deflector of the ultraviolet light from the sun and maybe the ozone is thinning around the world causing more heat to come through. Certainly man has something to do with that.


From Liberty:

That's great! That should be everybodies job to at least plant 50 trees and a garden.

Ozone depletion has everything to do with the Sun GreggK. The Sun's doubling of its magnetic field activity and sunspot increases were the causes of the intense radiation storms above the Earth's atmosphere during the late 1980s, and into the 1990s that produced large gaps in the ozones at the northern and southern poles of the Earth. This was directly due to the Sun, which also directs Earth's ocean currents and jet streams, as well as causes the climate phenomenas known as El Nino and La Nina.

HOLY MOLY, PEOPLE ! Can't you factually discuss a topic without having to resort to this ridiculous polarization??? Neocons against Eco-terrorists ??? Stop it. Just because Theo is convinced climate change is solar forced doesn't make him an ExxonMobile underling. But equally, just because I'm NOT convinced of that & DO think that anthropogenic factors play a big part doesn't mean I agree with all solutions proposed to the problem & think that developing countries have to pay the price for the gluttony of the West! To automatically liken me to a faschist leftie-eco-massmurderer is quite offensive! So, make an effort people, end mud-slinging & stick with discussing facts...

Mars has no real atmosphere to protect it's ice cap either --- apples and oranges.

uh yeah right try again

President Bush's Budget Cuts Environmental, Natural Resource and Energy Independence Programs


February 8, 2006

The President’s budget provides $27.9 billion for environment and natural resource programs for Fiscal Year 2007, which is $2.4 billion below the 2006 enacted level. Among many other cuts, the Bush budget proposal would reduce funding for clean water, national parks and forests, oceans, energy efficiency and conservation, and energy cost assistance for low-income Americans.

Environmental protection. Spending for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be cut by $304 million, from $7.62 billion to $7.32 billion in Fiscal Year 2007.

Clean water. Funding to improve water quality would be cut by $195 million, from $1.7 billion to $1.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2007. The Clean Water Act state revolving fund, which provides important funding to states for wastewater treatment facilities and water quality enhancement projects, would be cut by $200 million, from $887 million to $687 million in Fiscal Year 2007. The fund’s budget has been cut by nearly half, $642 million, since 2001.

Superfund. While overall funding for Superfund would increase a meager one percent, the increase in total funding masks cuts to accounts that comprise the core mission of Superfund: the Emergency Response and Emergency Preparedness programs are cut by a total of $2.861 million and the Superfund Remedial Program is cut by $7.31 million. The Administration’s budget would clean up only 40 sites, down from an average of 87 sites a year cleaned up during the Clinton Administration. In addition, taxpayers—not polluters—would be required to pay for administering the toxic waste clean-up program.


Science and technology. The President’s budget proposes $4.1 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, an increase of $505 million over last year’s budget request and equal to the level authorized in the Energy Policy Act.

Department of the Interior. The President’s budget for the Department of the Interior proposes a cut of $393 million, from $10.772 billion to $10.139 billion in Fiscal Year 2007.


Land and Water Conservation Fund. During the presidential campaign in 2000, President Bush pledged to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at the authorized level of $900 million annually, but for the sixth year in a row he has failed to keep his promise. The Bush Administration is proposing only $86 million for federal land acquisition and state assistance.


Hazardous fuel reduction. The President’s budget provides $497 million for hazardous fuel reduction programs through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is $2 million below last year’s appropriated level. This funding is critical to protect homes and communities from wildfires.


Wildland fire management. Spending for BLM wildland fire management would be increased under the President’s budget by $3 million to $822 million, while rural fire assistance would be eliminated.


National parks. During the presidential campaign in 2000, President Bush promised to invest $4.9 billion to eliminate the maintenance backlog in the national parks. This year, the budget cuts $100 million from total Park Service funding, marking the sixth year the Administration has cut funding for the Park Service. The Administration proposes cutting $91 million from construction and maintenance programs, from $470 million to $379 million in Fiscal Year 2007. The maintenance backlog is now estimated to be significantly larger than it was in 2000.


Urban parks. The Urban Park and Recreation program, which provides grants to low-income inner cities for the renovation of urban park and recreation facilities, would be eliminated.


Fish and wildlife. President Bush proposes to cut $15 million from the endangered species recovery program and $13 million from the National Wildlife Refuge System.


Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The President’s budget includes funding for environmental assesments as a first step toward authorizing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The budget assumes that Congress will open up the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling, and that lease sales in 2008 and 2010 will raise $8 billion in revenue. For the last six years, Congress has rejected this request.

Forest Service. The Forest Service budget would be cut by $106 million, from $4.202 billion to $4.096 billion in Fiscal Year 2007. Within the Forest Service budget, the fire management program would increase by $52 million, from $1.754 billion to $1.806 billion in Fiscal Year 2007; state and private forestry programs would be cut by $66 million, from $358 million to $292 million in Fiscal Year 2007; and the capital maintenance and infrastructure improvement program would be cut by $35 million, from $435 million to $400 million in Fiscal Year 2007.

Department of Energy. Spending for the Department of Energy (DOE) would be flat at $23.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2007. Science and technology programs would receive an increase from $3.6 billion to $4.1 billion, and defense and nuclear waste disposal programs would be increased. Environmental management and energy resources programs would be cut. The overall amount of the request for energy efficiency, renewables, and energy conservation ($1.176 billion) is almost exactly the same amount appropriated in Fiscal Year 2001 for the same purposes.

Renewable energy. DOE renewable energy programs would be increased by $61 million, including a $41 million increase for hydrogen, a $66 million increase for solar, a $4 million increase for wind, and a $29 million increase for biomass and biorefinery systems. Funding for hydropower and geothermal would be eliminated.


Energy efficiency. DOE energy efficiency and conservation programs would be cut by $21 million.

Weatherization. Weatherization assistance for low-income families struggling with high home heating bills would be cut by $91.8 million, from $316 million to $225 million in Fiscal Year 2007. DOE expects cuts to this program to affect 30,000 households. The budget also proposes to eliminate the Gateway Deployment program, which helps transition new technology to the market.


Fossil energy. The fossil energy research and development program would be cut by $122 million, from $592 million to $470 million in Fiscal Year 2007.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Spending for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be reduced by $169 million, from $3.850 billion to $3.681 billion in Fiscal Year 2007, including the National Ocean Service ($113 million cut); the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research program ($18 million cut); and the National Marine Fisheries Service ($37 million cut).

http://www.net.org/policy/budget/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cf...ame=fs-109-2-19

[quote name='Lt_Ripley' date='May 5 2007, 08:28 PM' post='1661939']
uh yeah right try again

I never suggested President Bush is a conservative.

[quote name='SeaMare' date='May 5 2007, 08:10 PM' post='1661926']
HOLY MOLY, PEOPLE ! Can't you factually discuss a topic

I wish more than you can imangine that the following facts could be refuted, and would really welcome it if you could do so:
1) The human caused global warming camp has largely become like a cult with no real interest in facts or true science.
2) The reason is because the forces behind it are the same that have hijacked the greater once noble environmental movement.
3) The results of their actions (most notably for the poorest of the third world) have been beyond offensive, especially considering the number of (mostly) children dying from disease and the lack of electricity.
-And indications are, if more don't come to terms with these facts, the damage they are doing is going to get much worse.

Shrink your thoughts down to the atomic level and go smaller. To the quark. Now, do you understand what a quark is? It is the 6 little bitty particles revolving around the nucleus of an atom between the proton and the neutron. These particles cause the reflectivity of the atom. Ozone is a molecule composed of 3 oxygen atoms. It would contain 18 quarks. Six quarks per side of the triangular shaped molecule.
The big bang was hot and according to Stephen Hawking, 'about one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one hundred thousand million degrees (100,000,000,000,000 degrees), the temperature INSIDE the hottest stars.'
Our sun is not quite so hot. But after about ten or twenty thousand million years (10 to 20,000,000,000,000 years), which is the age of this universe, our sun may have cooled and shrunk a bit.
My thought is, the earth was not a member of this solar system to begin with. Neither was Mercury, Venus, or Mars. This earth may have been a huge gas planet that was pulled into orbit around this sun by gravitational attraction. Or, the earth may have been the electron of the universe sized atom. Electrons always seek an inner orbit with its negative charge. This earth collided with the sun and like an egg, both shells broke apart and the centers, the nucleus, remained. All life we see now and more was already on this earth to begin with but much larger. When the two planets collided, everything slowly disappeared and is still now yet shrinking and disappearing; there is no time, just states of being.
There is no 'coming to terms' with anything but maybe realizing that we are not alive, we are walking dead people. It will get worse. But, is there light at the end of this tunnel? I believe there is. We cannot stop the warming no matter how much we think we can. But, we can survive. The earth will go through another shift and when it does, slowly we will have to learn how to survive without food or water. There are people who do that now, you know. We may have to learn how to survive without oxygen. And that is impossible for a contagious virus which we have become. But, each one of us is a spirit with hardened coverings called flesh.

GreggK;

Shrink your thoughts?

Our sun is a second generation star isn't it? Only about 5 billion years old.
Stars don't shrink and cool at this point in their lifespans. They tend to grow and warm, and ours is expected, (not any time soon) by those who know about such things to grow larger than the size of our orbit around it.

A contagious virus?

What is wrong with you that you would look at the miracle of our existence with such contempt?

Whoa there Gregg... Slow down there, ok? Of course the Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars are a part of the solar system, and people do need to survive with food and water. Always have and always will need to have food and water.

As for the Sun not being "quite so hot," as you state... Well, I disagree. The Sun is a very hot star ~ from 93 million miles away you certainly can feel it on your skin, can you not? Human beings are more than "walking dead people" and we humans are natural to the planet Earth ~ we are not a virus.

Let's do try to be more positive and realistic, and have our head no further from the heavens then our feet are from the ground, ok? Let's not get wacky tobacky here, ok Gregg?

It takes alot of energy for this country to produce just the fertilizer which saves (something like a couple billion) people from starvation.
We are somewhat spoiled. Nothing to be proud of. But (thanks in large part to free enterprise) our prosperity and strength and innovation are, on balance, giving the whole world a brighter future. The developing countries would benefit to an even greater degree, (especially in the fields of electrical generation and disease prevention) if certain... (progress resisting elements?) would calm down a little and let them.

Absolutely! One has to wonder how people explain the warm up and cool down cycles prior to the industrial age? They cannot blame mankind for those cycles. Mike Savage has some great info on the hoax on his website also.

No one is denying the Sun causes climate change. The debate here is what is causing a constant increase in temperature starting in the 70's and 80's without an increase in solar variation.

I wouldn't bother anymore Reincarnated, they are just stroking eachother's egos now.

The temperature increase started in the 1700's following what was termed the "little ice age". Pertubations in earths orbit can explain many of these cyclic events....( data has to be extrapolated from second and third hand sources so it cannot be considered 100% accurate but it does match known events quite well.)

One thing that has struck me is that while the environmentalists are crying foul about CO2 emissions (as well as to a far lesser degree Methane emissions) and want to stop all fossil fuel use, the one form of power production that leaves a minimal footprint per KW of power generated is anathma to them all...... Nuclear. Why? They cant have it both ways. With earths burgeoning population (which matches the increase in CO2 levels), energy consumption naturally matches the population increase. Most power production is from coal plants. Stop the population explosion and thus reduce the power demands and hence the pollution. Mandatory population control? Does anyone want to even go there?

Another thought. Deforestation is surely a major reason for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Global Carbon is in a balance between fixed and free states. Alteration of the mechanism which governs this would result in a change in the relative ratio of these states. Every day thousands of hectares of forest are clear cut/burned for pulp/paper or agricultural use. This is a waste plain and simple. Yet to tell the third world that they cannot grow enough food to feed their exploding population is simply not tenable. At the same time we know that the developing nations farming methods are environmentally destructive but cannot tell them to adopt better methods for political/cultural reasons. Far simpler to simply blame the "developed" nations for oppressing the third world and place the burden for reducing emissions on them rather than call a spade a spade. China and India are not even making token efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and will soon surpass the US as the biggest polluters. Politics again.

Simplest way to reduce "greenhouse" gasses in the medium term...
Immediate mandatory population control
Major investments in nuclear power generation (fission and fusion) with concurrent closing of coal/gas generation facilities
Major investments in reforestation activities
Huge curtailing of pulp and paper industries globally
Immediate cessation of all third world megaprojects which could contribute to greenhouse gas production such as dams, power plants, transportation facilities, clearing land for food production

And you know what? It wont make a visible dent in the increase in CO2 because the world is warming naturally and all the reductions we do cannot offset the CO2 that will be released when the oceans warm. I believe that the IPCC knows this as they always say the world will warm for at least 30 years no matter what we do today. Interestingly enough the scientists who believe the sun is the major player in the CO2 increase also state the same figure. Coincidence? I dont think so, but for me it does show the intellectual dishonesty behind the IPCC mandate and the political agenda driving it. It is indeed a tax on the developed nations designed to transfer money to the poorer regions in order to attain the accepted 2-3% of GNP needed to "alleviate" the problems of poverty and disease etc in the developing natons. Why else would a "Carbon tax credit" be transferrable (at a price) from a developing nation to a developed one? If the goal is to reduce emissions globally, surely there should be hard mandatory caps.... not a licence to continue on our merry way while paying some third world country cash in order to do so. If anyone can explain how driving up the cost of production in the developed world, while not reducing the CO2 output - and concommittantly driving development and CO2 emissions in the third world by paying them baksheesh- makes any kind of sense I am very interested in the answer

That said though, there is certainly no reason NOT to curtail pollution by any and all means at our disposal. Installing scrubbers on smokestacks, switching to cleaner fuels and hybrid cars, recycling and reusing more and basically reducing frivouous consumption are all good lifestyle choices. Do we really need a cellphone in everybodies pocket? One car per person? Fresh fruit 24/7 from every part of the world? Expensive luxuries IMO

Theodore - many have already recognized the sun's factor... And, yes, the sun is the primary source of all energy on the planet - that's a given...

If you responded to this question I must've missed it - so will ask again; When Hussein set the Kuwaiti oil wells afire that one act of eco terrorism impacted the *globe's* weather patterns... Which is tantamount to humanity impacting global climate - because weather was effected on a global scale. That said - how is it our prolonged spewage wouldn't have the same result? It's still spewage - whether in massive amounts at once, or massive amounts over a period of time. The end result would still be the same - humanity can, and does, impact the globe's climate.

If I can compost vegetable matter - which produces gas - which is warmer than the surrounding environment - why can't that be comparative to the earth spewing rot, causing warmer gases - impacting global warming? It's still a cycle within a cycle within a cycle...

Btw - did you miss me? ; )

...Also, it was rather disappointing to read a spelling flame by you. As long as we get the gist of the message that's all that really matters...imo.

edit for erroneous spelling... : )

We all get a bit testy now and again... still, it's not good netiquette to allow a topic to become swallowed by egos...
I'm not signalling you out - you're not alone.

Hi Graylady. Well, for one, I don't spell "flame." And frankly, don't like that word. I spend the time to write and spell in correct English usage, and I do not think that asking that of others is a "flame" but common sense. What is the point of communicating if one cannot write in a manner that is understood? Poor usage of English (the language we are communicating here in) is not a great indicator of intelligence and leads some (including me) not to take the person seriously who writes as if they are always in a teen chatroom. This is a forum ~ not a chatroom. Anyone who writes using poor spelling isn't exactly making any point other than that they are just too lazy to use a dictionary to check their own spelling. That isn't "flaming" ~ and even that term is just another excuse not to get off one's own duff and to use a dictionary.

As for your other comments: no, not many people even considered the Sun because not many people know much about the star that is the cause of all life and energy on this planet. Education about the Sun is bad enough, and I don buy into that comment either. There's always more to learn, and frankly, too many people just gulp in whatever pop-culture myths are out there ~ like the one that blames humanity for global warming ~ without thinking for themselves and doing some real learning before pushing out even more that "man-made global warming" junk on the world.

As for your question: That has to do with pollution. Pure and simple. Humans do pollute. Always have and always will too. But the argument for pollution is not the same as planetary climate change, global cooling and global warming. Those rights, as I continue to maintain ~ belong to the SUN and to the SUN alone.

temporary weather change is not equal to global climate change
pollution is not equal to global climate change
"global warming" is not equal to global climate change
showing discrepancy between past and current trends is not equal to proving anthropogenic global climate change Or global warming Or global cooling
global climate change Is a fact, and it Is going to happen wether we like it or not
to me the main question is are we going to ask to be put in a cage below sea level for our safety before the floods come, or will we be able to have the freedom, knowledge, and individual resources to build ourselves little boats.

If after the oil burnings our deserts were no longer deserts, tropics were no longer tropics, tundras were no longer tundras, etc, etc, etc... then I'd be more willing to accept man caused global climate shift.

That made absolutely no sense.

agreed.

Stroking egos? Really? Is that how you interpret people who agree with one another? Please. Drop the cynical comments and stick to the topic without having to resort to comments such as that because you may disagree.

Practice what you preach.

I do. And my comment is especially directed to you Reincarnated. Stick to the topic, and quit with the personal comments. If you cannot make your argument without resorting to silly low blows, then you ought to check out your own premises, that would help for a start.

OK. Positive and real, I will be. The majority of the awake public is awake because of . . . Because of their desire to be awake. And through this desire to be awake, they have not lengthened the life span, but shortened it through man-made drugs and the cutting of doctors. False consciuosness has invaded and produced a false reality. My mind did not come from the ground. And my mind is in every part of me, your mind is in every part of you. Your body thinks and reacts to what you feed it.

I will not go backwards in time and explain the whole thing, it is not necessary. In this solar system, there are 4 planets that progress in mental stature and the earth is not listed as being one of them. Detailed pictures have been drawn of the solar system with its asteroid belts and the conclusion has been that there was a collision of some sort in this solar system to have that much debris in a stationary orbit. Now, I have to go back and re-think the picture in my brain and adjust it to talk to you. You cannot explain the birth of this solar system if you were born in it.

What 4 planets are confirmed to progress in mental stature in this solar system?
I'm ignorant on this concept, unless you're coming from the angle that all matter is alive or planets are gods or something in that vein?

i think that book "we are the weather makers" mentioned something aboot sun spots and their effect

there was something about how katrina can be related to the sun spot activity of that year

Well, some Lithotrophs do not rely on solar energy for their life processes, and the energy from the radioactive decay of the core of our planet is not dependent on the Sun, so your statement that the Sun is the cause of ALL life and energy on Earth is a bit of an exaggeration.



So the introduction into our upper atmosphere of man-made pollutants which destroy naturally-occurring compounds in the upper atmosphere - compounds which would normally prevent some solar energy from penetrating to the lower atmosphere and the terrestrial surface - does not mean more solar energy is reaching the surface/lower atmosphere rather than being absorbed/reflected back into space, and this extra solar energy does not have a warming effect on our global system?

Perhaps you need to consider some rather basic science before you say pollution can not be linked to global warming?

Sun cycles or not, there are still large amount of 200 years of excess spitting out of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, that's what it's all about. The sun elements will eventually dissapear but the heat will remain.

its funny how our atmosphere keeps the deadly sun rays out but the deadly gases in

I think it is cause by the sun.