not buying this global warming

[Toxic Flood]

I don't think so. I don't buy into the man-made global warming hype. That isn't evidence. Never was. The Sun does more than just "affect" the Earth's climate. The Sun DRIVES the Earth's climate. Man-made Co2 has nothing to do with global warming. Carbon is natural to the Earth, and the oceans, and mountains release more carbon in to the atmosphere than all of mankind ever has, and ever will. The only thing "lame" is that some of you out there putting out this hype don't have a clue as to how your own planet's climate system works in the first place.

You might as well be copying and pasting from your old posts.

[Eagle Eye]

I guess this is just another coincidence, right Theodore? Or maybe the Sun is responsible for Earths population growth too!

The Sun is the PRIMARY REASON FOR ALL LIFE ON EARTH. Now, what part of that don't you get? Jeez.

As for "Earth's population growth" ~ I think that has more to do with the ~ ahem ~ activities of males and females Reincarnated, don't you?

Are you saying that the Sun has no effect on the Earth? Or that you do not know what geomagnetic energy is? Your comments seem to ignore that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth. The SUN directs, and regulates the climate of the entire Earth. You cannot be that dense as to not see this, can you?

You talk about the Sun as if it is minimal. Just there. It is far from minimal ~ it it directly responsible for all life on this planet, and without Sol, there would be no life.

Geomagnetic, mathematically-aligned transits of the celestial bodies relative to the Earth is used for forecasting, has been extensively written on, especially by Johannes Kepler, who was the classical astrologer responsible for discovering the laws of planetary motion. He also forecasted advance weather and climate applying astrological means. He was quite famous for that as well in Europe in his time.

Kepler helped to develop basic astrological mathematics for forecasting weather from planetary, Solar and Lunar motions relative to the Earth. These are facts that you continue to seem to be unaware of in all of your posts. Go back and read the links, and others that I've posted on this thread. There is no need to constantly repost them.

I monitor any increases in geomagnetic activity of the Sun, and track the modulations of planets through the Sun's immense magnetic arms that spread throughout the solar system. See ~ http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_24h.html

Any increases over a length of time is easily calculated because of past centuries of solar cycle records by classical astrologers like Galileo, for example. These are in use today.

There is a good advance lead of about six (6) years in forecasting major solar activity like maximas. This is done by monitoring increases in geomagnetic activity. By cross correlating sunspot number against the Inter-hour Variability Index (IHVIHV) you can forecast amplitudes of a solar cycles about six to eight years in advance with nearly a 95-percent correlation coefficient.

I've been able to do that in advance climate & weather forecasting based on Johannes Kepler's calculations. According to solar geomagnetic readings over the last several years, some estimates expect a major peak in solar activity by 2010/2011. This will directly effect the Earth.

Each previous Solar Cycle matches global warming, and global cooling records on Earth. The Sun is the reason for what we call "global warming" ~ always has been. Always will be. If you want to know what the climate on Earth is going to be like in the future ~ study space weather, and study the SUN.

The next Solar Cycle #24 is expected to be a maximum, and to peak around the year 2010. Some estimates indicate a coming Sunspot Number of 160 plus or minus 25. That would make it one of the strongest solar cycles in recorded history. To forecast future climate & weather conditions I monitor space weather , as well as plotting future transits of astronomical bodies relative to the Earth,and their magnetically mathematical alignments as formulated by classical astrologers, like Kepler.

The entire cosmos is filled wth magnetic and kinetic energy, including our solar system. The Sun is essentially a huge magnet. We classical astrologers directly monitor the Sun, and work with magnetics while formulating mathematics to stay ahead the many celestial transits and theirvariables due to the constant astronomical motions. The Sun rotates on its axis once every 27 days and is constantly in massive magnetic flow with a corkscrew release of magnetic field energy in what we call the Archimedian Spiral ~

For instance, David Hathaway, a solar physicist at Marshall Space Flight Center. says that because of all the twists and turns, "the impact of the field reversal on the heliosphere is complicated. Sunspots are sources of intense magnetic knots that spiral outwards even as the dipole field vanishes. The heliosphere doesn't simply wink out of existence when the poles flip -- there are plenty of complex magnetic structures to fill the void."

For more see ~ http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb%5F1.htm

Solar scientists and forecasters are expecting another active Solar Maximum in about three/four years, according to some estimates, it may be one of the most active solar maximas since record-keeping of solar activity began centuries ago by classical astrologers, see ~

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

See the links below for basics on the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and NOAA's daily monitoring of magnetic energy from the Sun that reaches us here on Earth in the form of Geomagnetic Storms.

http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.html

Based on the current geomagnetic readings, and those of last year, we can expect one more giant spiking of Solar Activity at Maximum by 2010, with the effects of solar-forced global warming into the early to mid-2010s because of the expect record solar maxima just ahead.

My calculations show that the coming Solar Cycle #24 will be a strong one, and will directly impact the Earth's climate as the previous times when the Sun more than doubled its magnetic field activity. This is the reason for Earth's global warming since 1980 to 2007, as well as the warming on the other planets in our solar system. It will continue into the 2010s, with the effects of solar-forced global warming into the next decade.

However, we will see increasing anomalous cooling events taking place in the world's climate while we are still feeling the effects of what will turn out to be 35/36 years of global warming forced by the SUN. This will come to an end by about the year 2016 as far as the Sun is concerned, and a new cycle leading to global cooling begins in earnest, peaking about the mid-2030s.

You need to greatly appreciate the SUN much, much more than you do.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Theodore

[Reincarnated]

Are you saying that the Sun has no effect on the Earth? The SUN directs, and regulates the climate of the entire Earth. You cannot be that dense as to not see this, can you?

You talk about the Sun as if it is minimal. Just there. It is far from minimal ~ it it directly responsible for all life on this planet, and without Sol, there would be no life.

You need to greatly appreciate the SUN much, much more than you do.

Didn't we go over this like 10 times already?

No one is saying you are wrong about cosmic rays causing climate change but our current warming trend is from a combination of solar variability and the quality of our Ozone. You claim to be an expert on weather but you are hell bent on denying that it is possible for humans to alter our climate. Even after we have increased C02 levels by 35% since the industrial revolution from burning fossil fuels!

I will repeat myself; I believe the burning of fossil fuels by humans has greatly increased and worsened the effects of natural climate change. While solar forces may be the orgin of climate change, our C02 emissions are speeding up and worsening it's effects. That is where you are wrong and so far you haven't been able to prove otherwise.

[Reincarnated]

I checked out your NASA links, Theodore. They also had this to say:

The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades.

Source

[gaia227]

"Sorry, but I just don't believe humans have are smart enough to manipulate the weather like that. To not only prevent an ice age but also make the planet hotter than it was before The Great Cooling, and to do it in just 32 years on a planet estimated to be 4.5 billion years old?"

SMART ENOUGH - what we have done to the planet has nothing to do with being smart and everything to do with being ignorant, greedy, lazy and unbelievably selfish and disrespectful. Have you done much research on this topic? Besides what you hear on the "news"? Have you taken the intiative to find scientific journals and read scientific studies that are completely seperate from politics? Or are you just drawing these conclusions with no research and no background? Have you read the statistics regarding what our emissions levels were 30 years ago as compared to today? It is hard for me to believe that if someone did take the intiative to research the scientific arguments and FACTS they can sit there and say we are not causing it. It is so egocentric and just plain ignorant to think we are not effecting the environment in a HUGE way. Humans are a cancer on this planet.

[Lamont Cranston]

The fact of Global Warming is far from a consensus…Many scientists contend that Michael Mann and his colleagues have produced erroneous information and that their “hockey stick” graph presents a false image of actual fact. Here are a few references to show how many of the worlds climatologists and others view the “fact” of Global Warming (and how they view the political hack Gore)!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2...MGSFGGAVCBQWIV0

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

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.wcflunatall.com/globalwarminglie.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...v=nr&id=783

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/...0hurricanes.pdf

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/13/Weather/..._is_not_a.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200...L20041202a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/2004...T20041119a.html

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art...obalwarming.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200...L20030714c.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer152.html

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

[Reincarnated]

The fact of Global Warming is far from a consensus…Many scientists contend that Michael Mann and his colleagues have produced erroneous information and that their “hockey stick” graph presents a false image of actual fact. Here are a few references to show how many of the worlds climatologists and others view the “fact” of Global Warming (and how they view the political hack Gore)!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2...MGSFGGAVCBQWIV0

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

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.wcflunatall.com/globalwarminglie.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...v=nr&id=783

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/...0hurricanes.pdf

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/13/Weather/..._is_not_a.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200...L20041202a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/2004...T20041119a.html

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art...obalwarming.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200...L20030714c.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer152.html

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

Care to join in on our debate already in progress instead of just spamming 17 links you found with Google?

[Moon Monkey]

I guess this is just another coincidence, right Theodore? Or maybe the Sun is responsible for Earths population growth too!

There was a mini-ice age until the 1850's and the Thames froze every winter. Man made CO2 emmissions would have lept over the previous century from almost zero. How does that fit into the coincidence ? Maybe if it wasn't for man-made emmissions we would be under permafrost, as was widely predicted by top scientists to anyone who would listen less than 30 years ago.

I would be interested to see the global temperature graph for the middle ages when grapes grew in abundance in scotland plotted against this data, a 6-700 year lag of co2 emmission given from the slowly rising oceanic temperatures has been noted.

We may be currently in a random spike, temperatures are well within historical bounds. We always hear "since records began" but records began a few hundred years ago, we know full well that global temperatures are cyclical.

I am not saying any of this is or isn't the case but I am saying we just don't know.

[Reincarnated]

There was a mini-ice age until the 1850's and the Thames froze every winter. Man made CO2 emmissions would have lept over the previous century from almost zero. How does that fit into the coincidence ? Maybe if it wasn't for man-made emmissions we would be under permafrost, as was widely predicted by top scientists to anyone who would listen less than 30 years ago.

I would be interested to see the global temperature graph for the middle ages when grapes grew in abundance in scotland plotted against this data, a 6-700 year lag of co2 emmission given from the slowly rising oceanic temperatures has been noted.

We may be currently in a random spike, temperatures are well within historical bounds. We always hear "since records began" but records began a few hundred years ago, we know full well that global temperatures are cyclical.

I am not saying any of this is or isn't the case but I am saying we just don't know.

Our climate is changing at an abnormally fast pace. After taking into account we are on a rocketing upward trend of greenhouse emissions, realizing C02 concentration has increased by 35% since the industrial revolution and knowing we are cutting down millions of acres of forests each year... is it worth it to gamble?

[gaia227]

Naturally without the sun there would be no global warming, no warmth at all, no life on this planet. However, your claim that its merely the sun's activities that are changing our atmosphere is dubious at best. This planet has a long and volatile past. It was at one time an un-inhabitable hunk of smoking rock and deadly gasses, and this was not due to the sun's activities alone. Yes, the sun is what helped create the planet's, and of course, it is what helped make the Earth an inhospitable place, but long after the sun's heat was diffused, this planet was very hot and deadly, and this was due to the composition of gasses in the air. The primary reason for the planet's atmospheric changes over time, and why life was able to form, has a lot to do with the way this composition of gasses changed, trapping some heat and allowing much to escape.

This cycle took a long, long time by our standards, and much of the toxic gasses that made this planet so inhospitable are now being re-released thanks to aggressive industrialization, driven primarily by human greed, and carelessness. If you have the education you claim to, then doubtless you will realize that much that has occured is intimately linked to how the sun's rays interacted with the earths atmosphere. That is, it is an interaction a relationship between our planet's various gasses and the sun, not simply the sun "acting up." Indeed the sun is the 'prime mover' in our solar system, and if this planet survives human stupidity, then it will be the sun that kills it ultimately. Doubtless it is a great power. But what makes the situation worse is the fact that the sun's rays are trapped in our atmosphere by various gasses, and one of the culprits is carbon gasses, which, from the best scientifc analysis out there, has risen to the highest levels known since life formed on this planet. If it is all the sun, and our atmosphere has nothing to do with trapping heat, then why do planets with no atmosphere, or very different ones, have drastically different temperatures between the sunny side and the shaded side? The dangerous rays are neither filtered nor trapped in the air on these planet's. By greatly increasing green house gasses, that is, releasing those that are locked into the earth in a solid form, we are changing the way the sun's rays interact with the planet.

And, for your information, we were not at our industrial peek 50 years ago. The ammount of carbon released into our atmosphere every year is growing. It has increased by many times since WWII, and will continue to increase by all, including the most conservative, estimates. I don't know where you got those facts concerning the peak of industrialization. The primary source of energy for the US today, right now, is coal burning power plants, old technology known to be among the most polluting ways to extract energy.

The US is currently, and disproportionately, the biggest polluter in the world, with China, while growing, still far behind us. We consume 25% of the world's resources. Corporations around the world, with vested interest in competing in the market, have spent billions to date on PR and lobbying to fight restrictions on pollution levels. It is the elite and wealthy, the owners of industry, unfortunately intimately tied to the governments they financially support and whose ranks they are among in disproportionate numbers, who drive the hardest against regulations on carbon emissions. The average person has little to gain from buying this PR, but they are slick, and they have managed to confuse and confound the public by spending huge sums on PR that looks like news. Some news organizations will even show these pieces as real news, not telling the viewer that this was sent to them as canned, fake news by a PR giant working for various large corporations. They too, after all, are a business, and canned news is cheap and easy.

There is a great deal of variety in our intellectual communities on various issues, and that is healthy and normal. It is unheard of that new, or relatively new ideas will be accepted by all of the individuals within the intellectual and scientific communities, especially those which threaten the interests of such powerful people. However, given this knowledge, the agreement on the effects of carbon emmissions on global warming is rather powerful. Certainly there is debate, but for the specialists that study these phenomenon, the level of dissent is lower than on almost any other "non-canonical" idea. Now, what profit is there for the most of the industry in cleaning up their mess? Very, very litte. This is a classic taste of what, even the great pioneer of the market, Adam Smith, called 'externalizing costs' that is, not including part of the cost in the product, thus artificially lowering the price to beat your competitors. This feature of the market if unchecked, warned Adam Smith, will destroy the natural price, and harm society. Unfortunately, corporate power has thrived on finding ways to cut, or externalize costs. Conservatives and neo-liberals love to quote Adam Smith, jut not the parts that contradict their practices. We are far, far from the model he introduced.

Big companies will often move their messiest operations to poor, underdeveloped countries, where they can get away with poisoning the environment without any worry that someone will fight back, (though many do attempt to fight back, but thanks to hardy funding, often from large powerful nations who know the value of cheap raw materials, labor, and lose environmental laws, on their economy, these dissenters are often "disapeared" a nice CIA term for destroyed. It is not in our interest, even if the science is not perfect (there is no such thing anyway, only more or less probable models for prediction and explanation), to ignore the possibility of great catastrophy. The average person will not profit from this wreckless destruction. Even if global warming is doubtful (while I think everything is 'doubtable' ) the destruction we are reaping on the environment is real. Our water, our air, the soil, the animals that depend on habitats quickly disapearing, these are not reasonably doubtable, they are very real. We should not gamble on our planet, the only one we have for the forseable future, so we can eat fast food and drive SUV's. The selfish people that credulously insist that they have a right to their lifestyle, even if it could ultimately mean the destruction of life on this planet, are the product of a disgusting laise fair myth.

While many of your premises are reasonable, your conclusion does not follow. The best you can claim is that the sun has a great deal to do with our atmosphere, but even i know that there are other important factors that determine how the rays from the sun behave once they enter our atmosphere, and I am a philosophy major. I do have many books on environmental science, I am an avid reader, and have yet to read anyone make the claim that the sun is soley responsible for the heating and cooling of our planet. It is simply ridiculous.

Edited April 24, 2007 by gaia227

[Eagle Eye]

Naturally without the sun there would be no global warming, no warmth at all, no life on this planet. However, your claim that its merely the sun's activities that are changing our atmosphere is dubious at best. This planet has a long and volatile past. It was at one time an un-inhabitable hunk of smoking rock and deadly gasses, and this was not due to the sun's activities alone. Yes, the sun is what helped create the planet's, and of course, it is what helped make the Earth an inhospitable place, but long after the sun's heat was diffused, this planet was very hot and deadly, and this was due to the composition of gasses in the air. The primary reason for the planet's atmospheric changes over time, and why life was able to form, has a lot to do with the way this composition of gasses changed, trapping some heat and allowing much to escape.

This cycle took a long, long time by our standards, and much of the toxic gasses that made this planet so inhospitable are now being re-released thanks to aggressive industrialization, driven primarily by human greed, and carelessness. If you have the education you claim to, then doubtless you will realize that much that has occured is intimately linked to how the sun's rays interacted with the earths atmosphere. That is, it is an interaction a relationship between our planet's various gasses and the sun, not simply the sun "acting up." Indeed the sun is the 'prime mover' in our solar system, and if this planet survives human stupidity, then it will be the sun that kills it ultimately. Doubtless it is a great power. But what makes the situation worse is the fact that the sun's rays are trapped in our atmosphere by various gasses, and one of the culprits is carbon gasses, which, from the best scientifc analysis out there, has risen to the highest levels known since life formed on this planet. If it is all the sun, and our atmosphere has nothing to do with trapping heat, then why do planets with no atmosphere, or very different ones, have drastically different temperatures between the sunny side and the shaded side? The dangerous rays are neither filtered nor trapped in the air on these planet's. By greatly increasing green house gasses, that is, releasing those that are locked into the earth in a solid form, we are changing the way the sun's rays interact with the planet.

And, for your information, we were not at our industrial peek 50 years ago. The ammount of carbon released into our atmosphere every year is growing. It has increased by many times since WWII, and will continue to increase by all, including the most conservative, estimates. I don't know where you got those facts concerning the peak of industrialization. The primary source of energy for the US today, right now, is coal burning power plants, old technology known to be among the most polluting ways to extract energy.

The US is currently, and disproportionately, the biggest polluter in the world, with China, while growing, still far behind us. We consume 25% of the world's resources. Corporations around the world, with vested interest in competing in the market, have spent billions to date on PR and lobbying to fight restrictions on pollution levels. It is the elite and wealthy, the owners of industry, unfortunately intimately tied to the governments they financially support and whose ranks they are among in disproportionate numbers, who drive the hardest against regulations on carbon emissions. The average person has little to gain from buying this PR, but they are slick, and they have managed to confuse and confound the public by spending huge sums on PR that looks like news. Some news organizations will even show these pieces as real news, not telling the viewer that this was sent to them as canned, fake news by a PR giant working for various large corporations. They too, after all, are a business, and canned news is cheap and easy.

There is a great deal of variety in our intellectual communities on various issues, and that is healthy and normal. It is unheard of that new, or relatively new ideas will be accepted by all of the individuals within the intellectual and scientific communities, especially those which threaten the interests of such powerful people. However, given this knowledge, the agreement on the effects of carbon emmissions on global warming is rather powerful. Certainly there is debate, but for the specialists that study these phenomenon, the level of dissent is lower than on almost any other "non-canonical" idea. Now, what profit is there for the most of the industry in cleaning up their mess? Very, very litte. This is a classic taste of what, even the great pioneer of the market, Adam Smith, called 'externalizing costs' that is, not including part of the cost in the product, thus artificially lowering the price to beat your competitors. This feature of the market if unchecked, warned Adam Smith, will destroy the natural price, and harm society. Unfortunately, corporate power has thrived on finding ways to cut, or externalize costs. Conservatives and neo-liberals love to quote Adam Smith, jut not the parts that contradict their practices. We are far, far from the model he introduced.

Big companies will often move their messiest operations to poor, underdeveloped countries, where they can get away with poisoning the environment without any worry that someone will fight back, (though many do attempt to fight back, but thanks to hardy funding, often from large powerful nations who know the value of cheap raw materials, labor, and lose environmental laws, on their economy, these dissenters are often "disapeared" a nice CIA term for destroyed. It is not in our interest, even if the science is not perfect (there is no such thing anyway, only more or less probable models for prediction and explanation), to ignore the possibility of great catastrophy. The average person will not profit from this wreckless destruction. Even if global warming is doubtful (while I think everything is 'doubtable' ) the destruction we are reaping on the environment is real. Our water, our air, the soil, the animals that depend on habitats quickly disapearing, these are not reasonably doubtable, they are very real. We should not gamble on our planet, the only one we have for the forseable future, so we can eat fast food and drive SUV's. The selfish people that credulously insist that they have a right to their lifestyle, even if it could ultimately mean the destruction of life on this planet, are the product of a disgusting laise fair myth.

While many of your premises are reasonable, your conclusion does not follow. The best you can claim is that the sun has a great deal to do with our atmosphere, but even i know that there are other important factors that determine how the rays from the sun behave once they enter our atmosphere, and I am a philosophy major. I do have many books on environmental science, I am an avid reader, and have yet to read anyone make the claim that the sun is soley responsible for the heating and cooling of our planet. It is simply ridiculous.

The only thing that is "ridiculous" is your contentions here. Of course the SUN is the reason for global warming ~

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

[Reincarnated]

The only thing that is "ridiculous" is your contentions here. Of course the SUN is the reason for global warming ~

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Are you saying that the Sun has no effect on the Earth? The SUN directs, and regulates the climate of the entire Earth. You cannot be that dense as to not see this, can you?

You talk about the Sun as if it is minimal. Just there. It is far from minimal ~ it it directly responsible for all life on this planet, and without Sol, there would be no life.

You need to greatly appreciate the SUN much, much more than you do.

Didn't we go over this like 10 times already?

No one is saying you are wrong about cosmic rays causing climate change but our current warming trend is from a combination of solar variability and the quality of our Ozone. You claim to be an expert on weather but you are hell bent on denying that it is possible for humans to alter our climate. Even after we have increased C02 levels by 35% since the industrial revolution from burning fossil fuels!

I will repeat myself; I believe the burning of fossil fuels by humans has greatly increased and worsened the effects of natural climate change. While solar forces may be the orgin of climate change, our C02 emissions are speeding up and worsening it's effects. That is where you are wrong and so far you haven't been able to prove otherwise.

I checked out your NASA links, Theodore. They also had this to say:

The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades.

Source

Your theory of the Sun being the only factor in climate change is dead in the water, Theodore. Edited April 24, 2007 by Reincarnated

[Ando]

If you are sceptic to the Global Warming, watch the swedish documentary: The Planet

It showes with 100% fact (no low bendings or propaganda) how we are destroying our own planet.

Very interesting ...

Edited April 24, 2007 by Ando

[Reincarnated]

Theodore is desperate, immature and will say anything to make himself sound right. He constantly spins and warps anything you say, will ignore you multiple times and repeatetly put false words into your mouth. Is this how professionals act? I don't know how the heck you got hired anywhere. You sound more like an angry teenager...

Edited April 24, 2007 by Reincarnated

[gaia227]

Is that all you have to say, Theodore, in response to my last post where I made a case for global warming? The link you posted to the NASA website says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the sun being responsible for global warming. NOTHING. It is not even mentioned. No body disputes that the sun goes through cycles but a lot of people dispute those cycles are causing global warming. What? You throw up a link here and there about sun cycles and THAT is your proof? That is the weakest, lamest argument I have heard. Especially to use NASA as your source - most NASA scientists believe that global warming is man -made. Seriously - anyone reading this Please click on the link he put up as his "evidence" it is talking about sun cycles - thats it. No one is disputing the sun cycles. It doesn't even MENTION global warming in this link.

All you can say is what you have said over and over and over: "The sun IS THE ONLY cause for global warming." How many time have you said that? You ignore any provoctative and valid points other people make and just repeat yourself and the funny thing about it is you are completely wrong. I have a hard time believing that someone who claims they are an astrometeorologist would have such an outdated and warped view of our climate and the effects the sun does and DOESN'T have on global warming. I think Reincarnated is right: you are an angry teenage boy who is posing as a scientist. No one with the education you claim to have would believe what you are saying. And you even have the audacity to suggest that a great scientific thinker like Stephen Hawking is wrong and YOU are right!!!! That is extremely immature, no mature grown man would insinuate something like that and be so blatantly disrespectful.

I am dissapointed, Theodore, I thought I would get more of a response out of you. I thought I would get something more than a link to a website that doesn't even support what you are arguing, maybe you thought I access the link - I don't know. Perhaps you are just too selfish to accept that humanities actions as a whole are having a profound effect on your environment - if we accept that then we will be forced to change our way of life and we may have to give up a few luxuries and conveniences. WE will have to sacrifice something instead of expecting nature to make all of the sacrifices. God forbid......

Edited April 24, 2007 by gaia227

[SilverCougar]

What's wrong with people denying change? No one said that it's the end of the world. Rather.. that it's time to cope our "sad little lives" to the massive climate changes that have been occuring.

[Moon Monkey]

Our climate is changing at an abnormally fast pace. After taking into account we are on a rocketing upward trend of greenhouse emissions, realizing C02 concentration has increased by 35% since the industrial revolution and knowing we are cutting down millions of acres of forests each year... is it worth it to gamble?

How are you defining abnormally fast ?. Such rises have been seen before, coud it possibly be a spike as seen countless times from ice-core data ? Could it be due to oceanic lag ? Could it be due to solar activity seen every 100,000-ish years ? Could it be due to man-made emmissions ? I haven't seen CONCLUSIVE proof of any of these options. Until such proof is avaliable, by which point as you say it may be too late, we might as well blame a combination of chemtrails, conspiracy and chaos theory.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Moon Monkey

[Reincarnated]

What is wrong with some people? It is NOT the end of the world, no matter how much your sad little lives want it to be! I agree with the guy who made this topic, it's not the end of the world, because Al Gore says so, and he panics about everything. A little warm weather has got everyone p***ing themselves.

If our "sad little lives" wanted it to be the end of the world, why would we warn people the dangers of unregulated greenhouse gas emissions? If we wanted the end to come, don't you think we would be doing the opposite and denying humans are negativly effecting the atmosphere? You are taking your anger over a political party or figure out on a real life issue which is clouding your judgement. Al Gore didn't create any evidence nor did he start the concern over human influenced climate change. He is just a messanger. By the way, I have been doing global warming projects and reports years before An Inconvient Truth was released. To be honest, I still haven't seen that movie.

How are you defining abnormally fast ?. Such rises have been seen before, coud it possibly be a spike as seen countless times from ice-core data ? Could it be due to oceanic lag ? Could it be due to solar activity seen every 100,000-ish years ? Could it be due to man-made emmissions ? I haven't seen CONCLUSIVE proof of any of these options. Until such proof is avaliable, by which point as you say it may be too late, we might as well blame a combination of chemtrails, conspiracy and chaos theory.

Conclusive evidence can vary from person to person. There are mountains of evidence to support my theory and a lot posted in this thread. If that is still inconclusive, then there is nothing more I can do for you. The only thing I can suggest is to keep doing your own research and come to your own conclusion.

What's wrong with people denying change? No one said that it's the end of the world. Rather.. that it's time to cope our "sad little lives" to the massive climate changes that have been occuring.

Although I feel it is dangerous to believe we are not hurting our atmosphere, I do not condone taking that stance. But when one uses evidence that has been proven inaccurate, ignores ones posts repeatly, puts words into your mouth and spins your statements thats where I find something wrong. Atleast debate in a mature and scientific manner with real evidence.

[Eagle Eye]

Theodore is desperate, immature and will say anything to make himself sound right. He constantly spins and warps anything you say, will ignore you multiple times and repeatetly put false words into your mouth. Is this how professionals act? I don't know how the heck you got hired anywhere. You sound more like an angry teenager...

Look in a mirror pal. You don't know me. I'm much older than the "angry teenager" that you sound like, and I'm quite versed in the climate sciences. I suggest you quit with all your global warming hype, and yes, the immaturity, spins, etc. etc., and learn more about astrophysical causes and geophysical effects. Anyone that treats the Sun as merely secondary to the Earth's climate doesn't have a clue as to what they are talking about ~ and you have shown that you don't. Period.

[Eagle Eye]

Is that all you have to say, Theodore, in response to my last post where I made a case for global warming? The link you posted to the NASA website says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the sun being responsible for global warming. NOTHING. It is not even mentioned. No body disputes that the sun goes through cycles but a lot of people dispute those cycles are causing global warming. What? You throw up a link here and there about sun cycles and THAT is your proof? That is the weakest, lamest argument I have heard. Especially to use NASA as your source - most NASA scientists believe that global warming is man -made. Seriously - anyone reading this Please click on the link he put up as his "evidence" it is talking about sun cycles - thats it. No one is disputing the sun cycles. It doesn't even MENTION global warming in this link.

All you can say is what you have said over and over and over: "The sun IS THE ONLY cause for global warming." How many time have you said that? You ignore any provoctative and valid points other people make and just repeat yourself and the funny thing about it is you are completely wrong. I have a hard time believing that someone who claims they are an astrometeorologist would have such an outdated and warped view of our climate and the effects the sun does and DOESN'T have on global warming. I think Reincarnated is right: you are an angry teenage boy who is posing as a scientist. No one with the education you claim to have would believe what you are saying. And you even have the audacity to suggest that a great scientific thinker like Stephen Hawking is wrong and YOU are right!!!! That is extremely immature, no mature grown man would insinuate something like that and be so blatantly disrespectful.

I am dissapointed, Theodore, I thought I would get more of a response out of you. I thought I would get something more than a link to a website that doesn't even support what you are arguing, maybe you thought I access the link - I don't know. Perhaps you are just too selfish to accept that humanities actions as a whole are having a profound effect on your environment - if we accept that then we will be forced to change our way of life and we may have to give up a few luxuries and conveniences. WE will have to sacrifice something instead of expecting nature to make all of the sacrifices. God forbid......

What more do you need? Someone to think for you? All your pointless personal comments clearly shows just how weak and silly your argument is in the first place. Stick to the topic. Stop getting personal. You don't know me at all, ok pumpkin?

The SUN is the cause of global warming, global cooling and all that is in-between. The evidence has been there for some time, and I've posted much of it. As for your other comments, there isn't much to comment on since all you've said in your comments above have nothing to do with me.

I've been forecasting advance climate and weather for many years as an astrometeorologist, and do quite well applying long-standing princps of astronomical weather forecasting. I monitor the Sun, and all that is connected to it as it affects the climate. The Sun is the reason for global warming.

Centuries of solar records clearly prove this ~ and global warming has happened on the Earth many, many times in the past ~ BEFORE ANY INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. What part of that do you and the hype-makers not get? You guys are something else, and frankly, don't know anything about the star that is primary to life on Earth, you know, it's called the SUN. Ever see it up there, in the sky?

Here, take a look ~ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Look at the size of the Earth compared to the Sun. Are you telling me that the Sun is not the most important object to the health, life and yes, the climate of the planet Earth? That the Sun is not the cause of global warming? Right, and pink elephants can suspend themselves from a cliff holding just a flower for support. Get real.

There is no such thing as man-made global warming. Those of you who push this myth ~ and it is a myth ~ don't have a clue as to how the climate and weather is forecasted in the first place, and know little about the motions of your own planet, much less the Sun, Moon, and planets in this solar system. It is where you live and your comments show that you haven't a clue about what you are talking about when it comes to your own planet's climate and weather, how it is generated, and most importantly ~ you fail to even monitor the Sun. Just how dense can you be?

The only thing that is "blantantly disrespectful" is you basing your comments as knowledge, when clearly, you are ignorant of that which you comment on. That is "selfish" and silly, and your comments show just how much you have to learn. Be a thinker. Not a stinker. Come correct with knowing what it is that you are talking about and please ~ learn more about that star in the sky. It is the reason for all climate change on Earth.

That star is called THE SUN.

Jeez.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Theodore

[Toxic Flood]

What more do you need? Someone to think for you? All your pointless personal comments clearly shows just how weak and silly your argument is in the first place. Stick to the topic. Stop getting personal. You don't know me at all, ok pumpkin?

The SUN is the cause of global warming, global cooling and all that is in-between. The evidence has been there for some time, and I've posted much of it. As for your other comments, there isn't much to comment on since all you've said in your comments above have nothing to do with me.

I've been forecasting advance climate and weather for many years as an astrometeorologist, and do quite well applying long-standing princps of astronomical weather forecasting. I monitor the Sun, and all that is connected to it as it affects the climate. The Sun is the reason for global warming.

Centuries of solar records clearly prove this ~ and global warming has happened on the Earth many, many times in the past ~ BEFORE ANY INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. What part of that do you and the hype-makers not get? You guys are something else, and frankly, don't know anything about the star that is primary to life on Earth, you know, it's called the SUN. Ever see it up there, in the sky?

Here, take a look ~ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Look at the size of the Earth compared to the Sun. Are you telling me that the Sun is not the most important object to the health, life and yes, the climate of the planet Earth? That the Sun is not the cause of global warming? Right, and pink elephants can suspend themselves from a cliff holding just a flower for support. Get real.

There is no such thing as man-made global warming. Those of you who push this myth ~ and it is a myth ~ don't have a clue as to how the climate and weather is forecasted in the first place, and know little about the motions of your own planet, much less the Sun, Moon, and planets in this solar system. It is where you live and your comments show that you haven't a clue about what you are talking about when it comes to your own planet's climate and weather, how it is generated, and most importantly ~ you fail to even monitor the Sun. Just how dense can you be?

The only thing that is "blantantly disrespectful" is you basing your comments as knowledge, when clearly, you are ignorant of that which you comment on. That is "selfish" and silly, and your comments show just how much you have to learn. Be a thinker. Not a stinker. Come correct with knowing what it is that you are talking about and please ~ learn more about that star in the sky. It is the reason for all climate change on Earth.

That star is called THE SUN.

Jeez.

You are a broken record. You are impossible to debate with because your mind is made up and you will not accept the clear evidence.