The Myth of Global Warming

[Vinny Rafarino]

The Great Global Warming Swindle'
By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist)
March 19, 2007

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

More reality here (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm)


http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

[Tower of Bebel]

The second point is just bullshit.


There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2.We're not talking about naturale increase of CO2 today. Indeed, global warming in the past was not the result of a sudden increase of CO2. Yet this does not prove CO2 cannot cause global warming.

Let's say CO2 can cause higher temperatures, then it will warm the oceans, which leaves us with more CO2. So, I would like some prove. This is very important because if this really is a swindle, then I must find out.


The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. As long as they do not have prove of what cause these wether effects I do not believe it. Clouds do not change by themselves. Today scientists tned to say the level of CO2 is one cause of this change (CO2 can also help the formation rain drops).

[gilhyle]

We had a debate on this ages ago. If I wasnt lazy Id post a link to it. For me the bottom line point was this: the key argument relates to the historical record as to which preceded which - increases in greenhouse gases or tempreture rises. What was clear from that debate is that certain statistical adjustments are made to the data to account for various problems with it (details are on links in that thread, mainly posted by Rosa). You can either believe those statistical techniques are justified or that they distort the data.....its a VERY specialised issue to judge that question.

[mikelepore]

In the 1980s S. Fred Singer wrote a book entitled "Free Market Energy", subtitle "The Way to Benefit Consumers." I haven't read it, but the title makes me wonder where that author comes from politically, or, perhaps, financially.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 22, 2007 02:01 pm--> (gilhyle @ August 22, 2007 02:01 pm) We had a debate on this ages ago. [/b]
I probably started it.


racoon
Yet this does not prove CO2 cannot cause global warming.

You cant prove something that doesn't exist. What you can however prove is that Co2 emissions are not responsible for temperature increases.


Let's say CO2 can cause higher temperatures, then it will warm the oceans, which leaves us with more CO2.

We can "say" anything we want.

And that's exactly what these crack pots have been doing for a couple decades now; without any evidence!


So, I would like some prove. This is very important because if this really is a swindle, then I must find out.

I'm not stopping you from doing some research. This is the internet you know.


As long as they do not have prove of what cause these wether effects I do not believe it.

Because you're much more qualified about atmospheric conditions then the Atmospheric Physicist who wrote the article, right?

Get on track bubby, even the liberals are shying away from the big-bad Co2. I think methane will possibly be the new age doomsday device that will have you cats running for hills again.

[and filling those congressional coffers]

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:07 pm
In the 1980s S. Fred Singer wrote a book entitled "Free Market Energy", subtitle "The Way to Benefit Consumers." I haven't read it, but the title makes me wonder where that author comes from politically, or, perhaps, financially.
I was waiting for someone to start chanting "capitalist propaganda"! I hate to break this to you but only a tiny percentage of all scientists in our generally capitalist world are not capitalists.


Now try refuting the material....If you can.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 22, 2007 11:12 pm

As long as they do not have prove of what cause these wether effects I do not believe it.

Because you're much more qualified about atmospheric conditions then the Atmospheric Physicist who wrote the article, right?

Get on track bubby, even the liberals are shying away from the big-bad Co2. I think methane will possibly be the new age doomsday device that will have you cats running for hills again.

[and filling those congressional coffers]
False conclusion on my personality.

Indeed, therem ight be no real evidence on the statement that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Yet, neither this Atmospheric Physicist who created the article proves his statements.

I know of the "little ice age", I know of the steady rise of temperatures preceding this little ice ages. Hell, I cannot believe that the monks back then were able to succesfully grow grapes on the hill were I live today. But this does not persuade me.

Global warming could be used to fill the pockets of some liberals who say they have a plan to stop all this. Yet if this global warming is not cause by CO2, capitalists will still try to make profit by exploiting the situation.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Racoon
Yet, neither this Atmospheric Physicist who created the article proves his statements.


I'll take his word over yours.


But this does not persuade me.

If real science from Atmospheric Scientists and Climatologists won't persuade you, what will?

Nothing short of a mystical revelation I betcha. :lol:


Global warming could be used to fill the pockets of some liberals who say they have a plan to stop all this.

The myth does fill the pockets of liberal politicians; not could.


Yet if this global warming is not cause by CO2, capitalists will still try to make profit by exploiting the situation.

Capitalists will try to make a profit no matter what, if they didn't then they wouldn't be Capitalists!

[spartan]

i think the worlds warming up but not because of us. no the earths going through a natural cycle just like 4000 years ago when people in southern germany went around either naked or in grass skirts because they were getting mediterrainian weather. the whole lets blame humans for everything arguement was started by capitalist liberals so they could get the left to unite with them. the fact is liberals will blame humans for everything i just hope we on the left dont fall for this shit. dont believe capitalist lies cause i seem to remember no politician would dare even mention climate change and how to tackle it. funny how now they dont stop talking about it or offering alternatives. no dont fall for it comrades this sounds to me like a capitalist sham made up to confuse and divide the global proletarian. look at africa and its inhabitants they cant afford to change to "alternative" ways of doing things no there starving to death as it is. dont believe in the capitalists lies cause if you do you will pay the price. dont subscribe to capitalist/politically correct "truths".

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:20 pm
i think the worlds warming up but not because of us. no the earths going through a natural cycle just like 4000 years ago when people in southern germany went around either naked or in grass skirts because they were getting mediterrainian weather. the whole lets blame humans for everything arguement was started by capitalist liberals so they could get the left to unite with them. the fact is liberals will blame humans for everything i just hope we on the left dont fall for this shit. dont believe capitalist lies cause i seem to remember no politician would dare even mention climate change and how to tackle it. funny how now they dont stop talking about it or offering alternatives. no dont fall for it comrades this sounds to me like a capitalist sham made up to confuse and divide the global proletarian. look at africa and its inhabitants they cant afford to change to "alternative" ways of doing things no there starving to death as it is. dont believe in the capitalists lies cause if you do you will pay the price. dont subscribe to capitalist/politically correct "truths".
11 of the hottest years on record have occured in the last 12 years . Global warming IS man made or at least man influenced . Its true about the natural cycle but we have caused this cycle to speed up by tenfold .

"Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less."

Also if global warming was taken seriously by capitalism businesses would suffer as due to restrictions so why would capitalists encourage this idea ?


Capitalism is the cause of global warming and as i see it it can't be "stopped" but capitalism can't adapt to global warming . Socialism or Communism can . Which only pushes for leftism.

Capitalism actively fights out against alternatives like the electric car .They want to punish the people for problems their fucked up system made . Bin taxes etc


Point is that global warming isn't something capitalists made up , its happening and the only alternative to this enable serious problem is socialism .

[anti_fa01]

11 of the hottest years on record have occured in the last 12 years . Global warming IS man made or at least man influenced . Its true about the natural cycle but we have caused this cycle to speed up by tenfold .

How far back do those records go ;)

[/QUOTE]Capitalism actively fights out against alternatives like the electric car .They want to punish the people for problems their fucked up system made . Bin taxes etc



So there is no money to be made from these "alternatives"

Point is that global warming isn't something capitalists made up , its happening and the only alternative to this enable serious problem is socialism . [QUOTE]

oh sure socialism is going to some how control nature :lol:

[Purple]

Vinny, dont throw away the fancy title of "Atmospheric Scientists" in bold letters as if they are supposed to convince of of some general criteria of excellence in the field...

Lets see what we get if we research the author Mr. S. Fred Singer...

"In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]"

OOOOPS!!!!!


Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ge_.22Expert.22 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer#Climate_Change_.22E xpert.22)

[Coggeh]

How far back do those records go wink.gif
400 years


So there is no money to be made from these "alternatives"
There is , But if their isn't as was the case with the electric car then the alternative is scraped . Central to the profit before people philosophy of capitalism .


oh sure socialism is going to some how control nature
Capitalism and its drive for profit can't adapt to global change , socialism can .

Sarcastic one liners only get you so far.

[Tower of Bebel]

So there is no money to be made from these "alternatives"

Money is made from these alternatives, by keeping them scarce.

[spartan]

yeah but the little ice ages ended in 1850 so you would think by now that we would be getting a little more sunshine. the earth and its weather has had 150 years to get warmer so you would think it would be doing it by now.

[hajduk]

NOBODY I MEAN NOBODY DONT KNOW FOR SHORE HOW NATURE WORKS

[spartan]

theres only one force in this world far superior to humanity and thats nature.

[Coggeh]

The cycle which causes the earth to warm up has been going alot faster then its natural rate ... I think humans may have something to do with that .

[spartan]

its entirely possible coggy but dont you think it suspect that a few years ago this was the most unpopular political issue to politicians and now its the most popular? sounds like a capitalist sham to me.

[Andy Bowden]

Take a look at the graph at the bottom of the OP, in specific the part relating to an alleged correlation between solar activity and earth temperature.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

It follows pretty closely - but only goes to 1970.

This is why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8&mode=related&search=)

As you can see the temperature has risen much more rapidly in the last 20 years, while sunspot activity decreases over the same period.

[Random Precision]

Some links that may be of interest:

Joint science academies' statement (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742)

British Antarctic Survey Statement on the program (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178)

Channel 4's Problem with Science (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/)

Letter of Mr. Nathan Rive and Dr. Christensen (http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html)

Royal Society's response to documentary (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6089)

The Great Global Warming Swindle Analysis (http://climateofdenial.net/?q=node/2)

"The Great Global Warming Swindle": A Critique (http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf)

Temperature rises not caused by the Sun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange)

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2032361,00.html)

Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2026091,00.html)

Scientist threatens legal action over "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html)

The real global warming swindle (http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2355956.ece)

C4's debate on Global Warming Boils Over (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece)

Well, there it is!

[hajduk]

yes Andy i told that before those changes coming from the sun not from us

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by purple
"In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]"

Yup, it's all a big conspiracy. :lol:

Refute the material if you can.

[Vinny Rafarino]

We can do this all day Catbert. :lol:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=5086 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086)

http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shep...-himalayan-glac (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/03/global-warming-myth-exposed-soot-cooking-fires-melting-himalayan-glac)

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015

http://newsbusters.org/node/10604

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/gw_index.html

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965)

[Random Precision]

Vinny:

Please read the links I posted before trying to refute them. Thanks!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:51 am
Vinny:

Please read the links I posted before trying to refute them. Thanks!
Read 'em all before sonny boy.

We're all gonna die!!!


P.S.

I forgot to mention that all of my links are from separate sources where all of your links go back to the very same site.

Nice way to spin "grandeur"..

You should work for Fox News. :lol:

[Random Precision]

Well, let us see what we have here:


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=5086 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086)

I must admit, this is an impressive critique considering that it comes from a 19-year old political science student writing on a conspiracy hotbed blog. But unfortunately, the fallcies of his claims are well documented, just look at the llinks I posted.


http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

Another impressive critique coming from an institution of libertarian economists concerned with balancing environmental solutions against the demands of the free market. Their claims too are meritless.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shep...-himalayan-glac (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/03/global-warming-myth-exposed-soot-cooking-fires-melting-himalayan-glac)

This comes from a right-wing blog. In any case, its claims have little/nothing to do with the matter at hand.


http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

And for good measure, a right-wing think tank with an anti-environmental agenda.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015

A right-wing pundit with no expertise or background on the matter.


http://newsbusters.org/node/10604

THE SAME right-wing blog, reporting THE SAME old shit that has already been quite well debunked, if you'd just read the links I posted. Here's what one of the commenters had to say:


A "progressive" = a liberal = a socialist = a commie in drag =
laughably wrong about life, the universe and everything.

What fun!


http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming...g/gw_index.html (http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/gw_index.html)

The claims of two scientists with no expertise in the field, who use their invented pseudo-science of "aetherometry" to try and disprove global warming. Hey, everything else has already been tried, right?


http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899

Besides what Raccoon said, the article only reports on the OPINIONS of the president of the Czech Republic, who last time I checked has no expertise in either science in general or climatology in particular.


http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs...-myths.html#cc1 (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html#cc1)

Try actually reading that page, Vinny. :lol:

And, last and most certainly least:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965)

Repeats the same discredited claims of your beloved documentary.

[Vinny Rafarino]

:lol:


Haven't we already covered this twice already?

Stop with the "right-wing" conspiracy crapola son; it's very embarrassing for you.

[spartan]

stop falling for capitalist lies! MANMADE global warming dont exist and it probably never will.

[Tower of Bebel]

Do not link to the Brussels journal. It has to many contacts with neofascists and activists against the Islam.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:00 am
activists against the Islam.
There's one good thing about them.

[Andy Bowden]

Stop with the "right-wing" conspiracy crapola son; it's very embarrassing for you.

Presumably there must be a conspiracy of some form though to support man-made global warming theories though? How else could they have convinced so many governments that it exists?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 23, 2007 11:22 am
Presumably there must be a conspiracy of some form though to support man-made global warming theories though? How else could they have convinced so many governments that it exists?
You can presume whatever you want, that doesn't make it fact.

The originators of the Global Warming myth were not affiliated with any political platform at all.

Once it showed their data was over 300 percent off (a decade later) , it was far to late to "back out" There were too many lobbyists giving their full support and full pockets to existing campaigns and business ventures.

Everybody had already assumed the results were going to turn out favourably; they were wrong.

What these posters here fail to realise is that the data compiled by some of these source s are merely doing that: compiling the data. They did not fund the research, perform the research, or do anything else to "enhance" the data.

They simply gathered it.

Period.

Whining about the sources merely shows us all what they have in their arsenal: Nothing.

[Random Precision]

Read 'em all before sonny boy.

We're all gonna die!!!

Actually, they all deal DIRECTLY with the claims made by your beloved "documentary". We wouldn't still be discussing this if you had actually read them.


P.S.

I forgot to mention that all of my links are from separate sources

Yes, these seperate sources consist of none less than five right wing think-tanks, blogs and pundits with no expertise on the issue and anti-envirnomental agendas, which for some reason you prefer to trust above the word of those who actually are experts on the subject. There's also one 19-year old political science student repeating the same discredited claims, one site that disproves global warming with its creators' own invented pseudo-science, one page that does nothing more than trot out the same old lies, one journal with connections to neo-fascists that does nothing more than report the opinions of another person with no credentials or expertise in the area, and one page that actually backs up what I and all reasonable people have been saying!

I might be more concerned if I didn't think that those sources were merely the top results when you googled "global warming myth", or some permutation.


where all of your links go back to the very same site.

Try looking at more than just the top three or four, Vinny.


Nice way to spin "grandeur"..

You should work for Fox News.

I find this incredibly funny in a situation where you are the one spouting discredited right-wing lies.

[Andy Bowden]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 23, 2007 06:35 pm
You can presume whatever you want, that doesn't make it fact.

Well surely it must be a fact, that a conspiracy of some level exists; how else would such a global warming lobby that you describe keep itself in the clover?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by cat
I find this incredibly funny in a situation where you are the one spouting discredited right-wing lies.

Yup.."right wing lies".

Better start building your arc Noah, armageddon is at hand. :o


Yes, these seperate sources consist of none less than five right wing think-tanks, blogs and pundits with no expertise on the issue and anti-envirnomental agendas, which for some reason you prefer to trust above the word of those who actually are experts on the subject. There's also one 19-year old political science studeny repeating the same discredited claims, one site that disproves global warming with its creators' own invented pseudo-science, one page that does nothing more than trot out the same old lies, one journal with connections to neo-fascists that does nothing more than report the opinions of another person with no credentials or expertise in the area, and one page that actually backs up what I and all reasonable people have been saying!

You sound like a broken record.

This is now the fourth time you've stated it. Put away your turntable, toss out your junk-science and get on the right ship, jack.


I might be more concerned if I didn't think that those sources were merely the top results when you googled "global warming myth", or some permutation.

And?

Are you saying that there's a global right wing conspiracy that directs all Google traffic to sites controlled by the right wing from a triple dog secret lair under the sea?
:lol:

Considering your willingness to eat this global warming crap hook, line and sinker, I wouldn't be shocked at all if you did think it.

Look pal, the moon landing was also real and JFK was indeed whacked out by Oswald.


ry looking at more than just the top three or four, Vinny.


Why?

They all say the same crap. That's why I didn't bother to link multiple articles in my original post.

That's the job of the junk-science disciple; and it was right on cue. ;)


I find this incredibly funny in a situation where you are the one spouting discredited right-wing lies.

There's five.


Number six comes with a free pen.

[Random Precision]

Vinny:

I don't know about you, but I tend to think the "junk science disciples" are the ones who prefer the word of right-wing ideologues and pseudoscientists over the word of the climatology experts who have actually done work in that field. They have no more case than the woo-woos who believe that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy and the moon landing was faked, to use your examples.

Come up with some actual SCIENTIFIC opinion, from experts with credentials on the subject that says global warming is not man-made, that has not already been extensively refuted (like your foul-mouthed atmospheric physicist) and we'll have something to discuss. Until then, I'll leave you alone with your conspiracy theories. To discredit near-unanimous scientific opinion, you'll have to do more than call it "crap" and start with the ad hominem attacks.

Have a nice day!

[Vinny Rafarino]

climatology experts who have actually done work in that field.

Then it's agreed you no longer believe in the "global warming" prophecy of doom.

Nice to have you on board!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The 'global warming hoax' cr*p was batted out of the park here at RevLeft several months ago:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64565

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66216

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65423

Its latest debunking can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=lIjGynF4qkE

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa
The 'global warming hoax' cr*p was batted out of the park here at RevLeft several months ago:


Not according to the majority of Climatologists and Atmospheric Physicists.

Sorry Rosa, that one went foul by at least 20 feet.

[Andy Bowden]

Not according to the majority of Climatologists and Atmospheric Physicists.

Source?

[RHIZOMES]

Man, the more posts I see from Vinny, the more he resembles a right-wing hack who uses ad hominem attacks to prove his "point" (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc).


Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:38 pm
stop falling for capitalist lies! MANMADE global warming dont exist and it probably never will.
Why would capitalists want to make up something that severely limits their right to pollute?

[Comrade Rage]

Vinny:

I suppose the polar bears up north starving because they can&#39;t get on an ice floe to catch fish don&#39;t exist to you. <_<

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 24, 2007 12:05 am--> (The Red Ghost &#064; August 24, 2007 12:05 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:38 pm
stop falling for capitalist lies&#33; MANMADE global warming dont exist and it probably never will.
Why would capitalists want to make up something that severely limits their right to pollute?[/b]
You know this something I&#39;ve always found odd about the whole idea of the "capitalist global warming conspiracy", the fact that capitalists would lose a tremendous amount of money by trying to switch to alternatives. Oil for example would be extremely costly to switch from, not just because it&#39;s fuel, but the amount of industries that are dependent on oil byproducts is immense. All your chemicals, plastics etc. require oil to be produced, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that would be lost by switching to some alternative. So why the hell would the capitalists do something that is essentially like shooting themselves in the foot for nothing?

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by ComradeR+August 24, 2007 07:26 am--> (ComradeR @ August 24, 2007 07:26 am)
Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 12:05 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 05:38 pm
stop falling for capitalist lies&#33; MANMADE global warming dont exist and it probably never will.
Why would capitalists want to make up something that severely limits their right to pollute?
You know this something I&#39;ve always found odd about the whole idea of the "capitalist global warming conspiracy", the fact that capitalists would lose a tremendous amount of money by trying to switch to alternatives. Oil for example would be extremely costly to switch from, not just because it&#39;s fuel, but the amount of industries that are dependent on oil byproducts is immense. All your chemicals, plastics etc. require oil to be produced, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that would be lost by switching to some alternative. So why the hell would the capitalists do something that is essentially like shooting themselves in the foot for nothing? [/b]
Exactly&#33;

If anything, global warming would be a "communist global warming conspiracy" as it demonstrates one of the key reasons why capitalism is unsustainable.

[Tower of Bebel]

Man, the more posts I see from Vinny, the more he resembles a right-wing hack who uses ad hominem attacks to prove his "point" (Bill O&#39;Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc). I wouldn&#39;t say he resembles a right-wing hack, yet his post tell us more about his personality then about the myth of global warming.

[spartan]

yeah but remember capitalits say that oil is running out so maybe this global warming shit is their way of forcing us to alternative fuels without them getting the blame for everything that will go wrong.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:20 pm
yeah but remember capitalits say that oil is running out so maybe this global warming shit is their way of forcing us to alternative fuels without them getting the blame for everything that will go wrong.
Somehow i think you are missing the point, the only people that will be hurt by a switch to alternatives is the bourgeoisie as it cuts into their wealth by switching over, so therefor who is this elaborate ruse for? themselves?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:20 pm
yeah but remember capitalits say that oil is running out so maybe this global warming shit is their way of forcing us to alternative fuels without them getting the blame for everything that will go wrong.
You do not need a conspiracy to switch to alternatives. When start develloping alternatives you only need commercials to make people switch to the alternative energy.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+August 23, 2007 01:58 pm--> (Andy Bowden @ August 23, 2007 01:58 pm) Source? [/b]
Reality as it exists on this planet.



Originally posted by muslim [email protected]
Man, the more posts I see from Vinny, the more he resembles a right-wing hack who uses ad hominem attacks to prove his "point" (Bill O&#39;Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc).

And all this coming from a nut job that thinks blowing up children is cool as long as it&#39;s in the name of Allah.

That&#39;s rich. :lol:


crummy comrade
suppose the polar bears up north starving because they can&#39;t get on an ice floe to catch fish don&#39;t exist to you. dry.gif

Isn&#39;t it past your bed time son?

[RHIZOMES]

And all this coming from a nut job that thinks blowing up children is cool as long as it&#39;s in the name of Allah.

I never said "In the name of Allah". it was in the name of anti-Israeli imperialism. My logic was that since other such revolutionary/independence groups such as the ANC and Shining Path had largely chosen civilian targets, I didn&#39;t see why these groups couldn&#39;t either. You&#39;re assuming because I&#39;m a Muslim, that means I think suicide bombing is a religiously-sound way to get into the Muslim concept of heaven (In before "Heaven doesn&#39;t exist lol") or that it&#39;s a very Muslim thing to do (In before "Yes it is"), which in my opinion it isn&#39;t. And I revised that position, as I realized as Malte pointed out, it does divide the working class when there should be solidarity.

But that isn&#39;t the point of this thread. You like using ad hominem attacks to prove your point.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You like using ad hominem attacks to prove your point.


As opposed to using bombs to blow up children?

Jerkoff.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 24, 2007 08:56 pm

You like using ad hominem attacks to prove your point.


As opposed to using bombs to blow up children?

Jerkoff.
<_<

[Andy Bowden]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 24, 2007 05:10 pm

Reality as it exists on this planet.

The source for most climate scientists and atmospheric physicists not believing in climate change is "reality as it exists on this planet"?

Care to elaborate, considering almost every scientific institution in the developed world believes in man made global warming? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

Any polls of climate scientists done, institutions of climate scientists or atmospheric physicists declaring global warming is a fraud etc?

[spartan]

modern day "scientists" have a vested intrest in man made global warming being a reality for it will be there information and expertise that will be needed for answers and alternative fuels etc. and remember modern day so called scientists are in the pay of the capitalists i tyhought you all knew that funny how when it suits you scientists are the most believable people on earth.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:41 pm
modern day "scientists" have a vested intrest in man made global warming being a reality for it will be there information and expertise that will be needed for answers and alternative fuels etc. and remember modern day so called scientists are in the pay of the capitalists

Now that is a claim that clearly needs evidence behind it. PROOF?&#33;


i tyhought you all knew that funny how when it suits you scientists are the most believable people on earth.

We believe the scientists because THEY are the only ones who know what they&#39;re talking about here.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:41 pm
modern day "scientists" have a vested intrest in man made global warming being a reality for it will be there information and expertise that will be needed for answers and alternative fuels etc. and remember modern day so called scientists are in the pay of the capitalists i tyhought you all knew that funny how when it suits you scientists are the most believable people on earth.
No. Investigation on alternatives are in the hands of capitalists (like the oil industry for example). but many of the scientists themselves are not sock puppets of capitalists. Much science is also done by universities.

[spartan]

scientists even in universaties are funded by.....yep you guessed it rich people&#33;&#33;&#33; so quite naturally scientists funded by rich people carry out their orders. thought most of you would have smartened up to this long ago but you still want to cling on to your capitalist propaganda stories :D bad times bad times.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:43 pm
scientists even in universaties are funded by.....rich people&#33; so quite naturally scientists funded by rich people carry out their orders. thought most of you would have smartened up to this long ago but you still want to cling on to your capitalist propaganda stories :D
Where&#39;s the proof that the bourgeoisie have invented global warming? And where&#39;s the proof that they order the scientists at universities to forge their results to make manmade global warming seem like it&#39;s real?

There is none.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 24, 2007 08:25 am--> (The Red Ghost &#064; August 24, 2007 08:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:26 am

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 24, 2007 12:05 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 05:38 pm
stop falling for capitalist lies&#33; MANMADE global warming dont exist and it probably never will.
Why would capitalists want to make up something that severely limits their right to pollute?
You know this something I&#39;ve always found odd about the whole idea of the "capitalist global warming conspiracy", the fact that capitalists would lose a tremendous amount of money by trying to switch to alternatives. Oil for example would be extremely costly to switch from, not just because it&#39;s fuel, but the amount of industries that are dependent on oil byproducts is immense. All your chemicals, plastics etc. require oil to be produced, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that would be lost by switching to some alternative. So why the hell would the capitalists do something that is essentially like shooting themselves in the foot for nothing?
Exactly&#33;

If anything, global warming would be a "communist global warming conspiracy" as it demonstrates one of the key reasons why capitalism is unsustainable. [/b]
I noticed spartan ignored these points.

Spartan, what *would* the capitalists have to gain from losing money?

[Tower of Bebel]

The big bourgeois lie is that they tell us they will have developed the solution within several months or years. Yet they already said this years ago.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:41 pm
The big bourgeois lie is that they tell us they will have developed the solution within several months or years. Yet they already said this years ago.
If the world was under communism right now, we would&#39;ve developed an alternative already. Since there wouldn&#39;t be any corporations holding us back, imho.

[spartan]

it isnt taking a long time they have probably already found a "solution" to their "problem" they are just holding it back playing games waiting for the right moment when every single idiot accepts their lies. also by appearing to lose money they can gain the sympathy of the majority of people by saying "look we have suffered as well" it looks like the scoundrels are succeeding seeing how many of you support this obvious crap. honestly i thought you lot said dont subscribe to popular opinion fed by the mainstream media well it seems you lot contradict yourselves. you are all losing your principles.

[Tower of Bebel]

also by appearing to lose money they can gain the sympathy of the majority of people by saying "look we have suffered as well" it looks like the scoundrels are succeeding seeing how many of you support this obvious crap.

You wont get more support when you also have to deal with a certain problem. When people are hit worse they will actually turn against those who also lost some of their fortune, but have more than enough left to survive.
Only when the bourgeoisie pays for most damage caused by a certain castrophy you can aspect the workers to support the bourgeoisie. But when will the bourgeoisie do this? Only if it is in their intrest.

Next arguement please.

You say you cannot trust both the media and the scientists as this is a capitalist system and both institutions are funded by the bourgeoisie. This way of thinking would make you believe that there were really nuclear bombs in Iraq, if you were living on European continent (as the European media never believed there were bombs to be found in Iraq, and professionals confirmed this).

[spartan]

one thing at first the pro us media of britain never said that there was or was not any nuclear weapons in iraq. they just report what their sources tell them ie what the higher ups feed them. though it is generally accepted that there are no nuclear weapons in iraq the media wont say that in as many words because of political correctness. anyway there is still time for the us to plant some sort of nuclear device in iraq and claim it to be iraqi or worse iranian :D never mind the fact that it will have the stars and stripes all over it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by catbert
We believe the scientists because THEY are the only ones who know what they&#39;re talking about here.

There&#39;s plenty of scientists against "impending mystical doom" to choose from; here&#39;s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics) one list.

I personally don&#39;t like wikipedia but I doubt even they can fuck up a simple list.

Since I&#39;m here, let&#39;s not forget these:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia&#39;s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of &#39;Climate Change 2001,&#39; Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

[Random Precision]

How impressive, a list of 50 or so scientists who doubt man-made global warming. Like that changes anything.

Keep digging, Vinny.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:39 pm
How impressive, a list of 50 or so scientists who doubt man-made global warming. Like that changes anything.

Keep digging, Vinny.
Why?

Whether it be 50 or 1000; you will never face reality until the sky falls on your head&#33;

Luckily for you it seems you will be able to take your ignorance all the way to the grave.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 27, 2007 09:11 pm
Why?

Whether it be 50 or 1000; you will never face reality until the sky falls on your head&#33;

Luckily for you it seems you will be able to take your ignorance all the way to the grave.
Yawn.

Wake me up when there&#39;s no longer near-unamimous acceptance of anthropogenic global warming in the scientific community. Oh, and keep digging in the meantime.

[Tower of Bebel]

Yes, we all know that there are scientists who confirm CO2 causes the rise of temperatures, and yes there are scientists who refute such a thing. And you have Spartan saying we mustn&#39;t trust any scientist, as we live in a capitalist society. Can we go on now?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by racoon
And you have Spartan saying we mustn&#39;t trust any scientist, as we live in a capitalist society

Oh dear, I thought my mind control ray was still a secret.


Can we go on now?

Go on to what?

More predictions of the reckoning? :lol:

[Tower of Bebel]

It seems like the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the Midieval Warming Periode (MWP) are contested because there isn&#39;t anough supporting date. Just like the discussion on Global Warming.

What is the relevance of this thread?

[Vinny Rafarino]

What is the relevance of this thread?


Relevance to what topic? Global Warming?

Oh yeah, the title says "the myth of Global warming".

Get with the times turbo.

[spartan]

in early medieval times there are records showing that there were vineyards in yorkshire and the baltic&#33; because the conditions were so warm that it was possible for this. of course the little ice ages came which ended this practise but the little ice ages ended in 1850 and its only since the 90,s i think that new vineyards have appeared again in yorkshire. though we have had 150 years to warm up.

[MarxSchmarx]

Oh dear, I thought my mind control ray was still a secret.

???



Wake me up when there&#39;s no longer near-unamimous acceptance of anthropogenic global warming in the scientific community. Oh, and keep digging in the meantime.

I agree. A single swallow does not a spring make. I respect the earnestness of the critiques, but the fact is you&#39;ll always find someone of some moderate repute to criticize a theory.

On some level, though, you do have to address the question of why their views aren&#39;t much, much more widely shared. And it isn&#39;t always because they are grand visionaries ahead of their time.

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem with the critics of global warming is that they&#39;re yet to come up with plausible alternative models for what&#39;s going on. Given that most critics concede global warming IS going on, they are charged with coming up with an alternative explanation to anthropogenic change, rather than solely quibbling with the mainstream models that routinely pass peer-review.

[MarxSchmarx]

Hey I&#39;ve got a question for you global warming skeptics:

What if you&#39;re wrong?

[spartan]

hey MarxSchmarx what if you are wrong?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 23, 2007 03:53 pm
Take a look at the graph at the bottom of the OP, in specific the part relating to an alleged correlation between solar activity and earth temperature.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

It follows pretty closely - but only goes to 1970.

This is why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8&mode=related&search=)

As you can see the temperature has risen much more rapidly in the last 20 years, while sunspot activity decreases over the same period.
MARXSCHMARKS
Andy give you the answer

SUN GIVE THOSE CHANGES

[Tower of Bebel]

Hadjuk, the first graphic is false.

[Andy Bowden]

Hajduk, click on the link, its a you tube video. It shows the scientists who put created the graph say that within the last ten years global warming has increased while sunspot activity has decreased.

In other words, sunspot activity cannot be responsible for global warming.

[ComradeR]

Also one should not forget how the effects of global dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) has helped to mask the effects of global warming.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 03, 2007 05:44 pm
Hajduk, click on the link, its a you tube video. It shows the scientists who put created the graph say that within the last ten years global warming has increased while sunspot activity has decreased.

In other words, sunspot activity cannot be responsible for global warming.
Andy i think that those sunspots are connected with temperature changes.
If you make research i will bet that sunspots, no matter of decreasing, do this changes.
You pay attetion to me on them so just make better research and you will find something i will bet on that.Becouse scientist doesnt know the real influence sunspots do on earth,right?During this summer my friend told me (and he is not scientist) "aaah this solar winds are so hot",and he says that just like everyone else when talk about weather,but for me was relevation,yes how did i not think about this before,it is the sun i have hard fealing that is the sunspots who make those changes.Guys just make research on sunspots and i can bet on that that you will find something.Those so called scientist are not shure at all about what happening.
I believe in you guys.

[MarxSchmarx]

hey MarxSchmarx what if you are wrong?

Then we all would have taken some sensible precautions, made long-needed changes in our energy use, stuck it to big oil, big coal, and right-wing schmucks, and built a greener, more livable world in the process. I don&#39;t think this sounds very dreadful.

So, let me try again, what if YOU&#39;RE wrong?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by hajduk+September 04, 2007 12:43 pm--> (hajduk @ September 04, 2007 12:43 pm)
Andy [email protected] 03, 2007 05:44 pm
Hajduk, click on the link, its a you tube video. It shows the scientists who put created the graph say that within the last ten years global warming has increased while sunspot activity has decreased.

In other words, sunspot activity cannot be responsible for global warming.
Andy i think that those sunspots are connected with temperature changes.
If you make research i will bet that sunspots, no matter of decreasing, do this changes.
You pay attetion to me on them so just make better research and you will find something i will bet on that.Becouse scientist doesnt know the real influence sunspots do on earth,right?During this summer my friend told me (and he is not scientist) "aaah this solar winds are so hot",and he says that just like everyone else when talk about weather,but for me was relevation,yes how did i not think about this before,it is the sun i have hard fealing that is the sunspots who make those changes.Guys just make research on sunspots and i can bet on that that you will find something.Those so called scientist are not shure at all about what happening.
I believe in you guys. [/b]
Sun spots have an effect on global temperature changes, but there is no direct evidence of any connection with global warming itself.

[socialistfuture]

only the extreme rightwing and oil companies cupport climate skeptic positions where i live. and even then they say climate change is happening but try to pretend industrial activity isnt causing any of it. even the right wing party had to give in and pretent they were aware of it like bush