Who is behind climate change deniers?

reply to post by manson_322

Same to you, Manson. There is no science in any of that. It's taking a few facts and spinning it into hysteria. OMG, the CO2 from american cars is more than four countries!! Have you ever noticed that there are a number of STATES in the US that are larger than four European countries combined?

More importantly, though, you can go on about CO2 all you want. But it's pointless until there is SCIENCE proving that CO2 has anything to do with anything. And that doesn't exist. What does exist is clear data showing that CO2, even if it is a "dangerous greenhouse gas" is neither terribly powerful in that regard, (while it is essential for say, oxygen, which I am rather fond of,) nor does man-made CO2 even comprise ONE PERCENT of all atmospheric greenhouse gases. You'd know that, if you were interested in science, and not pushing your religion.

That's all Ive got to give to that. The rest of those pieces are such trash that anyone who has even passing familiarity with how the world works should dismiss them out of hand.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


My friend actually purchases huge tanks of C02 gas to help his flowers grow larger and have more vibrant colour. His vegetables also have a greater yield when grown in a C02-rich environment.

By the time the plants are done with their dose of gas, the air is pure and sweet in hardly more than a few hours. And his greenhouse is 2000 square feet.

I buy all of my vegetables from him. Earth is C02 deficient.

reply to post by manson_322


Huum, I find it strange that the earth has gone through global warming dozens of times over the past 2-3 billion years. Does that mean somebody from the USA was driving their SUV`s during those periods? Wow, maybe I missed it, did they have one on display that they dug up looking for fossils?

Understand something manson, yes, we do add some Co2 to the atmosphere, and yes it doesn`t help things any. If I was to go by your facts, then what I stated above has just as much merit then as your facts. Understand, it`s a natural part of the earth changes that take place over the centuries.

If I am wrong. then how do you explain that the other planets in our solar system are showing a rise in temperature over the last few years just like earth? Are there people on those planets driving SUV`s causing a rise in Co2? These planets are also showing signs of being brighter then normal(maybe it`s those headlights). Why do people fear things that are a normal part of evolution? Here, check out this link.




www.livescience.com...



[edit on 4-8-2008 by FiatLux]

I think you will find that there has been no global warming in the 21st Century

www.newstatesman.com...


This is an inconvenient fact and has led to the re-branding of global warming to "climate change" (which in itself was a re-packaging of "the greenhouse effect"

It is funny how every time the public shuns the theory it is re-branded under a different moniker - underlining the tenuous validity of said theory to begin with


Re-brand this into a well known phrase or saying - cards/ house of/ collapse!

Originally posted by Demandred


so i guess i can tell the reef to stop accepting money from lobby groups and to stop pretending its dying, the water isnt really warming, its just the actual reef being pedantic or perhaps its trying to destroy the global econemy?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

oversimplification, appeal to emotion, sweeping arguments. don't even get me started on Koalas. err d'uh? causality just took a leap out of the window i guess.

alright, i think i charakterised the style in my previous posts. anyway, since i have the links and since i'm in the mood today, i'll show you something that doesn't require esoteric, unproven assumptions, namely that an ever so slight increase in water temp will suddenly kill of coral reefs. more importantly, this particular mechanism does in fact lend itself to expermental verification, something unheard of in the realm of climate change errr science....

exhitbit 1:

Originally posted by loam

Sunscreen is ‘killing coral’

The sudden death of coral reefs around the world may be due to chemicals in sunscreen, a new study has revealed.

The bleaching and subsequent demise of coral reefs was thought until recently to be caused by some unexplained effect of global warming. But a study by the Marche Polytechnic University, in Italy, has found that ingredients commonly used in sunscreen can awaken dormant viruses in the algae that live inside reef-building coral species.

The study revealed that four chemicals (benzophenone, a paraben preservative, cinnamate and a camphor derivative) used as preservatives and as UV filters in sunscreens “caused the rapid and complete bleaching of hard corals, even at extremely low concentrations”.


More...

I find it fascinating that it isn't the chemicals themselves that cause the damage, but their ability to "trigger rampant reproduction" of normally dormant viruses.

*snip*

the original thread can be dound here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


it's clear cut, oh wait - there's a consenus, don't anyone dare deny it. poor show folks, very poor. i'm probably a nut for calling sunblocker dangerous, seeing as it does inhibit Vitamin D production while letting UV-A through, which raises your odds of cancer - and exhibitng aforementioned toxicity in sea life, but i digress.

are you willing to let go sunblocker for justified environmental reasons once 'Americans' (is Canada on your hit list, too? just wondering - what about Mexico?) can no longer afford their cars? i bet not, because as previously said, Americans (everyone ?) no longer being able to do much if anything appears to be the real driving reason for all this baloney. btw. i have another advice for you, mind your own business and stop whining over what eevil people somewhere on the planet are doing. CO2 as pullution? by that standard water is toxic, too.

PS: nice point farm, manson, goes to show that token economies, like the real deal are rewarding the wrong people


[edit on 2008.8.4 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

can you prove what you post more elaborately

I really think that you being the original poster should in some way provide some semblance of proof that Global Warming/Climate Change is "man-made", "particularly western nations".

The guy in charge of the Weather Channel states the opposite and is suing Al Gore for giving erroneous information to a world desperate for solutions.

Fact is, there have been and will continue to be cyclical climate changes throughout the history of the earth caused by a variety of things from solar activity to volcanic eruptions.

My favorite reason of course is bovine flatulence depleting the ozone. Maybe the dinosaurs farted their way to extinction...

[edit on 8/4/2008 by bios]

reply to post by bios


I`m with you about the OP being the one to show the proof.


Lol, I like that one about the methane. (lights up cigarette and(((((((BOOOOOM))))))))

reply to post by manson_322
Let's look at what few facts this has:

Now, from cdiac.ornl.gov...
Ice core study for mean air age of 1969 (latest data given) was 323.2ppm
Ice core study for mean age of 1869 (100 yrs earlier) was 284.7ppm
323.2 / 284.7 = 1.125 (rounded up), which is 112.5%, which means a 12.5% increase.

If we decide to use another site, which I found to be biased in favor of Global Warming hysteria (based partially on the large type font, the alarmist headline, and the pictures of cute cuddly carnivorous man-eating polar bears at the top of the page), we find this:

Interestingly enough, this matches with the previously mentioned wikipedia article that the OP rejected out of hand:

I can only suppose that Wiki had some sort of a major server malfunction and managed to get a fact in there somehow. Maybe it was the filters?[/sarcasm]

Anyway, if we accept the 387ppm level for 2008, and use the previously-linked ice core data for the year 1908, we find a CO2 level of 310.5ppm.
387 / 310.5 = 1.246, which is 124.6%, which is a 24.6% increase. Still a decent increase, but NOT 30%! Even if we accept rounding, the only way 24.6 could be rounded is if the rounding was done to the nearest 10% (an abnormally high and therefore inaccurate rounding interval) and if the results were incorrectly rounded up instead of down.

(Interestingly enough, the alarmist site uses an even higher figure of 40% increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution (no year given). Ah, well, we can rebut that later in another post.)

This is an inaccuracy in the article submitted, based on scientific data from ice core samples (the only way we have of knowing historic CO2 levels), and from an obviously pro-GW biased site, corroborated by a popular site.

The rest of the referenced article contains few facts, save the amount of CO2 produced by burning a gallon of gasoline, and a total from "popular light trucks". I can only assume that this is based on the estimated fuel mileage for the vehicles (which even the EPA states is for comparison only), the estimated average mileage driven for all private automobiles, and the number of these particular automobiles sold per year. I notice that even the referenced vehicles are not specified, so we do not know if the Dodge Dakota, Ford Ranger, Chevy S-10, Dodge Ram, Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra, Toyota 4Runner, etc. are included or not.

Now, to finish, this summary

see , as the above source , the american people with their inefficient polluting SUV garbage are responsible for the deaths happening in third world countries , THEREBY BY DENYING GLOBAL WARMING , YOU NOT ONLY SUPPORT BIG OIL AND NWO , YOU ALSO DENY THE HOLOCAUST YOU(USA/WEST) HAVE COMMITTED ON ECOLOGY OF THE WORLD AND THE DEATHS YOU HAVE CAUSED DUE TO DISASTERS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING

assumes many things. It assumes that Americans are the ones driving all SUVs, that the deaths in third-world countries would not happen if Global Warming did not exist, and that everyone who does not believe this (obvious) opinion and disproven article is somehow being paid or otherwise supported by oil companies and those behind (a still unproven but possible) New World Order.

What all this has to do with denying the Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews before WWII (documented fact), I have not yet figured out. Anyone have any ideas how that relationship works?

TheRedneck
P.S. to the OP: This is an example of a scientific rebuttal. Feel free to emulate it.

Originally posted by manson_322
see , as the above source , the american people with their inefficient polluting SUV garbage are responsible for the deaths happening in third world countries , THEREBY BY DENYING GLOBAL WARMING , YOU NOT ONLY SUPPORT BIG OIL AND NWO , YOU ALSO DENY THE HOLOCAUST YOU(USA/WEST) HAVE COMMITTED ON ECOLOGY OF THE WORLD AND THE DEATHS YOU HAVE CAUSED DUE TO DISASTERS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING

I've never heard such a bunch of crap in all my life. You can't seriously be linking all the above topics in capital letters (bad form at best - cap tard at worse)
How in the hell is global warming connected to the holocaust?!? Have you lost your mind?
The loud gurgling flushing sound we all are hearing right now is your credibility swirling right down the old crapper.

don't forget to wipe...

[edit on 8/5/2008 by bios]

How in the hell is global warming connected to the holocaust?!? Have you lost your mind? The loud gurgling flushing sound we all are hearing right now is your credibility swirling right down the old crapper.

seems you are not aware , what man made global warming can do and denying it is nothing less than denying the holocaust...

Free Market Fundamentalists deny global warming. Their denial is akin to the denial of holocaust by the current Iranian President Ahmadinejad. These free market fundamentalists would make you believe that global warming is a secret KGB program hatched by the communists to get rid of capitalistic countries. If you are following my blog, you will understand why they think of this program as a communist program (lack of neurological evolution). Unlike their propaganda, global warming warning is not an anti-business strategy. Rather, it is an attempt to save the humankind, and also businesses, from the impending disaster. As a person of Indian origin or a person living in India, we should be able to understand what global warming is doing to India and what more can we expect. The influx of several millions of Bangladeshi immigrants is going to unsettle the social harmony and stability inside the country. A country, which is already overcrowded, is going to get bombarded with several millions sooner than later. It is affecting Indians already in a devastating way. We cannot stop this from happening at this stage but we can minimize it as much as possible. An education about the impact of global warming and the steps we can take to minimize its effects is absolutely essential. The warning should be part of human consciousness. This situation can be handled in two ways. Saner approach of normal people or insane denials of less evolved free market fundamentalists. Depending on your “nature”, you can take one of the two approaches.
jagadguru.in...

as usual americans are free market fundamentalists , who deny Global warming
disgusting USA global warming holocaust deniers

The Holocaust involved a genocide. We are most certainly heading towards genocide. But, as you say, the perpetrators and the victims are nearly one and the same. The term genocide being used to describe climate change is not new. The Stern report defines a 3 degree rise in temperatures as The Economics of Genocide.

three hundred and fifty million environmental refugees. Third world peoples starving due to drought.

What does it matter how we talk about it? How will we deal with it in 30 years when knew full well that it would happen?

[edit on 5-8-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 5-8-2008 by manson_322]

reply to post by manson_322


"seems you are not aware , what man made global warming can do and denying it is nothing less than denying the holocaust...

as usual americans are free market fundamentalists , who deny Global warming
disgusting USA global warming holocaust deniers"

This post is a lot like this post:

""wow, this is amazing .... , the scepticism of climate change deniers ,
reminds people of the nazi holocoust deniers

look at USA: see , as the above source , the american people with their inefficient polluting SUV garbage are responsible for the deaths happening in third world countries , THEREBY BY DENYING GLOBAL WARMING , YOU NOT ONLY SUPPORT BIG OIL AND NWO , YOU ALSO DENY THE HOLOCAUST YOU(USA/WEST) HAVE COMMITTED ON ECOLOGY OF THE WORLD AND THE DEATHS YOU HAVE CAUSED DUE TO DISASTERS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING"


Got anything new to say?

Fact is, there have been and will continue to be cyclical climate changes throughout the history of the earth caused by a variety of things from solar activity to volcanic eruptions.

solar activity reasoning for global warming has been debunked ...

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.

Measurements of solar activity

This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
Other studies on solar influence on climate

This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming:

* Solanki 2008 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades".
* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
* Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
* Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
* Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
* Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
* Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
* Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
* Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
* Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
* Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
* Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
www.skepticalscience.com...

The guy in charge of the Weather Channel states the opposite and is suing Al Gore for giving erroneous information to a world desperate for solutions.

hmmm read this Al Gore has made some errors but many of his revelations are correct :

It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics.
What Al got right

Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.

Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.

Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.

Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.
What Al got wrong

Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions. More on Dr Thompson's thermometer...
www.skepticalscience.com...

[edit on 5-8-2008 by manson_322]

Originally posted by manson_322



seems you are not aware , what man made global warming can do and denying it is nothing less than denying the holocaust...
...

three hundred and fifty million environmental refugees. Third world peoples starving due to drought.

note that if the subject wasn't so depressing, more smilies would have been in order. people were starving way before GW was even a term, the will continue starving as long as there are countries ruled by incompetent, resource (and soul-) selling dictators who send their thugs to quell and dissent - and any initiative, too - as long as societies are ravaged by war and whenever societies are inacpable of identifying their problems or adhering to value systems which favor opression over adaption.

oh and before i forget it, as long as wackos keep promoting biofuels made from food crops, using

*drumroll*

global warming

as an excuse. goes t show that there's more than just one sucker born every minute. the net 'gain' in terms of greenhoouse gas reduction is neutral, according to official sources



Biofuel related N2O emissions rendered the whole deal moot, if it wasn't for land use and the associated food shortage


who would have thought. maybe you should be ashamed of yourself if you previously supported fuel derived from food crops. what about my link on coral killing sunscreen, btw? simply ignored. can't be






that said, let me make up some contrived scenario with (coincidential?) superficial similarities:

your blatant agenda and dishonesty is harming, no wait, polluting the esoteric plane and i demand that, for the sake of maintaining the capability of subconcious astral projection, which is vital for maintaining a harmonius relationship among human beings, everyone will be limited to 100 characters (not words or syllables, mind you) of hatemail per day

if you don't believe me you're an astral plane denier who only wishes to foment discontent and isolation among human beings who must therefore pay an excessive character tax of 1c /char that's over the limit*. so, get your wallet ready if you wish to continue!


*doesn't apply to me, because Al Gore doesn't conserve energy either and this would be my racket.

Originally posted by manson_322

solar activity reasoning for global warming has been debunked ...

Newsflash: Sun doesn't warm Earth anyone who dares to say otherwise is a Light Ray Denier ( heck i'll have to practice a bit) i for one wouldn't be so bold as to guarantee solar output, but then i'm of the more cautious variety. if i were mean i'd ask for a cent for every kilowatt-hour that did, for some reason, not arrive in time.

mean, because you probably don't know just how many kWh we are talking about and how much an incorrect forecast would cost you.

[edit on 2008.8.5 by Long Lance]

There's a reason that politicians are shouting about global warming louder than anyone, and it's not because they wanna save us all, and it's not even about winning votes anymore.

Politicians shout loudest about things which make a lot of money, that's why they're so quiet about other major problems the world has, like AIDS and cancer and Robert Mugabe.

And when it comes down to it, us "GW denier" Have already lost, so all you guys don't even need to argue with us, there is plenty enough stupid people to swallow BS like this to give government the go-ahead to tax us into oblivion, like they aren't already doing that.

The powers that be are very serious about this issue, this alone should make you suspicious. Something else which should make you suspicious, they're not actually tackling the cause of this problem, they're just taxing us, the little people. The only thing that's been done is that the major airlines have to pay some tax, which of course doesn't affect them at all. Ticket prices raised up and the cost was passed onto the consumer! And it's been estimated that airlines contribute to about 1.8% only of the total carbon emissions for planet earth. So where is all the policy and rules and laws and taxes for the rest of the offenders? Any tax on big business is always a lie, because they are not willing to lose profit and the customer foots the bill.


[edit on 5-8-2008 by unnamedninja]

Hey guys!

Is it too late to play 'Global Warming!' is coming?

(Quick pull the blankets above your heads! And be REALLY quite.)



Global Warming is a 100% scam. We are seeing the results in the Pacific NorthWest. Our taxes per gallon are astronomical. And the idiots that manage the state highway go on these crusades to apply the 'science' referred by our OP, to spend 90% of the state highway funds on RIDICULOUS 'mass transit' schemes that serve 2% (YES, two percent of the population).

I've heard interviews with these guys and they think they are saving us from ourselves.

The highway planners take great pride it the fact they are going to make it MORE difficult to use automobiles as a transit device!

(I'm NOT making this up.)



The point I'm driving at is these guys are actually trying to implement the most hair brained schemes based on 'evidence' exactly like that offered by the OP.

And it goes on and on.

Seattle wants to charge 20 cents for those almost transparent low density plastic bags. Talk about generating CASH!

Meanwhile, anything resembling reality is just simply ignored.

I guess it's really not significant to talk about our 'summer' in Seattle is the COLDEST one in hundreds of years.

It is supremely unfortunate that everyone wants to use pseudo-science (like you OP ), and try to make a simpletons argument EXTRAPOLATING a few years worth of data out an infinite period of time (and then IGNORE any data which SO INCONVIENTLY contradicts your MANIA).

The bottom line is humans are horribly destructive, we endlessly destroy habitats (along with everything attached to them), but in the end our activities on the grand scale (except for REAL pollutants) are insignificant in comparison to the CO2 and CO put out by some of the Earths volcanoes.

(Have you guys looked at any of the output figures from some of the super volcanoes in Africa? Yeah, I didn't think so...)

People are sorely confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE. (Get educated OP, please )

And STOP referring to The Holocaust, especially when tilting at wind mills.

And then there's GWs cousin, Green!

(I'm amped up, but out of time... We'll talk more later. )


[edit on 5-8-2008 by golemina]

reply to post by manson_322

solar activity reasoning for global warming has been debunked ...

Ah, yes, so it has. I am assuming you actually read your source. I know I did. On the report, www.mps.mpg.de... , page 21, you will find graphs showing this apparent anomaly since 1975. It also shows a larger anomaly around 1600, one in the mid 1800s, and several small anomalies scattered throughout history. The graphs show that this latest anomaly is actually pretty small compared to the others throughout recent history.

Global Warming denier debunking debunked.... next?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


nope, you failed to debunk it

firstly , the forest cover in 1600 was considerable and there was no fossil fuel used .....today there are high emissions of CO2 and very much decreased forest cover

This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming: * Solanki 2008 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades". * Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." * Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." * Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years." * Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." * Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." * Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects." * Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases." * Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970". * Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970". * Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend." * Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects." * Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases.

from Haigh and Stott scientific papers in 2003 .....



[edit on 5-8-2008 by manson_322]

It is an established fact that our climate is changing. It is not an establish fact that it is warming up. Both claims should not be mixed up.

reply to post by manson_322
Well, thank you for the help in debunking it, then:

firstly , the forest cover in 1600 was considerable and there was no fossil fuel used .....today there are high emissions of CO2 and very much decreased forest cover

If I accept your premise here, that means that in the 1600s, there was a much greater discrepancy in the reported findings than exist today (as per the graphs presented by you). This happened with no burning of fossil suels and a greater amount of CO2 'scrubbers' in the form of flora.

That would indicate that the source of the global warming discrepancy was not fossil fuels, but some other unknown phenomena. Without knowing what the aforementioned phenomena is, it would be impossible to state with any degree of accuracy that a climactic variation is caused by any particular process.

Thanks for the help!

TheRedneck

reply to post by manson_322


look it's sooo easy. click on the link, download the .pdf and then scroll around a bit until you see graphs, these weird line-o things in a box, y'know.


if the weird line-o thingie isn't a completely flat line, sun output is shown as fluctuating. still with me? ok, the Earth's source of external heat is the Sun's light...

agree/disagree

? so how on earth is it not going to have an effect


PS: if you wanted to confirm what i wrote in my first post here you could not have done a better job.

you do know that putting me on ignore will still allow others to read the entire thread, right??

right?!