[[~You Cannot Stop Global Warming.~]]

The controversial climate-change contrarian, S. Frederick Singer, a former space scientist and government scientific administrator, who holds PhD in Physics from Princeton University and is co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, presents the theory that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, they argue that the 1,500 year natural sunspot magnetic waves cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend. Man created carbon dioxide has very little effect on the earth's climate.

First and foremost, I am not the kind of person who will sit here and say that man's environmental destruction is something that should be ignored. Regardless of a person's opinion on the severity of Climate Change, it is indeed occurring, but I believe the Sun has for more to do with it than mainstream science is ready to admit. The article goes on to say.

The most recent cycles have been recorded in human history with forced migrations, starvation, and disease during the cold portion of the cycle and greater population, expanded farm land, greater crop variety, and extra building during the warm portion. The causes of the 1,500 year cycle are not well understood although 600 of them have been identified in the last million years. This permits the authors to be relatively confident that we have been moving into the warm phase of the cycle for the last 150 years. It also suggests that we may have one or two degrees more warming if we are to get to the typical high of the warm phase.

Although the warm phase of the cycle has been typically more regular than the cold phase, it does not move steadily to a peak and then fall off, but rather moves abruptly higher at the start of the warm phase followed by highly irregular (but modestly higher) temperatures for hundreds of years.

Its clear that enough data has been gathered to give some credence to this theory. And I feel more inclined to accept this than theories given to us by Al Gore. I don't know if his tactic is a deliberate exploitation of an unstoppable event or just misinterpretation of data. Regardless,the debate between anthropogenic vs naturogenic, is far from being solidified.

Source Article

And another link to a larger source material in from the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered. I haven't had a chance to look through the pdf files yet but will do some when I have more spare time.

The 2009 NIPCC Report

Explanation: S&F!

All very good ... until he says we can't do anything to change it ... when scientifically we can ALTER the orbit of the earth by simply throwing stuff up and off the planet.

Sure thats not the best choice to follow... but it is a choice ... it is doable ... and it may work!

Personal Disclosure: If by unstoppable he means unavoidable then he is wrong.

S & F

I appreciate your approach...

I honestly don't care what people on either side want to call it and honestly I'm not bent over the causes. [Mankind contributed or a Natural Earth/Sun Cyclical event or both ] Having said that, I see nothing wrong with leaving our children and grandchildren fresh air and clean drinking water. We should clean up our mess and prepare for whatever nature has in store for us.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

Explanation: S&F!

All very good ... until he says we can't do anything to change it ... when scientifically we can ALTER the orbit of the earth by simply throwing stuff up and off the planet.

Sure thats not the best choice to follow... but it is a choice ... it is doable ... and it may work!

Personal Disclosure: If by unstoppable he means unavoidable then he is wrong.

Your comment reminded me of an episode of Futurama where they shift the Earth's orbit away from the Sun to cool it down my "outgassing" all the Robots. *lol*

Whether we label it unavoidable or unstoppable really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things, Although times might be rough during a Warming trend, we have survived countless warming and cooling trends without mass extinction or even contributing to a complete loss of human advancement, I am sure we can survive another without resorting to such measures as you describe.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
S & F

I appreciate your approach...

I honestly don't care what people on either side want to call it and honestly I'm not bent over the causes. [Mankind contributed or a Natural Earth/Sun Cyclical event or both ] Having said that, I see nothing wrong with leaving our children and grandchildren fresh air and clean drinking water. We should clean up our mess and prepare for whatever nature has in store for us.

Thankyou.

I absolutely agree. I have two children and I live in a Province that has the biggest gaping hole in it due to oil production. I want nothing more than to rectify this disgraceful abuse of Mother Earth. I just feel that if mankind keeps living in the only anthropogenic bubble then they will just continue to further tax those who can barely afford it while they get rich off the guilt we all feel for "harming" our planet. It is time to give back to the Earth, regardless, of anyone's views on climate change.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings

Its clear that enough data has been gathered to give some credence to this theory. And I feel more inclined to accept this than theories given to us by Al Gore.

You do realise that Al Gore did not invent anthropogenic climate change... please tell me you don’t think it is just this one man who is leading the way in this field!!

This to me is a very crafty tactic (not that i believe you are trying to be crafty so please dont take offense), often employed by Anthropogenic climate change deniers. By targeting this one man they are giving the impression that Anthropogenic CC believers are blindly following some sort of “pied piper” of environmentalism. It couldn’t be further from the truth... most environmentalists have done their homework and rely on the many many scientific institutes, organisation and climate scientists to shape their beliefs.

And then you go on to do another denier classic... using a blog and a Mickey Mouse organisation as your foundation for argument.

The IPCC was setup to find the truth about climate change

The NIPCC was setup to prove the IPCC wrong (Agenda driven)

Here is a quick list of SOME of the organisations who support and/or agree with ACC. I suggest you start reading some of what these guys have to say on the issue and use them as a source of information going forward.


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

World Meteorological Organization

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

InterAcademy Council

African Academy of Sciences

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

US Geological Survey

US Environmental protection agency

National Research Council (US)

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

Woods Hole Research Center


Peace

No we cant stop it, but they sure as hell think money will help the cause.this carbon tax is a joke!

Global warming is a period of more farm land, more crops, I have even had visions of the west coast of Canada, becoming more like Hawaii, growing fruit year round.

What we need to do is make them stop and clean up their nuclear AND use their frequencies to reverse and neutralize the toxins and radiation and purify the water.

They are so hell bent in keeping scarsity with starving people they have poisoned all the oceans and have bought up the aquaducs.

It's up to us to really get angry with bullhorns and stop every single one, from leaders to corporate heads in huge crowds.

John Hutchinson purified gulf water, was tested by labs. It was kind of noisy I sat through the videos.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by TheSparrowSings

 

Its clear that enough data has been gathered to give some credence to this theory. And I feel more inclined to accept this than theories given to us by Al Gore.

You do realize that Al Gore did not invent anthropogenic climate change... please tell me you don’t think it is just this one man who is leading the way in this field!!

edit on 11-9-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)

I absolutely do understand that Al Gore is not the FOUNDER of Anthropogenic climate change. *lol* My personal opinion on the matter, as stated in my OP, is that the scientists and followers of the "strictly man-made" crowd might be either confused or mislead in some of the data they are seeing.

All the names of organizations you have listed are good organizations to have. REGARDLESS of what is causing the change, the more research we do the better, on either side of the argument. My problem lies with people who refuse/ or get angry, when someone else comes up with a naturogenic reason and it gets brushed aside.

And no underhand tactics from me, I am too UN-confrontational for that, just me stating my opinion on something I find interesting and plausible as well. Thanks for your reply.

reply to post by Unity_99


Thanks Unity,

I am familiar with John Hutchinson, and what happened to him (and his ideas and projects) is a blatant disregard for humanity's ability to further environmental rehabilitation. I will take a look at the threads you have posted.

Recently I have been beginning to realize that helping combat Climate Change is really very straight-forward. Plant more Plants. I know, ludicrous eh? Although its not as simple as it sounds. Reasoning behind this is that grassy areas/wetlands really contribute to the creation/dissolution of clouds. The other reason being that plants produce certain chemical components that actually help dissolve CO2 in the atmosphere. I will add the stories below.

Impact of Plants on Cloud Formation in The Atmosophere

Criegee Biradicals May Cool Planet and Offset Global Warming

scitechdaily.com...

reply to post by TheSparrowSings

I absolutely do understand that Al Gore is not the FOUNDER of Anthropogenic climate change. *lol* My personal opinion on the matter, as stated in my OP, is that the scientists and followers of the "strictly man-made" crowd might be either confused or mislead in some of the data they are seeing.

All the names of organizations you have listed are good organizations to have. REGARDLESS of what is causing the change, the more research we do the better, on either side of the argument. My problem lies with people who refuse/ or get angry, when someone else comes up with a naturogenic reason and it gets brushed aside.

And no underhand tactics from me, I am too UN-confrontational for that, just me stating my opinion on something I find interesting and plausible as well. Thanks for your reply.

All fair points. Sorry if a came across a little confrontational. Just that it’s easy to get passionate about this subject because... well, what’s at stake is literally everything. And, in my opinion, the research is done, finished, the results are in. It’s now time to act. While people debate this we roll closer and closer to environmental collapse.

Well, thats my opinion anyway. Apologies if I seemed a little blunt or rude.

Peace

reply to post by Muckster


There are also daily updates from climate depot, the daily galaxy, some others I cannot remember.

reply to post by Muckster


Your comments are neither blunt nor rude, fellow seeker of truth, we are all passionate about our beliefs and ideals and that passion is a beautiful part of human growth. It is passionate people who will help make the differences in the world that we will need to continue as a dominant species and protectors of this Earth.

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


www.sourcewatch.org...

Follow the money.

Singer was paid to represent tabacco and oil companies and he even argued against the Ozone layer.

People have listened to this mans arguments, over and over again and he is wrong. It is that simple. HE actually argued that the planet was cooling before this book, so I think he needs to make his mind up.

No one is arguing that natural warming can occur or occurs. We know it does, its called the solar cycle.

What the debate is about is Human impact on warming.

Simple equation, Physics tells us that CO2 is inextricably linked to temperature.
This is undeniable.
We know that temperature effects CO2 levels, and CO2 effects Temperature levels.

Humans, for the first time ever, are increasing CO2 independantly of temperature.
I'll repeat that again because it is incredibly important.

Humans are increasing CO2 INDEPENDANTLY of temperature.

So, we know throught physics that CO2 will effect temperature.
We also know that humans are increasing CO2 independantly from any and all natural phenomena, including natural warming cycles.

Its an easy eaquation. More CO2= Higher temps. Physics tells us this. It is undeniable.

Humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at great rates.

Global temperatures and trends are showing warming.

You do the math.

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

The controversial climate-change contrarian, S. Frederick Singer, a former space scientist and government scientific administrator, who holds PhD in Physics from Princeton University and is co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, presents the theory that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, they argue that the 1,500 year natural sunspot magnetic waves cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend. Man created carbon dioxide has very little effect on the earth's climate.

First and foremost, I am not the kind of person who will sit here and say that man's environmental destruction is something that should be ignored. Regardless of a person's opinion on the severity of Climate Change, it is indeed occurring, but I believe the Sun has for more to do with it than mainstream science is ready to admit. The article goes on to say.

The most recent cycles have been recorded in human history with forced migrations, starvation, and disease during the cold portion of the cycle and greater population, expanded farm land, greater crop variety, and extra building during the warm portion. The causes of the 1,500 year cycle are not well understood although 600 of them have been identified in the last million years. This permits the authors to be relatively confident that we have been moving into the warm phase of the cycle for the last 150 years. It also suggests that we may have one or two degrees more warming if we are to get to the typical high of the warm phase.

Although the warm phase of the cycle has been typically more regular than the cold phase, it does not move steadily to a peak and then fall off, but rather moves abruptly higher at the start of the warm phase followed by highly irregular (but modestly higher) temperatures for hundreds of years.

Its clear that enough data has been gathered to give some credence to this theory. And I feel more inclined to accept this than theories given to us by Al Gore. I don't know if his tactic is a deliberate exploitation of an unstoppable event or just misinterpretation of data. Regardless,the debate between anthropogenic vs naturogenic, is far from being solidified.

Source Article

And another link to a larger source material in from the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered. I haven't had a chance to look through the pdf files yet but will do some when I have more spare time.

The 2009 NIPCC Report

And if we put more money in the saving of the globalists?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
S & F

I appreciate your approach...

I honestly don't care what people on either side want to call it and honestly I'm not bent over the causes. [Mankind contributed or a Natural Earth/Sun Cyclical event or both ] Having said that, I see nothing wrong with leaving our children and grandchildren fresh air and clean drinking water. We should clean up our mess and prepare for whatever nature has in store for us.

I agree with you 100%. But I'm afraid that we need more than the TPTB's usual actionism to change something. These nobles will only use their new acquired powers to further oppress and separate us more from nature. I don't see any UN, ElGores, WWFs Kings and Queens doing any significant action against the world wide PLASTIC ABUSE or any thing that really would make the difference. The bottom line is: They don't give a **** for nothing that they cannot transform in power. That's where we should push back! The clock is ticking!

I understand this cycle, and it's plausibility but..

Why wouldn't a society want to move forward ?
In the USA for instance, technology and infrastructure
that provides cleaner air, water and land is positive for all.
And at the same time this raises good paying non outsourced jobs .
A booming economy comes naturally.

I'm sick of coddling 17 oil and coal barons
that fund lie after lie to hold 300 million people back.

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
reply to post by Muckster

 

dominant species and protectors of this Earth

Hey brother... Here I stick to the words of George Carlin, think about it. Actually the earth protects us not the other way around. And who knows how long?
www.youtube.com...

peace

reply to post by sidLives


The Earth has always protect us, maybe its time we start to give back a little in whatever way we can.

Originally posted by sidLives
And if we put more money in the saving of the globalists?

Nope, I wouldn't trust them with a penny of mine.