The sun’s changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.
They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism was invoked.
Britain’s Royal Society — one of the world’s oldest scientific academies, founded in 1660 — said the new research was an important rebuff to climate change skeptics.
“At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day,” it said in a statement.
Politics alone required this latest bit of cul-de-sac research. There were only a couple of scientists advancing the solar thesis; but, every wacko defender of the petroleum religion leapt upon the possibility as another divine revelation in the copout gospel.
And another one bites the dust.
#131 Thanks for the fine example of bloviating.
>>to reject the demagoguery and warmongering of the Bush regime,
Gosh. S&B, I think that’s the first thing you’ve ever said that I agree with. We certainly need to do that. 2008, BRING IT ON.
#123 – Not only is IBC Root Beer environmentally safe, they make a helluva Cream Soda too…
132—and your more specific criticism of what I posted is what?
I take it you would have no CO2 environmental controls at all, or actually now, what would you do?
You have posted long and seriously on the issue and must have formed some conclusions other than disagreeing with everyone?
At this point I don’t think it will matter what the scientists say. China has become the top emitter of greenhouse gases, many hears ahead of schedule. China isn’t going to reduce its emissions, though it might agree to take money to pretend it is doing so. If China doesn’t reduce, then the US isn’t going to, except for maybe some states and localities passing token measures making their life more difficult.
People say this study was done because of politics, and if that’s true then I would say the politics is one of making sure the global warming bandwagon stays on track. More and more prominent scientists have been joining the ‘deniers,’ and the science is adding up. Shutting down the sun causes global warming was a necessary step, though ultimately futile. Previously there was a single paper that was supposed to settle the global warming issue, it showed CO2 levels being stable through history, then suddenly jumping, creating a graph like a hockey stick. This has been debunked to the point where the IPCC no longer uses it in its reports.
In fact I would hope this study wasn’t caused by politics, but was a legitimate review of objections to the standard global warming science. Having people pay attention to the sun’s role is important, and I’m glad to see scientists looking at all factors. Given everything that’s been said to this point, I think any change in conclusions will be gradual, but it will happen as more and more research is conducted.
136—Mike you have a real talent. Do you post uniformly wrong by fluke or purposeful design? You know why used “purposeful” don’t you?
Please resolve the direct contradiction between your first and last sentence?
China will toe the line once the world requires co2 limitations in order to be a trading partner. China like America might reduce co2 for environmental/health commity reasons as demanded by their people.
“More and more prominent scientists have been joining the ‘deniers,’ and the science is adding up. ” //// Cant make sense of that in context to the rest of your post unless the rest of your post is likewise loopy? Is the science adding up to more or less Global Warming?
“Shutting down the sun causes global warming was a necessary step, though ultimately futile. ” /// Again, sentence contradicts itself. What do you mean?
“This ((ie the hockey stick chart)) has been debunked to the point where the IPCC no longer uses it in its reports” /// It has not been debunked, the error was noted, corrected, and the hockey stick remains. I won’t look up whether or not it is still used in the IPCC, but from the accuracy of your prior posts, I would bet money it is still used.
I don’t know who is worse, you or S&B for starkly different reasons. But, I’ll keep notes and bloviate later.
So how does this prove that “world government” is bad?
If a “world government” could bring about the “remaking” of America for which this author and you hope, would you be in favor of it?
Yeah, they’re Jews, just like every chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in recent memory. That’s all I need to know, right?
# 138 Frank IBC
It’s the march toward world government that has taken us away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Specifically the ideal of Liberty.
Re: Rothschild’s, the fact that they are Jews is of no relevance. Put that bottle down and dig a little deeper.
How is “world government” inherently hostile to the principles of federalism and liberty, any more than the establishment of the US federal government, over the 13 original states, was over 200 years ago?
140—No inherent reason for it to be anyting? We would hope it would follow its charter or constitution however formulated. However, doesn’t “one world” create an inherent tendency to “equalize things out” over the world?? That means a shift from those that have to those that need. In that process, in fact and theory, the haves will have their freedoms and liberties negatively impacted for the benefit of the have nots, presumable for the “average benefit” of the enterprise? Hard to imagine OWG meaning anything else.
99–PS–when your opponent steadfastly maintains nothing but a semantic/rhetorical position and refuses to set forth what they would actually do regarding any issue, you can well conclude you have run into a dolt. Avoid dolts. They are a waste of time.
#141 – bobbo the blovator 🙂
“…doesn’t “one world” create an inherent tendency to “equalize things out” over the world?? That means a shift from those that have to those that need.”
Try this on; doesn’t ‘one nation’ – and the much-vaunted American ideal of ‘equality’ – do the same thing? And if so, then how would you explain hedge-fund jokers building $50,000,000.00 estates in Connecticut while there are still other Americans in the Deep South living in one-room, falling-down shacks with no windows?
Hmmmm?
142—Its only a tendency, not an iron law. We all know there are states that pay more in fed taxes than they get back (Blue States) and states that pay less in fed taxes than they receive in benefits (Red States). That tends to flatten things out and yes, Blue Staters don’t like it, and Red Staters demand it.
Hedge Funds are a total “financial tool” for the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthier elites. They are even worse than futures contracts and the such. They should be looked at closely and maybe even terminated as an allowed activity. I wont hold my breath.
>>At this point I don’t think it will matter what the scientists say. China has
>>become the top emitter of greenhouse gases, many hears ahead of
>>schedule.
Uh, not exactly, MikeN. As of 2007, the USA is still #1 in greenhouse gases emissions BY A LONG SHOT. The EU is second. At the current rate of growth, China is _predicted_ to overtake the USA sometime in the future, but who are you to be putting stock in predictions? It is “predicted” that seal levels will rise by 20-60 feet due to global warming, and you don’t seem too worried about that.
Also, China is not required by the Kyoto treaty, as a developing nation, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. They can’t be “developing” forever, and at some point, they will be required to reduce. Unlike the USA, which can go on burning coal and oil until everyone’s lungs are a black as a coal miner’s, and the seashore is at the Indiana border.
And, as Bobbo points out, China will begin to reduce its greenhouse gases when the world puts economic pressure on it to do so. Unlikely that the USA can exert much pressure in that regard, since we don’t give a fuck (at least presidents Rove/Cheney don’t) about reducing emissions ourselves.
>>More and more prominent scientists have been joining
>>the ‘deniers,’ and the science is adding up.
Tee hee! Haw haw! Who’s that? The dead guys and weathermen that signed that discredited “petition”? Hummer dealers? Tim Ball? President Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal, the guys who won’t identify theselves and that President Cheney went to the High Court to prevent having to identify?
Hedge Funds are a total “financial tool” for the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthier elites. They are even worse than futures contracts and the such.
Futures contracts are a two-sided coin. There is the “hedge” side, or “insurance ” side – e.g. a farmer who wants insurance against falling crop prices, and the speculator, who is betting against the farmer, that crop prices WILL fall, and if that comes true, he will make a profit. This is no difference from auto insurance. If there are no speculators, there is no way to cover the hedgers.
Hedge funds are nothing more than a high-risk/high-yield high-minumum investment mutual fund. Can you cite a single example of a hedge fund that has “transferred wealth from the middle class”, and can you give me the names of the individual “middle class” victims of said hedge fund?
#131, the distinction means a great deal. If we are the cause, then it could reasonably be speculated that we can undo it. If we are merely contributing to something that is going to occur regardless, then there probably is nothing within our power we can do about it. This is important because much of the debate centers around the advertised view that we can somehow reverse global warming.
#140, I think it comes down to the issue of scale. A community is much more effective at dealing with its issues than the state is, than the federal government is, than a world government would be. As the government becomes farther removed from the individual, laws and policies become less and less effective as they have to be enacted to deal with larger and larger groups of different people. It also makes very little sense that societies with different cultural identities and norms should be made to all operate under a single system of government. This is one of many problems with the U.N. Nations with differing views and priorities talk and talk and nothing gets done.
145–I haven’t looked at Hedge Funds and will never have the opportunity to do so. I was just parroting what Former SEC Attorney Gary Aguire said during a 15 minute interview on what he concluded after investigating them. It makes sense, but I can’t defend it.
146–Cause vs contribution doesn’t matter.
Cause vs ((contribution that will occur no matter what we do)) is totally different. That, I assume is an even more complicated debateable modelling situation. UNLESS we take the position that we got to do what we can do even if it turns out to be unsucessful. With that mind set and probable power to affect the outcome, I say==lets give it a shot. All we have to fear is a cleaner environoment.
147—I agree and almost posted to that element, but wanted to dole out the bloviating in snack size meals. But as posted, there are pros and cons to OWG as well as competing nations. No reason that OWG could not promote local solutions for local problems==but now what about starvation in Darfur?? Genocide in Turkey?? and the whole host of horrors taking place around the world.
In fact, for the reasons you state, OWG wont work. But we should move towards it with a restructured UN, World Court and so forth–maybe one with an autonomous armed forces to stop smaller insurrections and such. Course, GOUSA wont allow an effective UN because they might arrest Rumsfeld on his way to the country club. So, we have what we have.
Yes, the UN is far from an ideal example of what “world government” could be. Plenty of room for improvement. Two clear weakenesses –
1) Lack of proportional representation/ funding.
2) Democracies and dictatorships have equal vote. (Including Stalin’s Soviet Union in the original UN meant that it was doomed from the start.)
150–I just deleted a long post–changed my mind while writing it.
If the world powers can get the benefits of OWG without submitting to its authority, why would they ever create OWG?
So, whether or not OWG could ever be actually formed, what are the advantages to GOUSA in submitting itself to such a group?
So this thread is about solar activity re the global warming issue, which lead to a good discussion of CO2 and Methane, which then got totally off point with One World Government, and you want to bring it back on track with a treasure hunt?
I’m willing to play, but not without a description of what the prize is. Is the easter egg in your hunt the notion that the NeoCons will use Bushie to stage a coup and take over the GOUSA like they did in 2000, or is it that neo-nazi’s are about to put more water vapor in the air??
Just want to know so I can focus my conspiracy radar on the evidence presented. Lots of work there not to give it a bow-tie.
Here is what the corporate media is telling the public.
India Daily, Indian Express, Raw Story, and “Stop the North American Union” are “corporate media”?
Bobbo, there is no contradiction between the first and last sentence. I explained why I didn’t think it would matter what the scientists say: because the Chinese wouldn’t comply with reductions, which would lead to little compliance anywhere else. The fact that I think the scientists will say something else in the future doesn’t contradict that.
>China like America might reduce co2 for environmental/health commity reasons as demanded by their people.
CO2 is not a pollutant, so there is little health benefit in reducing CO2 emissions. The Chinese communist government is very secret, and any reductions that they sign on to will be fake. Even the Europeans have tried to reduce their emissions and failed. The only way China will sign on is the way Russia did, to take money from Europe and pretend to reduce their emissions.
>More and more prominent scientists have been joining the ‘deniers,’ and the science is adding up.
I’m saying the science is adding up to less global warming, at least not the negative impact claimed in the past. You can even read the IPCC reports, and you’ll say that their worst-case scenarios have been getting better, less warming, less sea-level rise, etc.
>Shutting down the sun causes global warming was a necessary step, though ultimately futile.
I’m taking on faith the line in the post that the study was politically motivated. In this case, I say the politics is from the people who did the study. They don’t like the science against global warming and need to shut down any theories they come up with. The sun causing global warming is an important theory to shut down, since the accompanying graph can be understood by anyone. It is as simple as the hockey stick graph, and it shows the sun’s output being in line with global temperatures. I also think such actions of trying to shut out scientists will be futile, as accurate research will ultimately win out. Another theory that bothers the global warming bandwagon is a related one that CO2 levels rise after temperature rises by hundreds of years not before, but this isn’t as dangerous as it’s harder to understand.
As for the hockey stick, feel free to look through the latest IPCC report and see for yourself. I have posted this before, and no one has ever posted a link to this hockey stick in the report, and I couldn’t find it either. The fact is the hockey stick graph simply isn’t valid, as the Earth has been warmer in the past, with CO2 level rises as well.
I also say it’s possible this scientific article isn’t politically motivated, in which case I am glad to see them look at all theories. An accurate evaluation of climate is very useful. Ultimately, there are major flaws in the models, as far as the impact of global warming. These models are not just based on science but on guesses as to how much different countries’ economies will grow. The ones that produce the worst impacts, are the ones that assume the most economic growth. Think about it, if the developing world grows its economy so much (more than the US in the 19th century), shouldn’t they be able to adjust to higher temperatures? The famines and other predictions will not happen.
>As of 2007, the USA is still #1 in greenhouse gases emissions BY A LONG SHOT.
Mister Mustard, China has overtaken the US in emissions. Perhaps you are thinking of per capita emissions.
I’m not sure why people think the Chinese will obviously sign on to any reductions in their emissions. They are not going to reduce their economic growth. The most they will do is put some sort of cleaning technologies on their smokestacks, etc.
155–Mike–thanks for your response. I know it takes time and is a pain. My main dispute with your position may just be the way we use language? Lets give that idea a try before we go too far?
You can have your own ideas and value system, but not your own facts. Facts/language are somewhat more objective than attitudes and values.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a pollutant “by definition” probably within the IPCC report if not 10,000 other places? Now, you may choose to think it does not pollute ((is that possible?)) by the raw power of your own declaration, but anyway, by what authority do you claim CO2 is not a pollutant?
No, MikeN, it is YOU who are mistaken.
China recently overtook the USA in CO2 emissions, but that’s not what you said. You said (and I quote) “China has become the top emitter of greenhouse gases”. THAT is incorrect. As of at least June 20th, the USA is still the biggest emitter of GREENHOUSE GASES, as documented in (at least) the New York Times, Wall St. Journal, and International Herald Tribune (citation available, if you insist).
And just like the USA, China is not required to reduce greenhouse gases yet, although China is doing it IN COMPLIANCE with the Kyoto treaty (they are a developing nation), while the USA is doing it because Dumbya refused to sign the treaty.
If the USA is now looking to Communist China for ethical and moral imperatives, we’ve sunk a lot further under Dumbya’s “leadership” than even the leftiest pinkos have been claiming.
152 – Stars and Bars, you have finally lost it completely. Has the effort of defending the indefensible finally caused you to crack?
What the hell do those dirty bomb and stopthenorthamericanunion.com stories have to do with the role of the sun vs. greenhouse gases in global warming?
Ipsa res loquitur
#130, Confederate Traitor,
Read and quote more then the segments that support your contention. Ooopps, yes I said read it FIRST.
“…the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine. ”
Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982
In other words, the Federal Government still has control over banking and the Fed. The day to day operation is controlled by the banks.
Hey, guess who appoints the Chairman of the Fed?
#152, Confederate Traitor,
Here, let me give you the rundown, the pieces if you will. Now, you have the responsibility of putting the pieces together. The question is, can you do it?
The question is CAN YOU DO IT?
The topic here is a report on global warming in general and the effect the sun has in particular. That does not include Bush or Congress approval ratings, AQ or any terrorist’s threat, 9/11 being an inside job, or the color or flower print of your undies.
Continually you post links that refute your points. Continually you stray off topic – what the eff does the Federal Reserve or One World Government have to do with global warming – ? Continually you expect us to read some diatribe opinion piece as “proof” of your point.
Get with the program. I’m having a bad day here. I don’t need any more excuses to become cranky.
Yay! We’re all gonna die! About time!