Are you relieved tha Global warming is no longer your fault.?

Question

Most leading scientists now believe that the reason behind climate variation and trends lies in the fluctiation of the solar wind due to changes in suns activity.This affects the cloud cover and therefor surface temperature.i.e lot of solar activity=strong winds=less cloud cover=higher suface temps.

The current vogue for blaming carbon emmissions (including cattle!)has its roots in the political/economic upheavals of the 80/90's.i.e peace activists have now adopted the Global warming movement.

Global warming is now being used by western governmnts to arrest the development of third world economies.

Will you still be supporting the now discredited green movement?

not all scientists,just a majority of the small group of most respected.Those who disagree are obviously not in this group.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Melting the facts about Greenland's ice sheet

Changing Sun Changing Climate
www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
Since it is the sun's energy that drives the weather system, might climate change be connected to solar variations? This article discusses that possibility.
www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?id
Category=4&idarticle=1001

solar cycles cast doubt on human responsibility for climate change.

The Sun and Climate
www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
Easy to follow overview of the many causes of climatic change, including solar radiation.

Cosmic Rays and Climate
http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=
374,931599&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
solar activity increases, cloud formation on Earth is significantly diminished, and

Answer 1

Your opening premise is simply not true - "Most leading scientists now believe that the reason behind climate variation and trends lies in the fluctiation of the solar wind".

Some scientists have expressed reasonable doubts about how much of climate change is due to human activity. That's a mile away from what you said.

Why is a drive towards renewable sources of energy and reduction in our use of resources somehow cranky?

The green movement is not discredited, just because some doubts have been raised.

It's not the black and white, yes or no type of simple issue that you want to believe in. It's a complex, multi-facetted problem and by reducing it to a "Yes it is / No, it isn't" argument you're missing the point completely

Answer 2

It's interesting, but when I suggested that global-warming was a front for economic constriction on developing economies, I got absolutely no thumbs up at all...... I guess they didn't understand my answer.

I have a problem with the polticising of "green issues," because they can so easily mask an underlying political agenda, and even lead to spurious conspiracy theories, such as I may have been guilty of myself in suggesting that "Global warming" might be the counter to uncontrolled gloabalisation.

I also have a problem, in that "global warming" might just be the diversion which permits the "status quo" of monetarism to continue in the way it is doing, without the slightest regard for the consequences of that, because the only blunt instrument available to politicians is that of taxation and "greenhouse gas emmission targets," which have already begun.

If businesses, working in a global market of liberal economic thinking, get taxed heavily, the most obvious reaction to that is to seek out ever cheaper supplies of labour; not so much in the developing economies, but even in undeveloped economies; thus driving down the incomes of those in the developed and developing world. I would suggest, that in order to counteract that, there would have to be a massive hike in taxation, which would affect everyone, and yet, the underlying problems would not be solved at all.

Much as I have serious doubts about "green poltics," no-one can escape the fact that our resources are finite; and this applies MORE to other things, than it does to the resources of available and alternative energy.

I just think that "a reduction in 20% of greenhouse emissions" is politically unachievable as things currently stand.

Perhaps the biggest threat to our long-term future is that of consumerism, and this is where I side with the green body-politic. "Consumerism" assumes that we have a limitless appetite for all things new and disposable, and yet, many of us treasure things which are older and rather better made in the first place.

Musical instruments which are centuries old very often, or fine antiques, good quality furniture....the list is enormous.

It is because accountants have discovered ways of mass-producing things which have a limited life-span, that we now no longer live in balance with nature, and instead, consume raw materials at a terrifying pace and, when the articles no longer perform to our expectations and ultimate satisfaction, we create a mountain of waste getting rid of them all.

In serving the new religion of consumerism, we expend vast amounts of time and energy, rushing backwards and forwards to supermarkets and retail shopping sites, when with a little forthought, it is perfectly obvious that the only beneficiaries are the accountants who dreamed up the idea of centralisation and buying-power, whilst the consumer reaps the benefits of cheaper-prices, even though they have to spend a fortune going backwards and forwards, here there and everywhere.

I would suggest, that by totally altering the way we all do business and the way in which we live, we wouldn't be talking about a mere 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, but a possible 40%. Furthermore, if goods were forced to have a minimum lifespan, (and with the sort of service back-up which products once enjoyed), then we start to reverse the evils of pure consumerism, which are destroying everything at an ever increasing rate.

Like them or loathe them, the "activists" have highlighted the folly of much that is the business-world of to-day, which is probably shooting itself in the foot each and every day.

This is precisely what happens when money, rather than being a measure of worth, becomes a mere commodity, where those who deal with it never actually see the damage it is causing.

Answer 3

you're fortunate to be on that element of the arguement because of the fact that's the best element. a million) The climate of the Earth has been changingfor hundreds of thousands of years, human beings have no consequence on the overal climate of the earth. 2) Scientists have yet to coach that ameliorations in C02 reason the earth to warmth up. some eveidence factors to the climate getting warmer and then extra C02 being released into the atmosthshpere. 3) The polar ice caps are actually not melting. the distinctive ice interior the north pole may be melting, yet extra ice than ever is performing interior the South Pole. Al Gores's An inconveinent fact is stuffed with lies and would not even use genuine pictures. the main scenes of the action picture used the pretend instruments from The Day After the following day, clarify that Al Gore!!!! properly good success!!

Answer 4

Whether or not you believe that global warming is due to our consumption of fossil fuels, there are compelling reasons to get off our dependency on the stuff. Either we will consume so much of it that we will have an impact on the environment, or we will simply run out of the stuff.
As much as I don't support the dire predictions of global warming and I have severe doubts about the arguments that the causes of warming are due to mankind's activities, I do support the drive to find alternatives. As petroleum gets harder to pull out of the ground, the price of heating our houses and getting from point A to point B will skyrocket. There will be shortages, political upheavals, and even wars over petroleum energy. Time to start looking for alternatives.

Answer 5

I am impelled to agree with sceptic's answer, though I would like to add some more to cover the other points you have made in the question.

Granting that solar winds are causing the progressive rise in ambient temperature on this Planet, should we not do something to temper its impact by reducing our warming activities? How wise it would be to add to the evils of a rising temperature that would tilt the weather pattern, cause floral sterility in plants and reduce the production of food, create health hazards to life forms... Instead of postponig an adverse impact till that time we strike on a method of outwitting it, could we afford to escalate it by our irresponsible continuance of high energy activities?

The doubt that the developed nations are trying to restrict the developing ones from using more energy for their own development needs,is also a moot point.. For,the rich nations did raise the question of developing or poor nations causing more pollution with their increasing population (poverty is deemed as a pollutant in the sense the poor tresspass into common property - forests water sources and pastures - and cause their degradation by over use etc).. But the point was effectively turned down by defending countries like India, saying that the high consumption levels of the rich nations alone cause greater pollution than any developing nation...In the preparatory meeting for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Cairo in Sep 1994 the developed nations sought to raise the issue of population impact on environment, while the role of consumption (in the developed block) in affecting the environment (global pollution) was raised by the group of nations led by India. It was argued that while the rich nation’s citizen used an average of 7 kw energy per year, an average poor nation’s citizen used less than one kw / year. Even with the 80% population (4.4 billion in mid 1994) in the globe, the poor nations used just 4.4 billion kw against 8.4 billion kw from the (20%) developed population...

So let us not build arguments on just surmises and prejudices but take neutral look at all the arguments and embark on the best solution for the safety of future generation - our own children - as trustees for their rightful property, the nature that had served us and needs to serve the coming generations..

Answer 6

The data just doesn't support your claim. Solar radiation is a quite minor factor.

Increased solar radiation has been carefully measured by a very large number of people independently. You couldn't lie about the data and get away with it.

It amounts to 0.12 watts per meter squared. Man induced heating is 1.6 watts per meter squared, more than ten times as much.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

I'm amazed by how many people think the world's climatologists don't include increased solar radiation in their analysis. They do, but it doesn't fully explain what's going on.

Answer 7

I don't know where you got this idea from, but it is absolutely false. Most scientists do NOT believe that fluctuation in the solar wind is responsible for climate variation. The best models indicate that solar variance CANNOT explain the modern warming trend (after ~ 1940, in fact, if you look at plots of the two together you'll see quite clearly that they diverge markedly), and that human gas release must be incorporated in order to account for the observed warming. You should read the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers", which summarizes the consensus of the top climate scientists in the world on the subject: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

As to whether global warming being used by Western governments to arrest third world development - your premise implies that the impact on Western countries of controlling warming will be somehow less, when in fact it would be much easier for third-world countries to adopt new technologies and infrastructure that is green than for the first world to spend lots of money converting.

Answer 8

I believe that the earth is warming. I also believe man has no effect on global warming. It does not take a scientists to realize that the earth has been warming since the beginning. People that think global warming is caused by man have to ask themselves what happened to the ice age? Obviously it melted do to higher temperatures. Needless to say that mankind as we know it was not around then.

So in answer to your question I've always known that global warming was not my fault. Thus I've always been relieved.

Answer 9

it never was, termites in africa produce more so called greenhouse gasses than all the cars and coal fired power plants in the world together. The global warming religion is just another scam for the gullty who feel bad for having a good life. and a socialist mechanism for stealing tax money from the north and giving it to the third world...Shame on Al Gore. AND on all the rest who make a living on grants and tax money scaring everyone.

Answer 10

I am with you on this. But brace yourself for a stream of ill-informed abuse from the brainwashed ecomentalists. Manmade CO2 is of no consequence to global warming.