I found a really nice link to a movie
that has covered many of the points I have made in an article a few
months ago. The movie is a British Documentary titled, “The Great
Global Warming Swindle,” where simply, a scientists discovered the REAL
cause of Global Warming is variations in the sun not CO2!!!
Please click here to view the film!
(ed – click here to see the other posts on this great film from Flopping Aces)
I
also have a much shorter film for you. It is nowhere as good as the
first. Yeah, the video quality sucks, badly. And it would be harder to
find a worst host then the guy on the left. But this video makes some
good points I really like. I don’t agree with all of the points, but
there is enough of them where I’ll post it. So, thus, I give you:
Facts behind “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
By the way, here is my latest article on Global Warming re-posted once again.
Global Warming and Basic Science.
Basic science and liberals, never the twain shall meet. Curt at Flopping Aces
has covered the story regarding bad temperature data from Hansen’s Y2K
error and the change in the U.S. leaderboard. However, there is a more
basic error with the global warming cult that I would like to address.
Remember the dire predictions for Europe following Chernobyl and the
Iraqi oil fires causing a nuclear winter? All were in error. The
fallout area in Chernobyl was much, much less then predicted and the
suggestion by Carl Sagan that the Iraqi oil fires would generate a
small scale nuclear winter was an embarrassing blunder. Why did
intelligent men commit such major errors? One, they drifted outside of
their error of expertise. For instance, a man who designed nuclear
bombs may not be the best scientist to predict fallout. The second area
is that they allowed science to become politicized. Thus, it was no
longer science.
This politicization has allowed the libs,
who are never as smart as they think they are, to miss some basic
points about the climate. First of all, what drives the climate?
What causes the Earth’s climate to change?
Climate change is complex–there are many dynamics involved. A major
factor may be the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (1879 — 1958) studied the variations in
the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the tilt of the
Earth’s axis. He theorized that these cyclical changes and the
interactions among them were responsible for long-term climate changes.
Milankovitch studied three factors:
1. Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis;
2. Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
3. Precession: changes in how the tilt of the axis is oriented in relation to the orbit.
The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods
within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been
caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of
the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and
precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as
the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian
astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude.
Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations
in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly
influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and
retreat of Earth’s
the source is here.
Finally
how these facts never make Al Gore’s talking points. But of course
there may be a simpler explanation for climate change. It is not the
rotation or aix or orbit around the Sun, it may be the Sun itself.
Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global WarmingIn what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global
warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05
percent per decade since the late 1970s.The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has
been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson,
a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies.The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision
since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is
not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies
suggest it does.“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history
of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.“Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,” Willson told SPACE.com today.
So, in another words, climatology is a subject
better left for astronomers then biologists and environmentalists. Thus
environmentalists may not be the best scientist to predict climate
change. But it actually gets more confusing then this, as plate
tectonics may also play a hand in climate change.
So
the Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, Variations in the shape of
the Earth’s orbit, Precession, plate tectonics, a change in the Sun’s
output, (words liberals never use in any of their articles) and co2
emissions all may play a part in the earth’s climate. But according to
the liberals, it is all man made CO2 emissions and it is all proven.
Stick with one factor, ignore all the others, and beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees.
That is Al Gore. That is liberal science.
I
am not saying CO2 emissions play no part in climate change. What I am
annoyed with is that the scientific community has allowed itself to
become politicized and thus may be missing some important data on our
climate. I would even support Kyoto if it was a fair agreement that did
not exempt the third world and was not so destructive to our economy.
For I still believe the environment and economy are not mutually
exclusive concepts.
But the blame America first crowd once again shows they lack any ability to think outside of current liberal thought.
The
danger here is not just that by focusing on just CO2 emissions and
burning at the stake anyone who disagrees we may be missing other
important signs concerning our climate, but that real danger is that
the scientific community will continue to be politicized and will give
us more global warming, nuclear winters, and other ideas that are based
more on politics then science.
What we need is real, un-politicized science, not this.
And I am not willing to destroy our economy and put hundreds of thousands out of work because of bad politics and not science.
Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter
Blogs at Orbys.net
Sun can play a huge factor with only a slight deviation.
An increase in solar winds increases the friction on our atmosphere and as you know, friction causes heat.
Only about a billionth (http://www.rutledgecapital.com/Articles/20070403_asia_energy_3.html) of the sun’s energy hits the Earth (with about 30% reflected back), but it’s enough energy to create hurricanes that can generate the energy of a hydrogen bomb every 8 minutes. A solar panel that’s just 100 square miles in size can absorb the same amount of energy the U.S. uses a day. An increase or a decrease brighness (a spotlight sends out more energy than a flashlight) in the sun caused by the amount of sunspots at any given time. There is a hypothesis that ice ages on Earth were caused by the sun’s brightness slightly dimming from an increase in sunspot activity. Add in a parallel event like extra volcanic activity shooting up dust in the atmosphere (or an increase of cloud cover) to reflect the light and you can imagine the weather impact it would have on Earth. For global warming, decrease the amount of sunspots and cloud cover.
The science here is still so new and developing that it’s unconscionable for Gore or anyone else to deliberately twist the unknowns into this alarmist prescription for a total makeover of Western, primarily the U.S. lifestyle and economies.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is perhaps the best presentation I have seen debunking Gore’s film. It should be required viewing wherever Gore’s film is being forcefed to gullible school children.
One of the things that I have never seen is global warming via carbon dioxide. Mankind’s emmissions are far, far too small to cause any changes in the atmosphere to cause global warming on the scale that the alarmists put forth. In fact carbon dioxide has been over 20 times as high as it is now, and that only saw global temps at 10 degrees centigrade higher than now. Unfortunately that was not due, by and large, to carbon dioxide alone, but to the configuration of the tectonic plates and the abundance of life in a highly oxygenated atmosphere. The era of the great forests that laid down coal beds and oil supplies we see today is directly related to that era and the dropping of global carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even larger amounts were taken out as calcium carbonate forming limestone, which serves as a permanent carbon sink for the planet, locking carbon away in relatively stable rock.
When looking at Earth’s history, in fact, that seems to be the upper limit of global mean temperature as measured via stable isotope ratios and types of life and climate seen in the geologic record. Any decent model of the atmosphere would have to give a good demonstration of what happens during times of major volcanic activity and times of relatively quiescent periods during pangea eras. In all we can’t even create basic models to tell us why the last few decades did what they did: take the basic data, put the models to work and they come up with highly variable answers. Atmospheric and oceanic transfer models are still in their infancy, as well as rainfall and runoff models.
As I’ve said before: the climate of planet Earth is not only sun driven, but then changes due to plate tectonic activity, oceanic depth due to that, volcanic activity and a host of other phenomena. At least 10,000 years more of data will be needed to see if mankind has any lasting impact on the planetary scale, and by they we will have either shifted to off-planet economics or be gone as a species because the next extinction event has our name on it. The Earth is a nice ‘starter home’, but, really, we need better and more permanent and adaptable living quarters elsewhere. And not one of these ‘fixer uppers’ like Mars until we really get a good grasp on the basic science behind climate.