I'm looking for arguments on both sides (i.e. the greenhouse argument v. solar activity argument) from unbiased sources.
thanx.
thanx.
Anyone know of any good unbiased sources that discuss global warmning
- Thread starter Corporate Thug
- Start date
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,976
- 141
- 106
The Global Warming Scam
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]
Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register] Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html
Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.
So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)
Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.
The push towards a global carbon credit mechanism continues to be one of the top agendas of the world elite. Despite the fact that numerous scientific studies have concluded that the entire solar system is getting warmer as part of a natural cycle, non-stop propaganda from the major corporate news networks continue to blame man made carbon emissions for planetary warming. In addition, the establishment media pushes unfounded claims that global warming will result in a myriad of environmental disasters. Despite the fact that man made global warming is a complete fraud, the world elite are selling fear as a way for them to bring in a world carbon credit enslavement system. This carbon credit system will be used as a funding mechanism to consolidate wealth into the hands of the big global corporations and to potentially fund regional and global governmental institutions.
In 2005, the European Union began the foundational steps to setup a credit system based off of carbon emissions through the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Now, they are seeking to expand that system to include airliners. Peter Liese a German member of the European Parliament even stated that they want this carbon credit scheme to be global in scale. Below is a blurb from the International Herald Tribune, in which he advocates the need for this carbon credit enslavement system.
A bold attempt by the European Union to impose caps on aircraft emissions received a boost on Tuesday as legislators voted to raise the costs on airlines and to include international flights sooner than expected.
The measures, approved by the European Parliament, are fiercely opposed by the United States and the airline industry, which could cost companies billions of dollars and lead to sharp price rises for passengers. On the opposing side, some environmental groups criticized the proposed measure, which still must be approved by individual EU states, as far too timid.
But members of the European Parliament said that regulating aircraft pollution would set a important precedent and could be emulated by other countries.
?We want a worldwide system as soon as possible,? said Peter Liese, a German member of parliament who helped to guide the legislation through parliament, which met in Strasbourg, France. ?There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done in the aviation sector and which has predominated for many years now,? Liese said...
...
Based off of the definition of a ?covered facility?, the bill defines what an ?affected facility? is defined as. It defines any ?covered facility? as also being an ?affected facility? but the broad language goes well beyond that. In the definition it essentially states that the Administrator of the EPA can actually designate whatever facility they want to designate as to be an affected facility if it emits a greenhouse gas. If you have farm animals, operate a fireplace or any number of things, the EPA at their discretion could declare that you are an ?affected facility? and you will be forced to abide by the regulations set forth in the bill. It also states that ?in general?, this is what is defined as an ?affected facility?, so the bill allows the EPA to bend the rules and use an outrageous amount of discretion. So if you get on the bad side of the people at the EPA, they will have the power to designate your place of business or home as an ?affected facility? even if you do not emit or import fuel that could potentially emit over 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]
Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register] Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html
Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.
So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)
Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.
The push towards a global carbon credit mechanism continues to be one of the top agendas of the world elite. Despite the fact that numerous scientific studies have concluded that the entire solar system is getting warmer as part of a natural cycle, non-stop propaganda from the major corporate news networks continue to blame man made carbon emissions for planetary warming. In addition, the establishment media pushes unfounded claims that global warming will result in a myriad of environmental disasters. Despite the fact that man made global warming is a complete fraud, the world elite are selling fear as a way for them to bring in a world carbon credit enslavement system. This carbon credit system will be used as a funding mechanism to consolidate wealth into the hands of the big global corporations and to potentially fund regional and global governmental institutions.
In 2005, the European Union began the foundational steps to setup a credit system based off of carbon emissions through the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Now, they are seeking to expand that system to include airliners. Peter Liese a German member of the European Parliament even stated that they want this carbon credit scheme to be global in scale. Below is a blurb from the International Herald Tribune, in which he advocates the need for this carbon credit enslavement system.
A bold attempt by the European Union to impose caps on aircraft emissions received a boost on Tuesday as legislators voted to raise the costs on airlines and to include international flights sooner than expected.
The measures, approved by the European Parliament, are fiercely opposed by the United States and the airline industry, which could cost companies billions of dollars and lead to sharp price rises for passengers. On the opposing side, some environmental groups criticized the proposed measure, which still must be approved by individual EU states, as far too timid.
But members of the European Parliament said that regulating aircraft pollution would set a important precedent and could be emulated by other countries.
?We want a worldwide system as soon as possible,? said Peter Liese, a German member of parliament who helped to guide the legislation through parliament, which met in Strasbourg, France. ?There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done in the aviation sector and which has predominated for many years now,? Liese said...
...
Based off of the definition of a ?covered facility?, the bill defines what an ?affected facility? is defined as. It defines any ?covered facility? as also being an ?affected facility? but the broad language goes well beyond that. In the definition it essentially states that the Administrator of the EPA can actually designate whatever facility they want to designate as to be an affected facility if it emits a greenhouse gas. If you have farm animals, operate a fireplace or any number of things, the EPA at their discretion could declare that you are an ?affected facility? and you will be forced to abide by the regulations set forth in the bill. It also states that ?in general?, this is what is defined as an ?affected facility?, so the bill allows the EPA to bend the rules and use an outrageous amount of discretion. So if you get on the bad side of the people at the EPA, they will have the power to designate your place of business or home as an ?affected facility? even if you do not emit or import fuel that could potentially emit over 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Try looking for peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. If you are unsure of their bias, you will be able to see their methodology and decide for yourself.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter