Well this is something I'm embarrassed about because for years I was a die hard believer in the man made global warming myth. But as time went on and I became older and wiser, as I studied and considered the topic, finally like an epiphany I could suddenly see how I had been deceived.

While climate change is a constant ebb and flow here on Earth, short term trends can be misrepresented as impending calamity. And this perceived calamity can be used to further an agenda. As nothing gets people to blindly support a cause better than fear of the unknown.

So we come to find out that increased solar activity was causing increased temperatures on Earth. We find out that the scientists saying it was 'man made' were being paid to say that, and the people paying them are trying to put a global tax in place that singularly covers every human activity forever.

Like the druids of ages past, that convinced the public that the solar eclipse was really a snake god eating the sun, requiring all to bow to the druids for protection, these crafty control freaks have run their scam.

So, what now? Now that we realize we've been fooled, will we allow them to go ahead with the plan anyway? Maybe they don't care what we really believe. They pay some scientists, buy some TV networks, manufacture print stories and as far as the perception of the common man is concerned, decide what reality is. Should we insist that the emperor has no clothes, or just accept that truth is nothing more than what most people happen to believe?

Here's a good documentary on the subject of Global Warming and it's relationship to solar activity.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

 

Fraud is an interesting word choice.

hmmm... There is still people who are PHD's who say the opposite...

I'm still not entirely sold either way... And to call it a swindle I think is a little bit of a sensationalist leap.

I think you should go back to 5:25. What you're saying here is pretty much exactly what they are trying to stop, which is jumping on anything blindly.

Albeit this is a good resource I wouldnt use it as the ONLY resource you look at.

Recent studies conducted by NASA show a clear tie between solar sun spot activity and climate change.  For a long while I wasn't sure whether or not humans had anything to do with global warming.  But since the data shows that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, then I would say that we are not responsible.  Human population and CO2 emissions have not declined in the past decade, but global temperatures have.  That is inconsistant with man-made global warming.  If we are the cause, then temperatures should still be going up since population and carbon emissions are at an all-time high.

That evidence right there tells me that the sun has more to do with climate change than we do.

I will admit that the sun theory has strong backing, and if pressed Id say im leaning more in that direction, Im just waiting on a little more unity among the egg heads before I sit down on one side of the issue.

Why lean entirely one way or another? Why poise only two explanations for global warming for that matter? When it comes to any two opposing sects or mindsets trying to define only one reason for global warming; they're doing a disservice.

Our science is apt enough to monitor the amount of sun spots and units of greenhouse gases; it isn't as clear-cut as one is the culprit and the other is myth, they're both tied. I mean, of course the sun has an effect on the planet's temperature, but greenhouse gases do as well since they trap heat.

There's things we can do to effect the climate in positive ways, and there's things we can't control with the climate. Doesn't mean one needs to believe in either an impending ice age due to solar activity, or 200 degree weather before the century is out due to SUVs.

So uh, let's not blame everything entirely on the sun, or SUVs. They both play a part; so what do we do about it? 

Yes there is global warming and global cooling .Its not man made as it has happened countless times.We humans have been here just a short stint of time.There will be another ice age regardless of what we do and whether we humans are here or not.Al gore has made his money off of this BS.I pity all the climatologists who jumped on all this all crap.If they studied soil samples thoroughly they would know.There will also be a warming period as well.Nothing we do will change that.

It is a phoney end times scenario that helps secularists create a new religion of their own, to satisfy the human need for religion.

The world is coming to an end, the cause is human sin, if we do not repent and change our sinful ways, we will all die. Tim Lahaye could have written the story.

Secularists felt left out by the Fundamentalist Christians, so they made up their own Big Fear. It is a lame copy of a bad tactic to get people to believe in your religion by scaring them into it.

Originally posted by sepher

Why lean entirely one way or another? Why poise only two explanations for global warming for that matter? When it comes to any two opposing sects or mindsets trying to define only one reason for global warming; they're doing a disservice.

Our science is apt enough to monitor the amount of sun spots and units of greenhouse gases; it isn't as clear-cut as one is the culprit and the other is myth, they're both tied. I mean, of course the sun has an effect on the planet's temperature, but greenhouse gases do as well since they trap heat.

There's things we can do to effect the climate in positive ways, and there's things we can't control with the climate. Doesn't mean one needs to believe in either an impending ice age due to solar activity, or 200 degree weather before the century is out due to SUVs.

So uh, let's not blame everything entirely on the sun, or SUVs. They both play a part; so what do we do about it? 

The question is not WHETHER something effects something, but how significant that effect is. Which is more important to the climate, the cycles of the sun or human activity? Everything effects everything which effects everything, but if we do not discern significance we run the risk of enacting some very bad policy in the name of something insignificant.

People only have  so much time and so much money to spend on helping the envoronment; if they spend all ther time and money on "doing something" about man made global warming, they are not cleaning up our rivers and lakes -- also they may be harming business, and even starving people in the name of something that will have an insignificant effect on "climate change."

I say people who care about the environment would be better served if they followed real science, instead of the "political" science of man made global warming.

i think human do have responsibilities on the global warming. the point is is the sun or human , which should bear the main part. i think it doesnt matter, anyway everybody should protect the environment, this is postive. as to the when sun will destroy the earth, its the story behind

Well if its a fraud then maybe its all about pulling money from goverment agencies then..

Originally posted by Fishermage 

The question is not WHETHER something effects something, but how significant that effect is. Which is more important to the climate, the cycles of the sun or human activity? Everything effects everything which effects everything, but if we do not discern significance we run the risk of enacting some very bad policy in the name of something insignificant.

People only have  so much time and so much money to spend on helping the envoronment; if they spend all ther time and money on "doing something" about man made global warming, they are not cleaning up our rivers and lakes -- also they may be harming business, and even starving people in the name of something that will have an insignificant effect on "climate change."

I say people who care about the environment would be better served if they followed real science, instead of the "political" science of man made global warming.

So long as "real science" isn't hijacked to mean "the sun is responsible for everything and there's nothing we can do". The debate of which has the greater effect, man or cycles with the sun, shouldn't overcast the fact that man plays a measurable part too in that there's real science behind units of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and corresponding trends of temperature.

Perfect? Probably not, I'm no scientist; but I get that heat-trapping gases trap heat, and more of it would probably trap more heat, and that should probably warrant curbing.

Everything plays a role.  It's the freaking planet- there are so many factors that influence THE ENTIRE PLANET.  To say it's this so it can't be that; is stupid.   

Originally posted by bigdophin123

i think human do have responsibilities on the global warming. the point is is the sun or human , which should bear the main part. i think it doesnt matter, anyway everybody should protect the environment, this is postive. as to the when sun will destroy the earth, its the story behind

Well that's interesting you mention that because as one who doesn't subscribe to man-made global warming, I am probably more conservation minded than about 95% of liberals who live where I do.  I recycle everything I possibly can.  I don't drive a car, but walk or bike (mostly for the health benefits) to places that aren't too far away.  And I don't have an air conditioner either, I just open all my windows in the summer-time.  In spite of the quote I have posted on my bio page, I have a tiny carbon footprint.  I am a big believer in caring for our planet and trying to keep it as environmentally healthy as possible.

But I have a problem with curbing American business practices on the false premise that it will fight global warming because I believe it will do serious economic harm to our country.  And to try to hold the United States to certain standards such as those outlined in the Kyoto treaty, while at the same time exempting major polluting countries like China and India is nothing more than an attempt to handicap our economy so other countries can compete unfairly.  A lot of people have said that the modern-day radical environmental movement is simply socialism disguised as environmentalism.  I think there's something to be said for that.

THERE IS GLOBAL COOLING.  EVERYONE WE NEED TO CREATE LOTS OF COAL POWER PLANTS AND CONSTANTLY WASTE ELECTRICITY.  JUST LOOK AT THE HUMANITARIAN EFFORT CHINA IS POOLING WITH SO MANY HIGHLY POLLUTING PLANTS.  I THINK ITS TIME TO INVEST IN SPACE HEATERS.

Well tbh the human population is generally responsible for a lot of shit that happens. We use artificial fertilizer which causes eutrophication. Look at what's happened and is happening to all the forests around the world. A lack of sustainable development has caused endless problems. Heh, global warming you say? We probably are responsible for it.

May I interpret your words, OP, as:

"I used to belive there was a Man made global warming when that point of view was stronger, but now that the oficial statement is that the sun is responsible I have changed my toughts"

And this is not trying to pull down your point, just saying that you are just backing up "the current official statement".

About NASA proving that the Sun is responsible for global warming... they recently released a study that strong solar winds that could black out the entire world would hit us in 2012... I guess we should all be scared.

last thing is, we should consider that global warming is a mixture of factors, one may also be that every big city in the world is like a big heater, where everyday a lot of heated gases come out.

If the point is "We shouldn't try to contaminate the atmosphere to stop global warming cause thats retarded". I completly agree.

But if the point is "Global warming is not my fault, lets continue ravaging the earth" I guess thats stupid at least. That doesn't mean I aprove goverment control, eco-taxes, etc. People should change, or the earth should wash them from their face.

So when should Al Gore give back his award?  Anyone who thinks its totally man made is a complete and utter fool.  No different from thinking the world is flat when a bunch of "experts" tell you.  Not even the majority of "experts".  Which makes more sense anyway?  The earth has warmed and cooled enumerable times over billions of years, yet in the few hundred that man has created his evil machines, HE and ONLY HE has caused the warming.  OR, its just a natural event that happened before we arrived and will continue to happen after we're gone.  Hmmmm.  Tough choice.  Thats not to say we shouldn't take steps to clean ourselves up.  I'm an avid recycler as well.  But the steps and laws are getting completely out of hand, designed for only 1 thing and 1 thing only.  To make CERTAIN people a whole lot of money.  ScumBAGS.

Gore and his religious fanatics are completely nuts to think we had the biggest impact.  What gaul to think we have more power than the sun and nature.  I'm sorry, its the US who has more power, since its always us that causes all the problems.  Not China or India or Russia, ect..  The evil USA where Gore has made all his millions and has millions of fools to follow him. 

I guess I should've jumped on the green bandwagon early in order to bilk people out of their cash.  I guess I might feel bad about it, but then I'd be living in a much bigger house, driving nicer, bigger cars doing more damage than I did when I lived modestly.  But I'd be rich and happier.....kind of like Mr. Gore=)

We just needed an excuse to kick ourselves in the ass and stop destroying the planet.

I don't care if it's a giant lie if it gets everyone to change their ways.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Fishermage 

The question is not WHETHER something effects something, but how significant that effect is. Which is more important to the climate, the cycles of the sun or human activity? Everything effects everything which effects everything, but if we do not discern significance we run the risk of enacting some very bad policy in the name of something insignificant.

People only have  so much time and so much money to spend on helping the envoronment; if they spend all ther time and money on "doing something" about man made global warming, they are not cleaning up our rivers and lakes -- also they may be harming business, and even starving people in the name of something that will have an insignificant effect on "climate change."

I say people who care about the environment would be better served if they followed real science, instead of the "political" science of man made global warming.

 

So long as "real science" isn't hijacked to mean "the sun is responsible for everything and there's nothing we can do". The debate of which has the greater effect, man or cycles with the sun, shouldn't overcast the fact that man plays a measurable part too in that there's real science behind units of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and corresponding trends of temperature.

Perfect? Probably not, I'm no scientist; but I get that heat-trapping gases trap heat, and more of it would probably trap more heat, and that should probably warrant curbing.

Just because man plays a measurable part doesn't mean man plays a significant part. Science, and logic, show, thus far that he doesn't.