What say you global warming proponents?

Question

Review the referenced article that refers to Canandian scientists findings. This proves the exact arguement global warming skeptics have stated all along.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Answer 1

Here is the article:

http://tinyurl.com/2lsdsf

It's nothing new.  It just has scientists talking about the fact that the current 11-year solar cycle (which just started less than a month ago) has so far been quiet, which tells us nothing about what caused the warming over the past 30 years.

Then you get a paleoclimatologist (Patterson) talking about past climate change.

Just the usual stuff with everybody ignoring the fact that solar activity has decreased slightly over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated rapidly:

http://tinyurl.com/2sk83e

http://tinyurl.com/yprers

And that natural causes cannot account for the recent warming, as the third graph here illustrates:

http://tinyurl.com/36nq98

Answer 2

I agree with your position.

The sun is more important in global warming (cooling) than human activity.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx...

Answer 3

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx...

I believe that is the article link.  Mine didn't work either, It was on Drudge.

For me it doesn't mean much.  They want a new radio telescope so they took a page out of the alarmist book.  Say we are all doomed if you don't give me some funding and maybe they will get their telescope.  I am more worried about cooling than warming.  I am not convinced that we will warm or cool in the future.  Dana suggests that warming in the last 30 years cannot be explained by this yet doesn't explain the cooling that took place in the 1970s except with the typical pathetic attempt at suggesting that reduced sulfur emissions since then have somehow enabled the warming.  With alarmists, all current trends must be explained as man-made even if they don't fall out of line with historic trends (except on some of their questionable charts).

Answer 4

Re-post the link.  The one you have doesn't work.

I would be interested to see the article.

No doubt these Canadian scientists are all "bought and paid for" by "big oil".

Answer 5

I have found the most interesting article on why now is there a global warming consensus.  

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/

2007/05/01/1090/

This is an absolutely fascinating article and looks at the global warming phenomenon in a completely different way.  

The winds of change were blowing for oil, gas and energy companies and they finally got smart and realized that unless they got into the environmental industry, they would be left out in the cold once technology provided cheaper and more efficient energy alternatives.

So while their spin doctors way back when were disputing global warming, they were preparing themselves to win both ways once things started to change.  Not only that but once they were in place they actually created the change with a lot of yelling screaming and a movie.

Please take a look at this article and I know it is long and a bit difficult to read at times, but I saw the AGW issue in a different light than I had before.

Answer 6

If it wasn't an editorial I might take it into consideration, but can't you post peer reviewed science? You might as well get your information from Opra.

Answer 7

I suggest watching the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" - Very eye opening.

Answer 8

I think that you shouldn’t get you scientific news from the opinion page.

A. No serious climatologist is talking about “global cooling”. I believe that this new hype is simply a calculated effort by the skeptics so that when the polar ice melts and the sea levels drastically rise, they can say, “How could we have known that this would happen. Remember back in 2008? Even then, there were scientists that were predicting a global deep freeze.”

B. The author shamelessly misquoted the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research. What the Max Planck Institute actually reports is that, “The increase of the atmosphere’s average temperature over the last 150 years shows striking similarities to the rise of the Sun’s irradiance only until 1980.”[1] That global temperatures no longer correlate with solar irradiance should tell us that something different has occurred since the late 1970’s/early 1980’s.

C. Timothy Patterson is ridiculous, and quoting him weakens this already lame article arguments. Check out this graph:  http://tinyurl.com/hsuqo  

Dr. Patterson either needs glasses, or needs to retire if he truly believes that atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures do not correlate over the course of our current ice age (cycles of glacial and interglacial periods), which has probably lasted for at least 3 million years.

D. This article is just an attempt to paint our recent climate change as part of a natural cycle, and completely ignores the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change:

1. growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mainly due to fossil fuel burning to a level greater than for at least 600,000 years; and

2. observations of global warming at the earth’s surface (in magnitude and pattern) consistent with the increase in greenhouse gases, the basic science of which has been known and understood for over 200 years.

Answer 9

A good read.  The Danish Meteorological Society kicked off this research (per the article) in 1991 and some Canadian researchers are wanting to follow up..... I think that is great!

Al Gore would score some seriously needed credibility points if he were to help put together funding for this proposed furtherance of solar research (as it may affect alleged AGW).

It would be a damned shame if tons of resources were earmarked for 'curing' AGW, only to discover later that we were totally off the mark and should have....perhaps....been preparing for just the opposite......'Sun-induced Global Warming'.

Food for thought.

Answer 10

I saw that article.  Very interesting to say the least.

Answer 11

Dr. Jello uttered the exact response to your assertion that all eco-nuts will use.

And then tell you to watch a propaganda film as if those lies are more effective than your facts.

Don't try to disrupt their delusions with mere facts and evidence.