How about this?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=ar...rticle_ID=2319

This book discusses the very real possibility that man has no significant impact on global climate change and that global warming and cooling is cyclical, regular and based on the Earth's own thermostat.

They talk of a 1500 year cycle, plus or minus 500 years, in which the Earth sees a sudden change in temperature of 2-degrees Celcius up or down, regularly. This pattern is seen in the data from deep ice cores to the sediment beneath the oceans to tree rings. This doesn't even include the regular 90,000 year ice age cycles.

According to the authors, CO2 comes from warming, it doesn't cause warming. The Earth is 70% ocean by surface area. When solar activity heats up the atmosphere, CO2 comes off that water. That is why you see CO2 levels rise AFTER warming occurs, not before it occurs.

The authors point out that most of the warming we have seen this century occured before 1945, yet most of the CO2 production occured after 1945.

The authors conclude that global warming and cooling comes from natural cycles and we had better learn to adapt to them because we are very arrogant to think that man has the power to either warm or cool this earth substantially.

I for one think anyone who thinks we know what is causing global warming or that we know how long it will last or how hot it will get is flat arrogant and foolish. We can't even predict the weather a week out. How can we predict global climate decades from now?

Last year the same weather experts who stated an infallible belief in man-caused global warming were completely wrong in predicting massive catastrophic damage from hurricanes making landfalls in the USA, when it was a very calm year for hurricanes.

How could they be so completely and totally and preposterously wrong estimating climate patterns 6-months out and yet demand we believe that many years down the road oceans will rise and droughts will occur due to global warming?

If you are under 35 years old, you are old enough to have lived when the previous set of scientists stated the "fact" we were heading into a new ice age because from the 40s to the 70s, the Earth was cooling.

IMHO, the jury is out. I don't know what to conclude, but the theory that man has caused global warming is completely without any basis in proof and is very far from being proved. There is no scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. We simply don't know. All we have is observation of limited local warming

It is funny, so many people have been brainwashed by the media and by schools to consider man-made global warming to be an indisputable fact that anyone who doubts it is considered a heretic or just plain stupid.

Here are the author and publisher descriptions from "Unstoppable Global Warming"

"Author Description
S. Fred Singer was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, (Independent Institute, 1997)."

From the Publisher
Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with the natural physical records found in ice cores, seabed sediment, cave stalagmites, and tree rings, Unstoppable Global Warming argues that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend.

 

Here's the addendum to my earlier post.

Here are sources that call the claims in TGGWS into question. First off, the response posted by Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists that appears in the film. He says he agreed to offer commentary under the assumption it would be used in a documentary weighing both sides of the issue. He says that while he abhors all extremist talk for or against GW, he was never told the director and production company had a reputation for producing misleading films. He says his commentary is used in such a way as to be exactly the opposite of what he really thinks/believes regarding the CO2 question, which is addressed in the film.

Next, there is an article by The Guardian, raising questions with regard to other scientists in the film whose work has been criticized for inaccuracy.

The Independent also has a piece focusing on other claims in the film, specifically with regard to the graphs used to make points visually in the film.

Next, a point-by-point rebuttal of the primary points the film makes, by someone who served on the IPCC panel (one of the groups being criticzed) during some of the time periods of the data used in the film.

Lastly (and separately from anything relating to the film), I just reiterate my view that the claims about repression of development in Africa, while possibly containing some truth, are still stretching to draw a direct conclusion that pro-GW sentiment is the cause. In fact, the director of this program was criticized 10 years ago for creating a film that spends its entirety on trying to prove this very point. Also, part of the GW question has to do with geopolitics, which the show says nothing about (but Gore's film does). Part of the problem is trying to become less and less reliant oon unstable Middle Eastern nations with inflamed populaces, and the amount of money we are blowing by the minute over there. We may never be totally divorced from the region, but it's obvious the current situation is less than ideal.

Also, making more fuel efficient vehicles simply makes economic sense for everyone. Why would oil companies want less efficient vehicles? Increased efficiency would simply allow them a greater period of time in which to operate. The push for more efficiency can only produce newer and better technologies; arguing for the status quo gets us no further than where we are.

As long as there is no immediate legislative action requiring a drastic change overnight, then I do not see the positive efforts towards a cleaner environment being a bad thing. Having seen both sides of the issue, I'm still convinced that man has power above and beyond any other creature to modify the environment (intentionally or not, for better or for worse), and that self-discipline (in a societal frame) is key (isn't this true of just about everything?).

 

Holy Shit! I never thought I would say this but I have to agree with Purple sky.

 

Thanks for sharing your search results.

I am not even close to being a scientist or even fully educated on the facts so I do not feel strongly about either side of this debate.

I am sure that the current attempts at a solution by 'cap and trade carbon emissions' will not work as it is really a shell game that just moves emissions even if all countries would play by the rules, which they don't.

The impact of this issue will affect all of us one way or another so it is important that we push for unbiased research and full disclosure.

 

Nice post!

I agree with this last part to a point. The ends never justify the means. That has been a tactic used throughout history for leaders to do some of the most horrific things to people. Having positive effects on the environment is great, but not by the means of scare tactics and the repression of good science in the name of agenda and politics. I too believe people caring more about the environment and not less is a great thing. I am always made painfully aware of the difference attitude makes visiting Houston as opposed to Portland. But, getting people to change needs to be done in an honest respectful way. Again, great post and overall a nice discussion.

 

The simple fact is this. China (just China) right now burns 1.9 billion tons of coal and it all gets dumped into our air environment and theres people out there that think this wouldnt effect anything in any way?

Thats about as damn lame as the religions guys now saying that God will take care of the Earth so dont worry about it.

 

You're right, and realistically, anyone's pollution is everyone else's pollution by definition on this planet. I think the UN body, flawed as it is, is still the only organization capable of enforcing anything. There's no way any single nation could tell China what they can and cannot do, so the UN must be the body that does so, and enforces wherever it can. Unfortunately China is really feeling is oats now, so it becomes harder and harder with each day to get them into line. The best hope at the moment is that they are coming into IC technology after decades of R&D. Diplomacy is key.

Again, I personally am for rules that, over time (not over night), requires all countries to become as efficient and non-polluting as possible, because it just makes sense. I also think there are ways we can devise to remedy the situation technologically, such as the proposed wind-based CO2 veins, and foliation of skyscrapers.

Regarding the religion question, it is very true we seem to have a bunch of people in this country claiming to believe in God, while simultaneously advocating open abuse and misuse of resources, because the Bible says so. These poeple tend to have a scorched-Earth policy about pretty much everything (including other nations), and I find them morally repugnant. I think there is a real backlash against that, that is building now, but it's still not where it needs to be. I think in general our society is just fat on itself in general. I see people with low-end jobs driving jalopies with chrome 19s every day, I see high school kids spending every penny on hopping up their Celica, I see people living paycheck to paycheck so they can feel like they're in the money, when any moderate life disaster will ruin them. One look at the national average credit score is telling.

People place too high a value on stuff these days, and it shows in just about everything, including how we treat the environment.

 

Shit like this is what bothers me:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05...erts/index.html

[QUOTE]
Q:

 

As do I, especially where rhetoric is concerned. X suggestion is socialist/communist because opposing party A says so; Y suggestion is fascist because opposing party B says so. Rhetoric *IS* argument anymore. Debate left the room in the 80s.

People says that's just politics, but I say that's an excuse for bad behavior.

 

Apparently this issue is splitting the US based evangelical right (abnormal).

One side says:

1) We should adopt a clean earth policy since the bible says that God gave the Earth to us as stewards and its our jobs to keep it clean.

2) Burn it all up, God will take care of it for us, it wont hurt us.

Another member here posted that they hate politics.. me to... I also hate religion.

Had the catholoic church not condemed condoms as devil worshiping devices.... The world wouldnt hit 9+ billion people by 2020. In a way, at least China got this right.