Heatwaves proof of global warming, says NASA scientist

1. stop subsidizing fossil fuels

2. begin to collect a fee from fossil fuel companies in proportion to the amount of carbon they are putting into the air

SpaceBlues wrote:

1. stop subsidizing fossil fuels
2. begin to collect a fee from fossil fuel companies in proportion to the amount of carbon they are putting into the air

3: Use this income to eliminate or reduce 'regressive' taxation, such as income and payroll.

As recommended by a prominent Republicans.
http://www.topix.com/forum/law/TD19R6MU60HSMA...

NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.

The Great Global Warming Swindle - The IPCC like any UN body is political...the final conclusions are politically driven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/

Patriot wrote:

NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.

Dead wrong on point one. Brilliantly accurate on point two.

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/GlobalCoolin...

------

News articles on everything global warming is blamed for:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Patriot wrote:

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling...

Yeah, topix AGW deniers & non-science & non-mathematics educated hold up the Newsweek article is if it is a Holy Grail.

While you weaseled free reads of magazines at your local newsstand, you should have enrolled at University & read Science Papers in Science Journals at your engineering, geology, astronomy, chemistry & mathematics libraries. In the 70's, 44 Science Papers were published on AGW, while only 7 papers were written on global cooling.

Patriot wrote:

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling
http://www.globalwarminglies.com/GlobalCoolin...

Yes they did, well acknowledged by even the scientist who inspired the overblown exaggerations by his paper on aerosol cooling.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-...

Of course, the newsweek article was based on ONE paper (Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"
) which used a 3 times too low value for 'climate sensitivity' and which was soon retracted by the authors. And the paper was corrected in 1975, before the newsweek article (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.ht... )

Well, anyone can make a mistake.

But he retracted his initial paper very soon after publication. In fact, before this misleading and unique journalistic effort.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes they did, well acknowledged by even the scientist who inspired the overblown exaggerations by his paper on aerosol cooling.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-...
Of course, the newsweek article was based on ONE paper (Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"
) which used a 3 times too low value for 'climate sensitivity' and which was soon retracted by the authors. And the paper was corrected in 1975, before the newsweek article (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.ht... )
Well, anyone can make a mistake.
But he retracted his initial paper very soon after publication. In fact, before this misleading and unique journalistic effort.

LessHypeMoreFact...... Thanks for the details!

To respond to the carbon dioxide claim, true scientific data show that we had higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in 1820 and 1940 than we do now.

True atmospheric science shows that we had periods in the last 10,000 years when carbon dioxide was much higher than shown on the IPCC ICLEI chart. True atmospheric science shows that ocean temperatures, not human emissions, control our earth's carbon dioxide concentrations. True atmospheric science shows that carbon dioxide has negligible effect on climate, does not drive climate but only piggybacks on natural climate change.

Prior to the promotion of the global warming fraud, the UN IPCC had access to scientific information that disproved its hypothesis that human carbon dioxide causes significant global warming.

Nevertheless, the UN IPCC produced Summary Reports for Policymakers that ignored and contradicted the input of scientists. The IPCC claimed to have a "consensus" of scientists on its side when it did not and does not.

Participating scientists who were betrayed by the UN IPCC Summary Reports wrote an Open Letter to the IPCC which states the scientific truth.

Here is a summary of the 2007 Open Letter signed by 101 scientists:

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom143.h...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”- Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

ALSO -

C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes – Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the UN's IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere...

http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-sc...

Patriot wrote:

ALSO -
C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes – Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the UN's IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere...
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-sc...

It has always been the sun.

The problem is AGWs only attribute one aspect of solar activity to climate change, TSI. They only count sun spots. They count the spots and then average the spots and call it good. The sun is so much more than spots.

The sun's activity enhances or mitigates cosmic rays by the strength of the heliosphere. If the heliospere is strong we get less cosmic rays and less clouds. If it is weak, we get more cosmic rays and more clouds. Cloud cover determines how much TSI gets to the earth's land and oceans.

Our sun has just experienced a grand solar maximum in the last half of the 20th century with the last three solar cycles being at the highest levels in the last 400 years. Our heliosphere was very strong preventing cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere therefore preventing cloud cover. Not all cosmic rays were redirected and yes even in the 30 years of warming there were clouds.

CERN is not the first to publish this information. It has been published before and just doesn't get the press that disaster stories do.

And cosmic rays mitigation/enhancement is not the only impact of solar activity. There are many more impacts not measured by sun spots.

The IPCC doesn't accept this. They like to count spots. If all you do is count spots then you can say the sun didn't do it. You can average your way into a no impact sun.

But do you really think that? Do you really think the sun has no impact? Really? That's what you have to think to buy into what the IPCC says.

Patriot wrote:

ALSO -
C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes – Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!

Crazy talk. The entire global climatology community dismissed solar forcing decades ago. The IPCC reports put it to rest, and even the most hardened scientific skeptics, such as Muller, have now admitted that solar forcing plays no part in the warming of the past two centuries.

Next time, find a more reliable source than conservative activist James Delingpole, whose scientific credentials are roughly equal to those of Sarah Palin.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
It has always been the sun.
The problem is AGWs only attribute one aspect of solar activity to climate change, TSI. They only count sun spots. They count the spots and then average the spots and call it good. The sun is so much more than spots.
The sun's activity enhances or mitigates cosmic rays by the strength of the heliosphere. If the heliospere is strong we get less cosmic rays and less clouds. If it is weak, we get more cosmic rays and more clouds. Cloud cover determines how much TSI gets to the earth's land and oceans.
Our sun has just experienced a grand solar maximum in the last half of the 20th century with the last three solar cycles being at the highest levels in the last 400 years. Our heliosphere was very strong preventing cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere therefore preventing cloud cover. Not all cosmic rays were redirected and yes even in the 30 years of warming there were clouds.
CERN is not the first to publish this information. It has been published before and just doesn't get the press that disaster stories do.
And cosmic rays mitigation/enhancement is not the only impact of solar activity. There are many more impacts not measured by sun spots.
The IPCC doesn't accept this. They like to count spots. If all you do is count spots then you can say the sun didn't do it. You can average your way into a no impact sun.
But do you really think that? Do you really think the sun has no impact? Really? That's what you have to think to buy into what the IPCC says.

Total bs.

Who would believe your bs? NOBODY!

You can lead a SpaceBlues to data, but you can't make him look.

It's a funny fact that funnyfacts thinks he owns data. hahahaha

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
It has always been the sun.

Have you always been a political nutjob? Solar forcing is now a tiny influence compared to human forcing. But don't take it from me; here's the IPCC:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...

Nothie wrote:

<quoted text>

Why the name change, Nauseous?

Fun Facts wrote:

You can lead a SpaceBlues[sic] to data, but you can't make him look.

Spambrat, if you don't mind.

Nothie wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you always been a political nutjob? Solar forcing is now a tiny influence compared to human forcing. But don't take it from me; here's the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...

As a said, the IPCC likes to count sun spots. If you want to understand the sun, you have got to look at more than spots.

fun farts wrote:

As a said, the IPCC likes to count sun spots. If you want to understand the sun, you have got to look at more than spots.

fun farts thinks he knows more than solar physicists. His ego is fed by his hi skule deegreee that doesn't have upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc.