A cold spell soon to replace global warming

[knightfisher]

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

13:54 | 03/ 01/ 2008

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.

Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.

Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.

Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.

The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.

What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.

Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.

[bigugli]

Another possible and viable theory.

As mentioned before, Science does not yet have have an accurate gauge of conditions, cause and effect, evidence,etc... Empirical science has a long way before it can prove or disprove either theory at this time.

Rising CO2 emissions are a problem if they cannot be converted back to O2 through photosynthesis. In that respect, we have to reduce the destruction of forests and increase reforestation levels dramatically. It is long term approaches, rather than media hype quick fixes, that are needed.

[smerchly]

I have more concern with our water supply . .....we need clean water . We have to clean up our polluting sources ,whether coming from smokestacks that drop tons of deadly chemicals into our lakes , or from the waste that pours from their outflows. The politico's want to keep the pop. growing and expanding housing etc. into our farmlands ,thus putting more pressure on the resources etc. The rain forests are being ripped down in gigantic proportions every hour of the day ,as well as our own forests in North America to accommodate population growth . It's a giant snowball that will eventually bury us .

I saw on a news report yesterday that they were getting temperatures of -70C in Siberia ......now that is dam cold !!!

[bigugli]

Average winter temps in noth sibersk or Lappland is -40 to -50F. Down to -40 spit freezes as it hits the ground. Colder than that it freezes in mid air. You can hear the 'crack'. Frostbite in 5 minutes on unprotected skin. I've heard the troops at Alert have occasionally experienced temps of -70 and lower.

[knightfisher]

Another possible and viable theory.

As mentioned before, Science does not yet have have an accurate gauge of conditions, cause and effect, evidence,etc... Empirical science has a long way before it can prove or disprove either theory at this time.

Rising CO2 emissions are a problem if they cannot be converted back to O2 through photosynthesis. In that respect, we have to reduce the destruction of forests and increase reforestation levels dramatically. It is long term approaches, rather than media hype quick fixes, that are needed.

Good points there Bruce.

While I agree we are contributing to pollution on this planet, I do not believe all

this gloom and doom that has started over the past year or so.

The chicken littles that have recently been running around saying the sky is

falling, in my estimation have some other agenda.

All I recommend is people read both sides of the story, take a look at history

and make their decisions based on some homework,

not just what a few people in power and their minnions

the ''control the sheeple, ''monopoly'' owned media'' want us to think.

[PickerelHunter]

the ''control the sheeple, ''monopoly'' owned media'' want us to think.

Dan can you please clarify who your referring to here? Is it the government, or companies?

I haven't thought too much into this, but the US government doesn't want to sign Kyoto, many people think that the US invasion of Iraq was over oil (and to finish daddies business), oil companies have huge monopolies that are tied into the government....so why would the media push global warming if these bodies are influencing it...if anything your stance is the one that should be more mainstreamed then global warming is because "the powers" have an interest in showing global warming to be a hoax so that they can benefit from it.

Just a thought

[Tom Chopin]

I'm sure there are many 'Green' companies that stand to profit if Industry has to adopt better or new technology....politians will use the 'green' platform to win votes from voters.

[jwl]

there are just too many thoeries out there...I could ask how this theory could even be possible stating the part that says mathematical calculations have predicted an ice age event to happen in about 100,000 years, when there are other studies I read before..can't remeber where, but they suggested that the sun itself is only going to last another 10,000 years before it's life cycle as a star is over and it burns itself out, so therefore that theory of an event happening 90,000 years after that just can't be possible then can it????

[knightfisher]

they suggested that the sun itself is only going to last another 10,000 years before it's life cycle as a star is over and it burns itself out

Don't know who ''they'' are, but astronomers and and scientists have said

for years, that the life of the sun is anywhere from 3 Billion years to perhaps

5 Billion years, and a few have said up to as much as a Trillion years.

[jwl]

Don't know who ''they'' are, but astronomers and and scientists have said

for years, that the life of the sun is anywhere from 3 Billion years to perhaps

5 Billion years, and a few have said up to as much as a Trillion years.

the article that I read a couple years back stated that this time is just about up...the sun is already that old

[knightfisher]

the article that I read a couple years back stated that this time is just about up...the sun is already that old

Guess I should have been more clear.

Don't know who ''they'' are, but astronomers and scientists have said

for the last 20 years up to today, that the remaining life of the sun is anywhere

from 3 Billion years to perhaps 5 Billion years,

and a few have said up to as much as a Trillion years.

[jwl]

you can argue with me about this all day..I don't care who wrote the article I read,,it was in a magazine, in the news paper and on the news..I can't remember when it was exactly or who wrote it but is was a few astronomers and scientists collaberating together and the article suggested that the sun was already much older then most researchers had thought up to that point, and it went on to say that it's life expectancy was running out alot sooner than anyone had thought....who really cares it's just ANOTHER theory...like anyone we remotely know on this planet right now and in times to come are going to be around in 10'000 years, let alone 100,000 or billions.

The point can be argued all day...that's the whole point in what I was getting at...some researchers say the sun still has a lifespan of up to billions of years left...other suggest it's 10,000...who is right?????...who knows???? but I am sure that all the researchers involved swear that they are right and the other os wrong...how can you know you can't actually travel to the sun to collect sample and do studies to prove how old it is...in order to do that you would almost have to have 10 generations of people and about a couple hundred years to travel that far and back...build a self sustaining space vessel..bring a buinch of people to mate, spend a lifetime, have kids, havve those kids have kids, and so on, and do the same here on earth so that all these generations involved in the same project could all keep data and records, and keep in constant contact with one another the whole mission that it would take to get to the sun and back to earth to make thier report...then after all that time the people who started the whole research project in the first place would be long since gone...perhaps only clones left to carry on the work or some mutant gene pool of the original offspring of the ones who started the research left on the space ship and back on earth on that part of the research team...by then, would it really matter what a scientist theorized about the lifespan of the sun today

[knightfisher]

who really cares it's just ANOTHER theory...

Scientists have been studing the age of the universe way back in the 1400s.

In the fiftys scientists decided to use radio waves as a means of measurement.

In the sixtys Penzias and Wilson discovered cosmic microwave background,

and with that get a pretty accurate estimate of the age of the universe.

They both won Nobel prizes for their discovery.

Add to that scientists also use high powered telescopes to watch other galaxies

and how they expand away from us. Using time as a measurement.

With this relatively new technology scientists are now able to get a pretty

good idea how old the universe is, other galaxies and of course the sun.

Absolutely no theory at all. Total scientific facts.

Regardless we are getting off topic.

[jwl]

I was referring to the part that stated something about solar activity being far greater than any CO2 factors ect in the priginal post...so not really straying off the topic...these where accredited scientists as well that came up with the conclusion that the sun is older than it was thought before as well not just some guys on the internet with a whole bunch of "conspiracy theories"...and therfore when the sun starts to "burn itself out" the temperature changes incurred would first cause a reaction of solar flares ect radiating toward to make the earth so hot that everything on the planet could not exsist any more, and then after that there would be dramatic drops in temperature, that would creat a huge ice age so to speak, and then....well the earth cannot sustain life anymore without the sun.....there are always going to be scientists arguing back and forth about who is right and who is wrong...who really knows who is..no one on this fishing forum is going to prove it either way..it's all just a matter of what you beleive to be the correct answer....science changes so called facts all the time..I am sure that many scientists have won Nobel prizes with thier research or have been accredited for thier findings world wide in many shapes or forms, and then others many years later have won the world over disproving the other guy. Either way..be it the greenhouse effect or whatever working in an opposite manor, a big giant cloud of some sort stuck in our atmosphere....doesn't somehting have to block the sun's ablilty to radiate and warm the earth in some shape or form for there to be an ice age ....the proximity of the sun to the earth right now is why our part of the globe is having winter..that's why it's cold, and in a couple months it will be hot...heck a tiny rain cloud blocks the sun on a not so warm day and you sure feel the temp drop..on the other hand, the sun comes out from behind the cloud, and you are glad for that 30 seconds of "extra warmth"

on another note, there is one part of the original post that states somehting about....Earth is unlikely see a temperature change disaster or somehting like that ( I already know I didn't quite quote that part)....and then in another paragraph down it states that the earth is more likely to see another ice age...isn't that in itself kind of contradictory???

[bigugli]

I fear that this debate ,as well as those prior, are proving to be counterproductive. Debates over global or astrophysical theorum are as productive as a debate over theology. They produce a polarization of ideas with no working middle ground. They become dogma, with each side calling the other heretic.

A far more damaging effect is the inaction that such a convoluted debate creates. There are things that are wrong with this world and there are things that can be done. Unfortunately, most people need to be led, and will do little until someone comes to the forefront to lead them and give definitive answers.

KF's notion of sheeple, although discomforting, is fairly close to the truth. The military has known this for centuries. To use an old European analogy, sheep follow, goats lead. There are always more sheep. The individual has always been suppresed in every society. Even America, with it's cult of the individualist is now travelling that road as the needs of the "state' supercede rights. As long as the debate remains clouded, the clock will still run,and things will remain the same. However , science needs to come up with more factual data and less theory, media hype has had its part in clouding scientific judgement in the hunt for headlines and ad dollars.

[knightfisher]

I am sure that many scientists have won Nobel prizes with thier research or have been accredited for thier findings world wide in many shapes or forms, and then others many years later have won the world over disproving the other guy.

I suppose there's a possibility. However the Nobel prizes have been only

awarded for about 100 years. To that, the panel who awards the prizes

would probably consult other peers to ensure the accuracy of the data being

discovered and considered for the award.

And yes one will always finds a few scientists who try to go against the agreed

up principles of tested and irrefutable facts. Just witness some scientists today

that are trying to disregard much of the proven history on the earth and climate

change as I have posted in various threads, and say CO2 is causing global warming when,

as per said journals it's only contributing, and again how much, 5,10,15 percent.

The data I posted earlier on the science used to gauge the age of the sun and

universe is pretty darn accurate.

All the science books we read in school informed us the distance of the sun from

the earth, the various planets and such and give actual miles.

With this science of distance NASA was able to put a man on the moon and

spacecraft on Mars. A lot of lives would have been lost going to the moon,

if the science was not as relatively accurate as they claimed.

As I post earlier, science is using this technology to measure the age of the universe

by is continual expansion, based on the big bang theory, which I guess is written

as a theory as not to up set the religious viewpoint of creation to much, this science is

accepted as truth because it's been demonstrated to be true.

Based on these scientific facts, the sun does have billions of years to go,

unless god pops in and says ok people I decided to revoke the lease, everybody off.

Science has proven blocking the sun can cause climate change, an ice age, fact.

Just as science has proven the suns activity or inactivity also causes climate change.

Though we do have the right to decide what we want to agree with, and believe,

why would we agree with one fact of blockage of the sun, and not the activity of the sun

as affecting the climate on this planet.

Per the information in other threads, which listed the various temperatures of earth

in the past via carbon testing, the earth was as hot in the 1700, and five or six

other times as it is today, for all those concerned about the earths mean temperature

rising by 3/4s of a degree.

Who knows what Habibullah Abdusamatov was thinking at the time when he said

the earth is unlikely see a temperature disaster. Could it be because it would take

thousands of years for an ice age to develope, and man would adjust to the new environment.

Look at all the old civilations and artifacts discovered from thousands of years ago,

where apparently huge cities flourished, and are now wasteland deserts, or burried under

the oceans.

Or perhaps with the new discoveries of mircowaves being used as a heat source, electronic

fields could be put around cities hampering the affects of the ice age. In the starwars research

which was claimed to be scraped, part of the idea was putting up a field around the US which

would disable all incoming missiles electronically. Who knows what he was thinking, but one

thing is for sure, science will develope considerably in the next few thousand years.

[jwl]

of course all this discussion is going to be counter productive when the end result is always going to be..."no, I am right and the others are wrong" kind of outcomes.

Science and technology changes all the time...facts and theories are disproven and changed every day in the scientific world,myself..I never claimed to be "right" about any of it, just stating theories or scientific findings I have heard about in the media before..I am not a world renowned scientist, either are any of us on this forum..just kind of proving the point that all this is just turning into an "I am right and everyone else is wrong" mentality on here...and an all mighty contest to get the last word in for some.....this is practically as bad as getting into a huge debate about religion...."I beleive in this and that's it so therefore everyone else and thier religious beliefs are wrong" kind of thing. We have all seen already that there are facts, theories and evidnece on both sides of the coin here.....none of us came up with any of it...so what's the point in making it an endless arguement, besides some people's never ending quest to be "right" about everything

[knightfisher]

of course all this discussion is going to be counter productive when the end result is always going to be..."no, I am right and the others are wrong" kind of outcomes.

Science and technology changes all the time...facts and theories are disproven and changed every day in the scientific world,myself..I never claimed to be "right" about any of it, just stating theories or scientific findings I have heard about in the media before..I am not a world renowned scientist, either are any of us on this forum..just kind of proving the point that all this is just turning into an "I am right and everyone else is wrong" mentality on here...and an all mighty contest to get the last word in for some.....this is practically as bad as getting into a huge debate about religion...."I beleive in this and that's it so therefore everyone else and thier religious beliefs are wrong" kind of thing. We have all seen already that there are facts, theories and evidnece on both sides of the coin here.....none of us came up with any of it...so what's the point in making it an endless arguement, besides some people's never ending quest to be "right" about everything

Jack feel free to post my name Knightfisher, Dan. I am the one your are refering to.

I am not on here to be right. You couldn't be more wrong. I like yourself just state the

scientific facts that I am aware of. The facts are right or wrong, not me.

If I were to post things on how I feel with out any evidence what so ever, then I could

understand how you would view the " I am right'' as accurate.

And there is no arguement coming from me at all. Just scientific fact, for one's

consideration.

If you Jack, post something and the facts are wrong or inaccurate,

( your not wrong Jack, get what I am saying here,

some of the facts you cited are wrong ) then I am

going to post the correct facts, if there are any available.

As I posted about cosmic microwave background, and using time as a measurement,

it is never going to be refuted as an inaccuracte science. It may be improved on, or better

discoveries revealled, but never tossed out.

I try my best never to generalize, as then, without facts as I have posted, I am up

for ridicule.

You have not refuted what I posted about measurement, that NASA uses to get space

craft and people to the moon and mars, as well as further out into space, and how

these technologies are used for dating the universe, planets, suns, and galaxcies

Why not ? Is it because it's fact and NASA uses it, and scientists know it to be true.

It appears you are trying to fluff off the evidence and facts I present.

I am not the one avoiding the few scientific facts I have presented, measurement,

being the last one.

Again Jack, I am not making you wrong at all. I am addressing the facts you present.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the person being right or wrong, but the facts.

Any ways Jack, I enjoy your input, and lets get back to the issues at hand.

[jwl]

I am not trying to fluff off anything, it doesn't matter what anyone else has posted on any of the threads involved in all these "discussions", people have shown facts on both sides of the coin, I am not going to sit here and spend a month trying to find the info that I was referring to..just stating that this was something I had read about in the past, and it came from a team of accredited researchers as well.....who knows who is right and who is wrong, certainly none of us...when is the last time any members of this froum where part of a world renowned global and astonomical research team never...we can all spend the rest of our lives finding somehting on the world wide web that goes against the points that others are trying to make......my whole point is that it just turns into another version of "the useless thread" but only it gets more personal.

There can be 100 members on here presenting different facts about whatever...but it is going to change your opinion on evidence or scientific fact that you have found Knightfisher???.nope it isn't....does that matter...no not really, that's your opinion that you are fully entitled too, and every one else is entitled to thiers....if you look into it hard enough, I am sure that everyone who has been involved in these threads can find something that states the other's beliefs on the issue are wrong, that's all part of scientific research,picking apart facts, and theories of others....everyone has made valid points on both sides of all these issues.

if you ask me, the "right answer" is probably a bit of both sides of the arguement put together as opposed to trying to come up with solid evidence that refutes the other. If I looked around long enough on the web, I could probably come up with something that states all of the points made so far on both sides of the story are wrong..and all part of a huge "conspiracy theory" if ya think about it...does that make any one of us smarter than the next guy...I doubt it, it's still just going to boil down to how firmly one believes in materials they have read, or something they have seen on a science program ect, I am sure in some round about way that even the researchers working together on these sort of things spend decades at times knocking heads over who has the right answer before they actually find one, if in fact thier is one...I guess it all depends on what kind of experiments and formulas ect they are using to come up with the data in the first place...it's an endless debate, based on some theory,some evidence and proven fact on both sides of the coin..no one is ever going to come up with the conclusion that this is it...100% concrete evidence the end....they can't the world, the universe and so on, is changing as we speak, therefore there are going to be new disciveries all the time.

I admit this is a very stupid annalogy .......but for example, there are doctors out there who believe that newborn babies should be put to sleep on thier backs, other say on thier sides, others say on thier stomachs, there is equal eveidence on all 3 sides of the story to say that one way is better than the other.........so who is right???? and who is worng???? do you believe your doctor, or do you beleive your neighbours doctor???? what it boils down to is you are going to do what you believe is right..but does this make the other 2 doctors wrong???? probably not.........it's always going to turn out to be...I hear the evidence, and see the facts that are presented...butttttttt....there is also this evidence and fact against this,and so on....it's just human nature to be "the king of the castle" in the never ending quest for knowledge and problem solving...whether it's an issue like global warming,climate change, the longevity of the universe, or how to make a better cup of coffee...the human race is curious, and always needs an answer for something, and won't stop until they think they found it, and in that process will ultimately,instinctively do what ever they have to do to climb the top of the mountain...and in the process will come up with a million conclusions just because some where, deep down, they HAVE to get and answer.....being it a conspiracy theory, belief in extra terrestrial forces, ghosts,God,mankind, or natural change..it doesn't matter, we as humans will always have to try and come up with what we think is a logical conclusion because we can not take the fact that there are things we will never have control over, and we need to beleive that we are the masters of the universe

[knightfisher]

The current discussion has changed a bit to science having

some hard core irrefutably truths. Unchanging except to

further improve the various discoveries.

If one decides to refute scientific evidence, say the earth is round,

then they are going to be isolated from reality.

I can't see how anyone could disprove this scientific fact.

Just as no one could disprove NASA's use of measurement.

People will aways have various opinions on theories, until

the scientific facts like the system of measurement I sited

is established.

Grey area's where scientists and researchers are still looking

at every possibilty are going to be open for discussion.

Once facts are presented, tested, proven to be correct,

then science accepts them as truth.

To go against truth will bring on ridicule.

The carbon dating of earths different periods, the continual effects

of the sun and the other discoveries they found have assisted

scientists to project situations which may arise pertaining to the earth.

The theory of CO2 causing global warming and such cause much

discussions, opinions and debates. There is no scientific proof yet.

Just that it contributes to.

However to disregard earlier scientific discoveries on the effects of

the sun's activity, carbon dating and the such, is really quite ridiculous

looking at it from a logical point of view.

No one can disagree the lack of evidence on CO2 is causing this

great debate world wide.

But it behooves one to query, why is the scientific data from the

past not being recognize or brought up.

All that's being talked about is global warming being caused by CO2

and that the people have to be taxed for contributing to it.

Doesn't sound to logical to me ( my opinion ) which could/should

entice one to think......is there a hidden adgenda going on.

I like analogies, here's mine.

Bill is developing a cold.

Dr. A says the weather is colder than usual these past few years and that is causing your cold.

Buy the heavist coat you can find.

Dr B. says weather conditions never use to be this cold, it must be causing your cold,

you need to purchase warmer clothes.

Dr C says, well looking at people in the past that have become ill, regardless of how cold it is,

it was always caused by a virus.

Studies of the past, he says, demonstrably prove in order to get ill, you have to have a virus,

and a compromised immune system.

Bill says but doesn't this colder weather cause it or contribute to it.

Dr C says well yes I suppose colder weather can contribute to your cold,

but it did not cause the cold, the virus did.

And the discussion continues.....

[basskicker09]

it doesnt really matter what you read about global warming no one knows for sure what the long term effects the causes and the way to stop it from happening short of stopping most the industries it doesnt matter i dont see why you have to argue about it once every couple of weeks its kind of childish dont you think

thats just my 2 cents

[smerchly]

don't think it's childish stuff , it's the biggest "event" in the world news today , & it's the younger generation who will be paying out a big piece of the paycheck to keep warm or drive a car etc. This part of our forum is to discuss , in a civil manner , the pro's & cons of this issue . The politicians that will be implementing all the new laws like idling your car for 3 min., or adding a carbon tax to your heating bill & gasoline costs , have a lot at stake to get elected or be tossed in the recycle bin . So , the push is on to sway the people's thoughts on the causes of "global warming"

I am not a fan of the T.O. Sun but I do read some of their edits. to keep abreast of what they are feeding the huge pop. of T.O. etc. Here is 2 recent "opinions" of their seasoned writers ......quite surprising to see , as they run against the grain of most newspapers who endorse the status quo.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4872345.html

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4881773.html

[knightfisher]

An excerpt from http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4872345.html

''They should also tell Canadians the environment is not a "Canadian" issue, it's a global issue and that even if we were to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from all our industries, there will be no noticeable impact on global warming, although we will cripple our economy, sending more jobs to China, India, Brazil and the United States, countries responsible for almost 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, none of which any of them are reducing under the Kyoto accord.''

And from http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4881773.html

''Al Gore won't like this. One of the world's leading agencies monitoring climate change says there's no link between global warming and the frequency or severity of hurricanes hitting the United States over the past century.''

''The NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is a world leader in monitoring, recording, assessing and researching weather and climate. Its data bases, including information from weather satellites, are among the most comprehensive in the world.

These latest findings run contrary to the fear-mongering by Gore and Co. who insisted there is a direct, causal relationship between global warming and hurricane formations in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth.''

Good to see this is the mainstream media. It means now at least thousands of us common folks will now

begin to question the real reason this global warming ( can I say the word scam ) is being put to the tax payers.

To add to Bill's post. Because this tax is not just going on home heating but gasoline, everything

will go up. All our food will cost more. Wallymark will have to raise their prices, everything that

needs delievery will go up.

Guess maybe I should start charging for my estimates, na, I will just do

what all other contractor will do, include it in the price.

Every thing will just continue to go up, almost sounds like there will be fewer, living

in the ''middle class''.

Thanks Bill for the post and the links. Sometimes gets frustrating trying to get a point across, by diversionary

posts.

[PickerelHunter]

Not sure about the date of this report, but it's the same agency saying basically the opposite thing http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gfdl.html

It's frustrating getting htese opposed views from credible sources, especially from the same agency, but I think that shows where we are on this issue. Both sides can find enough scientific data to back up their theories.

Going back to this tax stuff, that first article hits it right on the nose (and Dan quotes it in his post), it's naive to think that Canadians alone can make a noticeable impact on a global scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...oxide_emissions we only contribute 2.3% of the world's emissions. The U.S. and China are the major players and should be the ones making these pushes, not us. And per capita we're 11th on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ions_per_capita

[knightfisher]

Yes it is frustrating getting these opposed views.

That is why it is sooooooooo suspect.

Based on theories at this point.

As I mentioned before, if the angle was pollution, and the

harmful effects, citing the various wild life in the oceans and

lands that are being killed due to human activity then I could

understand having to take responsibilty.

However, industries would be hit the hardest wouldn't they ?

Just look at the barren waste land at our Nickel mine up north

that Bruce refered to.

However big industry and corporations have tons of disposable

income they use to lobby the governments with. So being

bought, or ( manipulated, may be a more favorable word ) the

governments are given a different bill of sale. They are told

no, no, it's not pollution that's causing all this damage, it's

CO2 emissions, and look we even have some ''bought'' scientists

to back up this finding. And it's proven the little guy is doing

way more damage then us. The waste lands at the Nickel mine

and that is occuring in Alberta, and other places around the

world are just flukes. Don't know how they happened.

Also you government people will make tons of money off the sheeple, I mean people.

Of course the above is just my opinion, probably totally wrong.

However, just to give you some reality how powerful corporations are.

Just try and request the deal made with the corportation that bought

the 407 from the government.

I suppose a few questions could arise about a now ''private'' highway.

Being that we have to pay for this private road, who pays for the road

repair. What are our OPP doing monitoring a private road. Does the

corporation that owns it, pay the government to have it monitored.

Since we can only access this private road if we pay, how is it if we

refuse to pay the tolls, the government could suppend our licence.

Whats the government doing working for the corporation ?

What are the exact details of this contract with this corporation and

the government, and how come we can't read every last word in it.

This government by the way is suppose to represent you and me the common folk.

Let me get this straight. Politicians lobby us for our vote, and say they

will work for us. They get in power, make all decisions without our approval

and make these clandistine agreements with corporations, but we the people

who put the politicians in office to represent us, we are kept in the dark

to these deals.

You will be given some articles, and thats it.

Why ? Because any dealings with a private sector, does not have

to be made public. The contract as I understand with the 407, is sealed

from public view.

What a fantastic loop hole the government has there. As not to be

put on the hot seat.

Got side tracked with my opinion

The possible bottom line here is people around the world may not agree

they are causing pollution, it's the industries, so will rise up aganist any

tax for that.

However the CO2 scam, well..... put fear and doom and such and man

you can really milk the sheep. Do sheep produce milk, I know goats do

CO2 has not been proven to cause climate change. Only that it can contribute

to warmer temperatures.

All past information on

climate change has or is being ignored.

Is that logical ?