Sun not responsible for global warming

[david_]

hidden behind the question of cause is the more important question of effect.

the accepted position is that the world is getting warmer and that will be unpleasant for many and life theatening for some.

With such a prospect we should do what we can to reduce the impact of global warming. We can't change solar activity. We can change CO2 emissions, we know that increased CO2 tends to increase global temperatures so we have a responsibiility to reduce the CO2 emissions.

The conservation issue adds weight to the argument.

Regardless of the cause of global warming we can be certain that the effect of reducing CO2 emmisions will be benficial to the long term habitability of the earth.

Any other policy is just selfish.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by david_

the accepted position is that the world is getting warmer

This isn't a position. It's an obervable fact.

and that will be unpleasant for many and life theatening for some.

This is pure opinion. Historically, warm periods have been times of prosperity.

With such a prospect we should do what we can to reduce the impact of global warming. We can't change solar activity. We can change CO2 emissions, we know that increased CO2 tends to increase global temperatures so we have a responsibiility to reduce the CO2 emissions.

We don't know any such thing. This is the basic assumption behind global warming dogma, and the facts do not bear it out.

The conservation issue adds weight to the argument.

Regardless of the cause of global warming we can be certain that the effect of reducing CO2 emmisions will be benficial to the long term habitability of the earth.

This is nonsense.

[AVengeance]

According to the Bible, the past Earth was like a tropical paradise, with far more habitable land than we have now. The Earth todays is a junkyard compared to pre-Flood days. If we could return to just a portion of that, I think it'd be great. If people along the coastlines don't like it, too bad for them.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

According to the Bible, the past Earth was like a tropical paradise, with far more habitable land than we have now. The Earth todays is a junkyard compared to pre-Flood days. If we could return to just a portion of that, I think it'd be great. If people along the coastlines don't like it, too bad for them.

The bible is good for moral issues but please don't look there for support of anything scientific. It's useless in such respects. It also only concerns itself with a small geographic area in the middle east.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

This isn't a position. It's an obervable fact.


This is pure opinion. Historically, warm periods have been times of prosperity.


We don't know any such thing. This is the basic assumption behind global warming dogma, and the facts do not bear it out.


This is nonsense.

There is alot more data that supports it than that supports the opposite. There is no data that supports your position, there is only opinion. Your opinion is that there is a lack of data.

Historically? You are actually trying to draw a correlation between today's current human civilization and that of humans 10's of thousands of years ago?

...and since when is the value of conservation nonsense? It's bad to conserve energy? It's bad if we conserve fossil fuels and decrease pollution?

Surely you can't be serious.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is alot more data that supports it than that supports the opposite. There is no data that supports your position, there is only opinion. Your opinion is that there is a lack of data.

You're wrong. There is no causal relationship between atmospheric co2 and temperature. If there were, why isn't NOW the hottest ever? Isn't the global warming dogma state that today's co2 levels are at an all-time high? So why hasn't there been a corresponding increase in temperature? (1/2 degree in the last century doesn't cut it when co2 is 25% higher than historical peaks).

Historically? You are actually trying to draw a correlation between today's current human civilization and that of humans 10's of thousands of years ago?

Right. People are so different now from 1000 years ago that comfortable weather will kill us. That's why people in warm areas are dying off in droves.

...and since when is the value of conservation nonsense? It's bad to conserve energy? It's bad if we conserve fossil fuels and decrease pollution?

Surely you can't be serious.

Surely you can read better than this. What I called nonsense is the idea that co2 emissions are destroying the long-term habitability of the earth. That's completely ridiculous. Why would you assume I was talking about conservation when he didn't even make a statement about conservation?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

You're wrong. There is no causal relationship between atmospheric co2 and temperature. If there were, why isn't NOW the hottest ever? Isn't the global warming dogma state that today's co2 levels are at an all-time high? So why hasn't there been a corresponding increase in temperature? (1/2 degree in the last century doesn't cut it when co2 is 25% higher than historical peaks).


Right. People are so different now from 1000 years ago that comfortable weather will kill us. That's why people in warm areas are dying off in droves.


Surely you can read better than this. What I called nonsense is the idea that co2 emissions are destroying the long-term habitability of the earth. That's completely ridiculous. Why would you assume I was talking about conservation when he didn't even make a statement about conservation?

temperatures are still increaseing actually. and I believe someone posted earlier in the thread about the thermal drag caused by oceans, where they act like a heat sink delaying the effects of warming. remember the industrial revolution is very recent, and the spike of CO2 is also recent. It takes time for these things to run thier course.

The damage from global warming won't be dead people. Not directly. 1000's of years ago people could pick up and move. They were largely hunter gatherer societies with a few exceptions. They didn't have a global economy and the degree of specialization that we have today. It would cause very much economic damage as areas that used to be farmed would become arid. Entire industries will have to pick up shop and move. There will be alot of economic damage. Some people might die, but only really in 3rd world countries where they are having trouble feeding thier population as it is. Places like Africa. Any interuption in the global food supply would have devastating consequences there. We have built our modern world around the idea that our climate won't change significantly. We put our oil refineries on the coast so that they can be easily accessable by oil tankers. Most major cities are right on the coast. Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, LA, S.F., etc. These are all economic hubs and if we have to pick up and move it will be devastating. No one is saying that humanity will go extinct, but it certainly won't be fun for us.

David said:

The conservation issue adds weight to the argument.

Regardless of the cause of global warming we can be certain that the effect of reducing CO2 emmisions will be benficial to the long term habitability of the earth.

Which is why I was talking about conservation.