Enviromental scaremongers get another kick to their granola nuts

[Montgomery Burns]

UK's Telegraph::

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

“The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years.”

Whaaaa? Does that mean there has been long periods of hotter/colder temperatures in past history? The Mother Gaia people never mention that.

Conservationist David Bellamy steps up to home plate:

The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. “Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth,” he said. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not."

Bellamy swings.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock.”

*Crack*

And it's a home run.

[gerryhatrick]

UK's Telegraph::

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

“The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years.”

Whaaaa? Does that mean there has been long periods of hotter/colder temperatures in past history? The Mother Gaia people never mention that.

Conservationist David Bellamy steps up to home plate:

The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. “Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth,” he said. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not."

Bellamy swings.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock.”

*Crack*

And it's a home run.

Oh, your "conservasionalist" say's it's poppycock? Well, I guess it must be poppycock then!

More nitwittery.

As for Dr. Sami Solanki at the institute, it's old news and taken out of context by all the fools who spend their time looking for ways to discredit the truth. Perhaps because they just can't handle it, who nows.

researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

http://www.maxplanck.de/english/illustrati...elease20040802/

looks like your home run was foul caught. You're out.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think the famous UN study identified any sure "cause" for Global Warming. It's interesting, though, that until last year or so many on these boards and others were saying that there was no such thing happening.

It's heartening that people seem to be finally agreeing that it is happening, even if the cause is still being investigated.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

It's interesting, though, that until last year or so many on these boards and others were saying that there was no such thing happening.

Indeed, the naysayers seemed to want both a priori and empirical 'proof' of the causal relationship. Akin to the 'long-held to' tobacco company argument that there was no 'proven' link between cigarettes and cancer.

[BubberMiley]

This is news? There has been no question ever that the earth has undergone climate change before. That's why the ice age ended. There's no question, however, that CO2 emissions can cause global warming, and there is also no question that we are pumping unprecedented amounts of it into the atmosphere.

You can say 2+2=4 or you can say the 4 could have been arrived at through other means, not necessarily through 2+2: explain your position to your grandchildren.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

After a bit of searching, I found a 'conversation' Pateris and I had before last season's record hurricane season.

From Pateris: (Jan 17 2005)

There have not been more hurricanes, tornados, droughts, storms , or any of these things.

From me:

If you'll recall, four large hurricanes in a row hit Eastern North America in 2004. I will not attribute this, for now, to climate change. However, it makes me think of a question for those that oppose the notion that mankind is damaging the planet. Since you seem to argue that no scientific evidence is valid,(save those few reports done by 'scientists' in the employ of oil companies) at what point, or, what events, would have to unfold for you to accept or acknowledge empirical evidence? 5-7 hurricanes Hitting florida for a period of 10 consecutive years? Or would the number have to be higher, say 20?

His response...

Yes, four hurricanes hitting Florida in one year is unusual. But I'm sure it has happened before. There have been numerous occasions in the last 100 years that 3 hit.....If there was a trend showing an increasing number of hurricanes and typhoons over 20 year period I might say there are more storms. But there is no evidence of this.

Perhaps not Pateris, but I'll bet some people are expecting some nasty hurricanes this year.

[sharkman]

Wow, excellent find Monty. Of course any studies that expose the environmentalist theology(The sky is falling THIS TIME DAMMIT!) are immediately disparaged as kooky conservatives and stifled. The only thing that will convince them is 50 years from now when we are still here.

[newbie]

I put my faith in the U.S. national organizations that have been studying this problem for years. If anyone has a handle on the effect of our harmful emissions, it's these folks:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....tent/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

[newbie]

Monty, I don't think you read the entire article. Here's from your link:

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

[gerryhatrick]

Wow, excellent find Monty. Of course any studies that expose the environmentalist theology(The sky is falling THIS TIME DAMMIT!) are immediately disparaged as kooky conservatives and stifled. The only thing that will convince them is 50 years from now when we are still here.

You win the head in sand award. Look back at my first post. His "excellent find" is wholly debunked by a press release by the very institute he cites.

Yes, surprise surprise. This out of context rightwing BS twist is almost 2 years old and it's 100% debunked.

Are you being willfully ignorant or are you just ignorant of the information?

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

Monty, I don't think you read the entire article. Here's from your link:

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

The Earth's temperature has risen slightly because the sun is burning stronger. Check this out from the article:

"The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years."

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Why didn't you post the previous paragraph before your above quote?

"Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming."

Pretty lame, Newbie. Especially when you have accused me in the past of being deceptive.

Did you really think that I would start a thread using an article that I didn't read?

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.[/i]

“The Sun’s radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity,” he [Dr. Gareth Jones] said. (bolded part Newbie accidentally forgot to post)

Sure, there will continue to be scientists who insist on clinging to the West's Suicide Pact™ (aka the Kyoto Protocols), but even Dr. Jones is hedging his bet by including multiple causes in his repertoire.

[geoffrey]

If it ain't what Suzuki says, its not true to the left.

Again, let me restate. CO2 is such a minute component of the greenhouse effect that even if it doubled, it's still one-tenth of what water vapour does.

So unless those clouds are getting bigger because of us, your wrong.

The world isn't ending.

[gerryhatrick]

UK's Telegraph::

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

“The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years.”

Whaaaa? Does that mean there has been long periods of hotter/colder temperatures in past history? The Mother Gaia people never mention that.

Conservationist David Bellamy steps up to home plate:

The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. “Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth,” he said. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not."

Bellamy swings.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock.”

*Crack*

And it's a home run.

Oh, your "conservasionalist" say's it's poppycock? Well, I guess it must be poppycock then!

More nitwittery.

As for Dr. Sami Solanki at the institute, it's old news and taken out of context by all the fools who spend their time looking for ways to discredit the truth. Perhaps because they just can't handle it, who nows.

researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

http://www.maxplanck.de/english/illustrati...elease20040802/

looks like your home run was foul caught. You're out.

Monty is still using selected lines from his link to try and claim the sun is a significant factor in global warming.

So, I have to post this again.

If you can't respond Monty, I'll assume you're just another lying rightwinger willing to gamble anything for partisanship and profit.

Acknowledge your claims are shown to be false by the very organization you point to or be riduculed.

[sharkman]

Uh, Gerry, you didn't respond to my post on killer hurricanes in the 30's, and now you've cranked up the indignition on Monty not answering your post. Hypocrite. The fact is there are plenty of studies against man made emissions having sizable effect, and all the environmentalists do with the studies they don't like is character assassinate the scientist or find some "flaw' in the study. They ignore the facts and try to shout it down with the immediate release of opposing studies and it's really just another type of politics. Boring.

You can run around saying the sky is falling, but they've been saying that since the 70's. The founder of Greenpeace was so happy with the way things were going, he resigned from the organization in the mid 80's. The sky is still up there, and looking to be staying where it is.

[Montgomery Burns]

I'll ignore Gerryhatrick's insults and post this:

Greenland's ice caps grow/thicken 66 cm (26 inches) from 1992-2003:

There are many so-called scientists who claim that Greenland’s ice fields are melting. But satellite measurements conducted by the European Space Agency offer evidence to the contrary- the ice fields are actually growing. A report by the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research issued in October 2005 stated that Greenland’s ice cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming. Recent growth in the interior regions of the Greenland Ice Sheet is reported by a Norwegian-led team of climate scientists. The growth is estimated to be about 6 cm per year during the study period, 1992-2003. They derive and analyze the longest continuous dataset of satellite altimeter observations of Greenland Ice Sheet elevations by combining tens of millions of data points from European Space Agency (ESA) satellites, called ERS-1 and ERS-2, and NASA.

How ya like them apples?

[GostHacked]

It is natural yes. The planet has been going through hot and cold flashes for EONS. But now the real question is, are we responsible for accelerating the process?

[Black Dog]

Again, let me restate. CO2 is such a minute component of the greenhouse effect that even if it doubled, it's still one-tenth of what water vapour does.

So unless those clouds are getting bigger because of us, your wrong.

Geoffery, you know water vapour doesn't stay in the atosphere, but is part of the whole water cycle thing we learned about in Grade 5. In fact water vapour has a atnospheric lifespan of about a week. CO2 sticks around a lot longer. Not only that, but the more CO2 you add to the atmosphere, the warmer it gets, thus you end up with more evaporation and more water vapour in the atmosphere. In other words, water vapour is a natural part of the system and there's usually an equiliberium there. CO2 emissions bung up the whole works.

The world isn't ending.

Well, yeah, it is: the only question is how our actions affect the planet.

I'll ignore Gerryhatrick's insults and post this:

Greenland's ice caps grow/thicken 66 cm (26 inches) from 1992-2003:

Not only do you ignore gerry's neat little skewering of your latest "blockbuster", you seem to be ignorant of a basic principle of climate change and that is global warming can lead to localized cooling.

[geoffrey]

global warming can lead to localized cooling.

I've always had a problem with this idea. I'm not a scientist, but if the world is heating up, shouldn't the world be heating up?

Maybe that is the norm and all the other melting is the exception.

Maybe global cooling leads to localized warming?

[Black Dog]

I've always had a problem with this idea. I'm not a scientist, but if the world is heating up, shouldn't the world be heating up?

Maybe that is the norm and all the other melting is the exception.

Maybe global cooling leads to localized warming?

It has to do with how global temperature changes affect things like ocean currents. For example, melting ice in the Artic would add more fresh water into the oceans and disrupting the flow of currens that carry warm water from the tropics to norther areas like western Europe and eastern North America.

Also interesting about the increase in the snowpack in Greenland is the fact that warmer conditions lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, which falls as snow. Meanwhile, Greeland and Artic glaciers are still receeding...

[lost&outofcontrol]

Someone on this board once said, don't believe anything until the .gov has denied it.

Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House