OT National Geographic article says the Sun causes global warming...

While most people who would like to reduce atmospheric CO2 DO recommend a sharp increase in taxes on fossil fuel, there's no reason that the tax can't be revenue-neutral. I've suggested that myself.

The real title of the article, by the way, is:

"One Guy Thinks Global Warming May Be Caused by Solar Variation, All His Colleagues Say He's Wrong"

Of course, to figure this out, you'd have to read the whole article. And reading past the headline is apparently only a Liberal activity.

It wouldn't bother me all that much that you Rightards are oblivious morons, except that you're screwing up my country and planet. I've got nowhere else to go to escape the adverse effects of your shortsighted foreign and energy policies.

The fact that National Geographic published it....would lead one to assume that there are a LOT of people that say the same thing....

That is why I put the article up.

You libs an your new religion are a piece of work!!!!

I read every word and understood it.

The fact that you can't understand the reason why this article is so important is kinda funny.

It is the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC....

Cathy

They say assuming makes an ass out of you. However, I have say that, in your case, it didn't make you into an ass.\

People and organizations publish things they do agree with because their want their audience to get a complete picture of all the views, not just there.

Jeff

Absolutely!

I remember flying into LAX and it looked like a horrible haze over the whole area.

Holy crap - talk about back-pedaling. Illogical back-pedaling, no less.

Cathy

No back pedaling at all, toots....

A few weeks ago, I posted that the History Channel was running a program on ice and water. One segment of the program was on Greenland ice core samples going back 400,000 years. These samples provide evidence of warm periods routinely through the 400K of samples with one significant difference. In all the past warm periods, the samples showed a CO2 to atmosphere ratio of ~

280 parts CO2 to 1,000,000 parts atmosphere. Currently, we are running a rate of 370 parts CO2 to 1,000,000 parts atmosphere. I'd like to know why the difference rather than have to build an ark. YMMV.

If one does a search of true 'earth' scientist you will discover that most of them took little stock in the 'man is the causes' terrorist, as the rantings of the fringe scientists, vested in global warming. Now that the UN 'APPEARS' to be supporting that conclusion, even though the UN report actually says man 'MAY BE' the cause not IS the cause, more of the true earth scientists are speaking up. Many point to the sun flair cycles and it relationship to the earth as well as more rapid movement of tectonic plates as well as the changing tilt in the Earths axis.

mike

"an ark"?? Is this from the bible by chance? LOL

Those numbers are mind boggling for you aren't they.

Why, Pavlov, you're back. Say, if I throw a stick, will you leave?

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message news:nN3Gh.12$Ih.11@trnddc02...

Huh - opens for me, even from your reply post. Anyway... pertinent (to your other - above - post, re: the 70's) excerpt from that same link:

"Scientists do not all agree about the nature and impact of global warming. A few observers still question whether temperatures have actually been rising at all. Others acknowledge past change but argue that it is much too early to be making predictions for the future. Such critics may also deny that the evidence for the human contribution to warming is conclusive, arguing that a purely natural cycle may be driving temperatures upward. The same dissenters tend to emphasize the fact that continued warming could have benefits in some regions. Scientists who question the global warming trend point to three puzzling differences between the predictions of the global warming models and the actual behavior of the climate. First, the warming trend stopped for three decades in the middle of the 20th century; there was even some cooling before the climb resumed in the 1970s. Second, the total amount of warming during the 20th century was only about half what computer models predicted. Third, the troposphere, the lower region of the atmosphere, did not warm as fast as the models forecast. However, global warming proponents believe that two of the three discrepancies have now been explained.

The lack of warming at midcentury is now attributed largely to air pollution that spews particulate matter, especially sulfates, into the upper atmosphere. These particulates, also known as aerosols, reflect some incoming sunlight out into space. Continued warming has now overcome this effect, in part because pollution control efforts have made the air cleaner."

Cathy

And if you troubled yourself to read the article, you would find that assumption was incorrect. NatGeo only quoted ONE guy supporting the idea. If a LOT of people are saying the same thing, NatGeo sure didn't have any luck finding them.

No religion. Just respect for creative thought, diligent analysis and hard work on the part of actual researchers with real credentials. You can continue to get your "science" from Pat Sajak and Jerry Fallwell. Good luck with that.

By the way, you'll notice that the Japanese - and lately the Chinese - are jumping out in front of us on a number of technological fronts. They understand the difference between "religion" and "science" and they don't try to dress up "religion" as "science" and stuff it into the classroom.

That kind of BS here is destroying real science education and, in the long run, it will hurt our economy.