Climate Hysteria
on 02/10/2007 at 07:33 AM
Global warming? The solar constant isn’t constant and yes I believe that the output of the sun is critical for any arguement about global warming/cooling arguement. Also, given that we as people do not live long enough to experience a geological epoch first hand makes us like the gnats that live just a couple days during the summer months in that we only have the experience of our own lives to call upon.
CO2 rises after the temperatures rise? Good to know that. Kills the GW argument totally.
Hahaha, even if the temperature went up after the CO2 rose, all it would indicate was a strong NEED for more nuclear powerplants, which generate no CO2 at all!
Funny how the GW crowd focuses on just one greenhouse gas, when the only thing that will actually heat the world is HEAT. They don’t push the idea that industrialization heats the world, and instead they go on and on about how byproduct gases allow the sun to have more impact on our planet. So their thesis is already solar centric, which admits that human heat contribution to actual global temperatures is insignificant. Maybe it won’t be so hard to get them to see the bigger picture: given a fixed amount of greenhouse gas, more sunlight would equate to more heat. Which also kills their argument; more sunlight equals more heat even without an atmosphere (look at the situation on Mars!), so NO amount of greenhouse gas reduction could overcome the effect of the sun! Not that I expect this to happen ... I think the high priests of (glowball warming = bad people = blame Bush) actually hate people and use this bandwagon to express that feeling.
If human generated heat caused large scale, even measurable, heating on the earth, then winters around inductrial nations would be quite moderate compared to winters around non-industrial nations.
Those folks in western NY just don’t have enough industrialization, I guess.
