Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming 656
flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."
What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem plausible that a huge ball of nuclear fire situated somewhere nearby might be causing changes to the earth's climate?
I don't know what you would call this object, and I don't think there is any evidence that it exists, but if it did exist then slight changes in its energy output would probably result in changes to earth's climate as well.
I know this sounds completely insane. I mean there aren't any such object out there right?
Excuse me why I go put on some sunscreen...
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not against cleaning up the environment. I'm against religion being passed off as science.
Re:Total Solar Output (Score:1, Interesting)
I read a Philadelphia Inquirer (not a hot bed of global warming deniers) article from April of 2003 that reported that scientists weren't taking the Sun into account.
But I have been assured that's not the case. The whole global warming project has my b.s. detector on full alert. Way too many variables and "unknown unknowns" to be dogmatic that we know it is CO2.
Now that we've been in a slight cooling trend since 1998, it seems the global warming backers are getting a tad panicky.
Realization (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that bugs me is that the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings, instead they listen the political figure heads and corporations and news reporters, all of which have an agenda to push. I think what I'm beginning to realize is that science is ultimately going to suffer from this nonsense. I don't think it will matter if the results are peer-reviewed anymore, I think the public won't trust them anyway.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
And that is why hell froze over (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a passionate movement for more pollution... It's a passionate movement against government social experimentation/intervention under the guise of science. You'll find that most people who support the manmade global warming assumption use it to justify a whole host of government intrusion into our lives from punitive taxation to telling you what kind of car you should drive (hybrid), to what kind of coffee you should drink (organic, fair trade). These are personal social issues and not areas for government mandates.
If I where a scientist I would be very upset that the credibility of my profession was being undermined by people with political agendas. Pretty soon scientists will have the same level of credibility as the 4 out of 5 dentists or recommend Crest.
I believe that there are 3 great professionals that can truly benefit humanity. The statesman, the religious leader, and the scientist. We've already witnessed the decline of the first two so I guess it the scientists turn.
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.
Global Warming is nothing more than religious fascism wrapped up in a pretty package of guilt and stranded polar bears. Your idiotic question illustrates this perfectly. In your mind, people who disagree with the shit being passed off as science want dirty water, more pollution and some section of the US to fall off into the ocean.
No one, NO ONE wants "more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil". Just because you think the sky is falling and are willing to believe any bullshit story you hear, it doesn't mean we all are going to open our pocketbooks so that people like you can push for more taxes to combat this "problem".
The earth has been cooling for years now and the very idea that any climate change means doom and destruction is a FUCKING joke. For decades now scientists with axes to grind and funding to aquire have been crying that we only have 10 more years to go, or 20 more years to go. In the 60's it was global cooling, in the 90's it was global warning and now that we are in a massive cooling cycle, they've wised up and are now saying *ANY* climate change is bad.
I don't believe it and I don't trust the "scientists" who subscribe to this shit theory. Follow the money and you'll find the real reason people are pushing this. Pollution credits, green companies and carbon offsets are a huge business.
The only warming that is happening are the gasbags who are constantly crying about climate change.
You retards have been promising us an apocalypse for YEARS now. Where is it? Where is the show?
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Interesting)
It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.
It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.
And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.
If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?
When the winters and summers are extra warm everyone blames Global warming. Why when it is extra cold can we not discount global warming?
Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:3, Interesting)
Bjorn Lomberg (author, "the skeptical environmentalist") made this argument:
We have $1 today. We can spend it now to clean up the environment. Or we can invest it now, watch it turn into $50 in a century, and of that use $5 to clean up the environment at that time. It'll be more expensive, naturally, but he thinks that economies grow faster than do environmental burdens.
My instinct is that he's flat out wrong.
Re:Global Warming Heretics (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because the Higgs Boson and dark matter has no immediate impact on our lives. But the man-made global warming hysteria campaign can have a real impact on our daily lives.
Hell, it's already bad enough that I can't watch an educational show about nature or the environment without it turning into a propaganda piece about how awful humans are.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Interesting)
So if the sea has been rising by 1.7 mm for the last 100 years, How does that coincide with global warming theory. Could this be explained by anything else? Underwater volcanic activity? Deposits from Rivers? etc.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes they MAY rise if you extrapolate the data and nothing else. But if you think extrapolation is accurate then the drop in average temperature in '08 means the ice age is just around the corner.
Global warming or climate change (the new term to GYA) is based on models that lack MAJOR features like cloud cover. Use no new data from 1950 on an predict 2008.... the model won't. Read Reverend Al's book and find all the predictions past their time that have already failed. Yet keep believing because the facts will burst your little paranoid world.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
But thats a bit of a cop out isn't it? So let me get this straight,we don't have the technology to accurately predict things so we will go with something we know to be horridly inaccurate because we have nothing better. I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsh here but thats just not good enough.
The problem I have now with climate change (I'm a skeptic of the models, as all scientific minded people should be, but I believe in the fluctuations) is there is an elephant in the room that nobody dares discuss. And here it is: The collective world is in no way ever going to come together and cut CO2 emissions to the levels that scientists claim is necessary. I'm not being hopelessly pessimistic here I honestly believe that this is simply a pragmatic and obvious view. The problems governments across the world have is that this is a giant mexican standoff. Nobody is going to give an inch lest they lose competitive advantage over other countries.
Its not good I know and I agree, but given that this is the dismal situation we are in there is a fifth thing that NOBODY wants to talk about: What do we do when it happens. Every imaginable half measure to mitigate CO2 output is being attempted, and yet no plans are being put in place to deal with rising sea levels. No discussion takes place on the necessity to build for stronger storms, to capture more rainfall when it comes. Nobody seems to want to admit that if the scientists are right, we aren't stopping this thing. Not no way so long as the geopolitical situation is as it is. That is a reality that I believe we need to learn to live with. And I'm sorry, but please, prove me wrong.
Re:Common Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
So how much cooling before you go back to the drawing board? How much of an unexplained pause in global warming before you figure out your current crop of models are useless?
Somehow I don't get very many takers on that question from AGW enthusiasts. I never have.
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice graph in your article. Did you notice that its data stopped at 2004? We're in a local period of warming pause from about 1998 through 2006 and outright cooling for 2007-2008. That's what most of the data's showing. Pointing to articles with old data does not help in discussing more recent data. In 2004, people were saying that a few years pause meant nothing. It's now a decade.
Re:Common Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
The burden of proof is on the researchers creating the model and IMO they've only done a small portion of the work necessary and decided to claim victory without finishing.