Anthropogenic Global Warming - r u green enough to be a skeptic?
After years of accepting the so-called "scientific consensus" on climate change, I have recently made an about face after stumbling across a simple but revealing graph on sunspot activity as charted from the early 1600's. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/noaaprediction/maunderminimum.jpg
Solar output is directly correlated to sunspot activity and estimates of each solar cycle's intensity can be traced through various climatic observations but we've only been able to reliably count the number of sunspots since the invention of the telescope by Galileo. You can easily see that the last 70 years have been the most active period on record, further estimates by other data (tree rings, polar ice cap analysis, etc) determine this 70 year period is the most active in 8,000 years.
AGW proponents of course took this into account and while they readily say the "Maunder Minimum" was the sole cause of the "little ice age" they conversely claim the sun's increased output has LITTLE EFFECT on the current warming trend. Exqueeze me?
Yes, they point to the CO2 levels being elevated, and use that to correlate human activity being the cause of the increased temperature- but decreased solar activity does not cause CO2 levels to LOWER, but increased solar activity RAISES CO2 and sustains this forced heating of earth climate for several decades past unusually active solar cycles- look at that graph again, while the last several cycles have decreased from the unprecedented peak, that peak is still followed by the second and third most active cycles in the whole 400 year period respectively.
In summary it is absurd to expect the earth to have experienced a near immediate cooling trend afer several solar cycles of unprecedented peaks in recorded history, but that is what AGW proponents insist should have occurred- even though buried in their research you will also find (and used when it is convenient to support their positions) a concession that forced heating by solar variation should be expected to have residual temperature elevations for 25-50 years after subsiding.
We are just now, after the 2000 peak, entering a period of NORMAL solar activity. I think that's just enough of the science involved for us nonscientists to wonder why the people behind this would discount the effects of the SUN in heating the EARTH. Even a child understands at night, it's cold as hell and when morning comes the SUN keeps you from turning into a a permanent icicle.
Yet this was the kind of "research" that made me a skeptic:
The title of the article says it all:
"Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds"
He mocks the very concept. Who would have the audacity to blame the sun for warming the earth? A child, maybe a caveman? Certainly not someone looking to blame mankind for making a toilet out if his surroundings. Thus leads me to the larger point I'm presenting because I readily admit to not being a scientist and devoting my life to studying this.
As soon as I began to question this concept I was accused in forums discussing it of being an oil company stooge, all sorts of derogatory assaults that I didn't care about the planet- yet at age 47 I ride a bicycle nearly everywhere, (putting less than 3,000 miles on the two cars I own in nearly 4 years!) and have used rechargeable batteries exclusively in consumer devices since the '80's rather than contribute to landfills- what gives? Conversely the only motivation behind AGW proponents and the scientific community must be their love for mother earth and that inherently makes all their actions right? It was further asserted that all these scientists would readily have presented data which conflicted AGW claims because "it's science" and science is inherently pure through mechanisms such as peer review, duplication of results, etc. A picture painted of complete objectivity. Finally the absurdity that the motivations of AGW promoting scientists could not be ideological or financial.
However doesn't "love for mother earth" equate to ideology? Who in their right mind pursues academic study in, then a career researching, something they believe has no substance behind it? The logic presented to me would leave a large percentage of Roman Catholic Priests being Atheists and telling the public there is NO God!
Of course that is ridiculous, one can assume a vested interest in every person promoting AGW, either through grant funding, their positions at universities- what happens if it's all found out to be malarky? Would the public in a failing economy continue to allow public funds be spent studying a nonexistent problem they made their life's work? THEIR LIFE IS RUINED should they allow any information contrary to AGW be revealed. Their life's work revealed a sham, and left on the streets begging for spare change. Evidence of the skull duggery they would stoop to was revealed in "climategate":
Showing collusion and conspiracy to falsify and hide data, and rig the peer review process by obstructing duplication of results, and marginalize any conflicting opinion with fascist efficiency.
Most relevant to my presentation of solar variation, the emails revealed their willful obfuscation of data which showed in the period since 1998, a cooling trend worldwide did begin. It's no surprise that AGW proponents in the general public don't wish to discuss the contents of those emails, from the East Anglia University CRU whose findings are the cornerstone of IPCC actions, and instead want to concentrate on the hacking incident that revealed them.
What motivates THAT? Your love for mother earth, clearly an ideology. I share your ideology, including the flawed logic that has accompanied this that "even if the data is suspect, it's a good thing to go along with because we're harming the planet anyway so doing ANYTHING can't hurt, right?"
Wrong, because what's been done so far has actually made things much worse for Global Warming if it's true, and helped to destroy our economy at home.
The people who sold you AGW all have an agenda and it's not so pure at all. Governments love it because it allows them to scare the populace into submission and create legislation and rules. Gives us the feeeling we NEED their protection. The left has used it as a political tool for which to villainize their opponents and indulge their ideology of distribution of wealth equally throughout the world. Yet they don't see corporations have also used the lopsided legislation of Kyoto to accelerate industrialization of third world countries with horribly corrupt governments, causing MORE human industrial activity as a result. While at home in America, our consumer based economy has ground to a halt as they have convinced us all that LIVING, going places in cars, eating out, using energy, is harming the planet.
China's GG output has eclipsed America's in part because short sighted environmental legislation at home accelerated their industrilization. Kyoto exempted China, India and other third world countries with huge populations from binding emissions restrictions and corporations exploited that for profit. Industry we used to control at home is now polluting at will in countries we cannot reign in. Massive populations that used to live more primitively now have increased per capita carbon footprints, as well as local traditional pollution problems smug environmentalists wish to ignore as they pretend they "made a difference".
Did you "make a difference" when you demanded immediate banning of single hulled tankers in European ports? THIS is what short sighted measures to indulge an ideology caused:
Pushed to a place with corrupt governments, the problem is now much worse, the people there suffering from more pollution, all to indulge an ideology for a few people insisting they were doing "the right thing".
I care about the planet and jobs at home, enough to think things through with my head and not my heart. Your ideological fueled foolishness has so far only made matters WORSE. Stop the madness now.