Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

catoismymotor (< 20)

Watching A Green Fiction Unravel

Recs

20

September 01, 2011 – Comments (11)

Watching A Green Fiction Unravel

 

 

Experiments performed by a European nuclear research group indicate that the sun, not man, determines Earth's temperature. Somewhere, Al Gore just shuddered as an unseasonably cool breeze blows by.

The results from an experiment to mimic Earth's atmosphere by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, tell researchers that the sun has a significant effect on our planet's temperature. Its magnetic field acts as a gateway for cosmic rays, which play a large role in cloud formation.

Consequently, when the sun's magnetic field allows cosmic rays to seed cloud cover, temperatures are cooler. When it restricts cloud formation by deflecting cosmic rays away from Earth, temperatures go up.

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 01, 2011 at 8:15 AM, mhy729 (29.82) wrote:

I remember watching a TV show re: global warming, and they pointed out that one of the effects of man-made pollution was particulate matter in the atmosphere that effectively acted like cloud cover to scatter/deflect heat from the sun.  That said, the line "the sun, not man, determines Earth's temperature" is something of a strawman because nobody contests that the ultimate source of heat on our planet is from the sun.  The question is whether man-made pollutants like CO2 and other compounds act as "greenhouse gases" to increase temperatures beyond what they would otherwise be, and whether such increased temperature can lead to potentially negative global events such as polar icecap melting which would raise sea levels.

I used to be a firm believer in AGW (anthropogenic global warming), but now I am not so sure.  Unfortunately scientists have proven themselves to be no more "honorable" than humanity in general, and are just as suspect when it comes to deceptive practices as the rest of us.  Nevertheless, I have always detected a streak of anti-intellectualism and anti-science from many opponents to the AGW theory.  I'm not saying anybody here is like that (nor you cato), but certainly there seems to be a good number of "religion first, science last" types that are all too eager to shout down scientific theories like this, without any real knowledge of the subject.

Even though I am agnostic on the AGW theory, I find environmentalism and the pursuit of alternative "green" energy to be worthwhile goals.  Perhaps there is something to be said against the involvement of government in such initiatives, and the wonderful thing about the internet is that now, with information readily accessible and disseminated, bottom-up movements for concerted action by concerned individuals are possible to a degree unprecedented in human history--no government needed.

Report this comment
#2) On September 01, 2011 at 9:11 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Even though I am agnostic on the AGW theory, I find environmentalism and the pursuit of alternative "green" energy to be worthwhile goals.

Amen. I think the AGW movement started off in ernest but quickly became corrupted by those wanting to keep the government money rolling in.

I'm more concerned about pollution/general environmental health than AWG.

Report this comment
#3) On September 01, 2011 at 10:07 AM, leohaas (31.18) wrote:

"...the sun has a significant effect on our planet's temperature."

Wow. What a revelation. I never knew that! Thanks so much for enlightening all of us.

Report this comment
#4) On September 01, 2011 at 1:18 PM, eldemonio (98.64) wrote:

I'm more concerned about pollution/general environmental health than AWG.

Me too.  There are a lot of people who argue that we don't need any kind of environmental regulation because AWG is fake science. Those people are dumb$hits.

I don't care if AWG is fake or real, we still need to stop polluting our planet. 

Report this comment
#5) On September 01, 2011 at 1:34 PM, TheDumbMoney (53.53) wrote:

Do you know what I love about this website?  There are smart people here.

By contrast, this is what one usually sees in so many places:

Stupid One:  AGW, AGW!!!!  End cars now! 

Stupid Two:  No AGW, no AGW!!!!   End all government environmental regulation!

 

Well, no, and no, and no.  We have too much pollution, and I don't care what Austrian economists say, common sense tells me we have a problem with the tragedy of the commons, and the whole world, but especially our air and oceans, are the commons.  I don't give a crap about AGW.  I think it very likely is a load of bollux, based on the cyclical temperature fluctuations our planet has undergone over the last 400,000 years, as documented in multiple ice cores pulled from all over the planet that all correspond with each other.  But I have also been a member of NRDC and the Sierra Club for ten years, and always will be.  I lament that they are so focused on AGW that they may harm their credibility if it turns out it a non-factor.  I lament that they have focused humans so much on AGW that we are doing idiotic things like cutting down Brazilian rainforests so we can grow sugar cane so we can make supposedly green but not green at all biofuels.  But I recognize that we have huge problems with environmental degradation and species depletion, and air quality problems, and water quality problems, and there is simply no way to combat this without regulation, and groups that fight for those regulations.  I don't care how free you want to be from government, you are not free if there is some company upstream putting PCBs in the water, or some country upwind of you that does nothing about its coal plants and factories and allows them to spew whatever they like.  Or some country that allows all of its fisherman to kill every whale in the ocean.  If you are a salmon fisherman on the coast of California, which makes you less free? -- the government regulating everyone's take?  Or a constant fight against your fellow fisherman to take as much possible as quickly as possible that ultimately leaves you out of a livelihood?  We don't have any clue how bad it is.  The Hudson river used to be chock-full of fish.  The ocean off New Jersey used to be churning with blue fish.  Salmon on the West coast are a whisper of a shadow of what they used to be.  The list goes on and on.  Meanwhile, stupid on the right screams about government all of the time, and stupid on the left seems more concerned about whether we build a highly-regulated and extremely safe new oil pipeline through middle America.

But that's just one man's rant.

Report this comment
#6) On September 01, 2011 at 1:46 PM, TheDumbMoney (53.53) wrote:

Read today's Non Sequitur cartoon, 9/1/2011.

This is what I think of those who think lower regulation will solve our environmental problems, or who think government is responsible for them, or that there is no tragedy of the commons if you just let private enterprise solve it, etc., etc.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur

Report this comment
#7) On September 01, 2011 at 2:12 PM, zymok (< 20) wrote:

Nevertheless, I have always detected a streak of anti-intellectualism and anti-science from many opponents to the AGW theory.

I would say the same thing about the pro-AGW crowd.

Report this comment
#8) On September 01, 2011 at 2:28 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Re #5:

I enjoy a passionate rant. :)

I try not to pull quotes directly from scripture when discussing much of anything. But there is a passage in The Bible that states that we are stewards of the Earth. I think this idea sums up my feelings on the subject. I believe that we need to take care of this world as best we can by balancing our needs with those of nature in order to pass on the healthiest planet we can to the next generation.

Report this comment
#9) On September 02, 2011 at 12:14 AM, mhy729 (29.82) wrote:

I would say the same thing about the pro-AGW crowd.

Insofar that there are anti-technology environmentalist zealots among the "pro-AGW crowd", yes I would somewhat agree with your statement.

I try not to pull quotes directly from scripture when discussing much of anything. But there is a passage in The Bible that states that we are stewards of the Earth. I think this idea sums up my feelings on the subject. I believe that we need to take care of this world as best we can by balancing our needs with those of nature in order to pass on the healthiest planet we can to the next generation.

Well that's one Biblical position that I can wholly support! 

Report this comment
#10) On September 02, 2011 at 12:59 PM, lemoneater (69.88) wrote:

For a great Bible reference about our stewardship of the earth read: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115:15-16&version=NIV.

Who ever said the earth was flat? They didn't read this verse :) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40%3A22&version=NIV 

Global warming or not, I'm ready for a cooler weather system to come soon!

Report this comment
#11) On September 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I invited devoish to post a link to his rebuttal to this article. He either has chosen not to or the invitation passed unnoticed. Should he read this I would like for him to know that he is welcomed to post the rebuttal in full or the link, whichever he thinks best.

All the best,

Catoish.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement