Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz

Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.

When lies are repeated often enough people like you
will believe them like religion without question.

Use your head and think about it. Do some research
in SUN OUTPUT WEATHER

I Googled that just now and found this:

How can you doubt the Sun is the most significant
factor?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET 20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one
component of global warming, a new study shows
the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent
per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's
climate if it has been going on for a century or
more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia
University researcher also affiliated with NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been
monitored with precision since satellite technology
allowed necessary observations. Willson is not
sure if the trend extends further back in time, but
other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained
over many decades, it could cause significant
climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in
Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and
his colleagues speculate on the possible history
of the trend based on data collected in the
pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going
upward for a century or more," Willson told
SPACE.com today.

Significant component

Further satellite observations may eventually
show the trend to be short-term. But if the
change has indeed persisted at the present
rate through the 20th Century, "it would have
provided a significant component of the global
warming the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.

That does not mean industrial pollution has
not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.

Scientists, industry leaders and environmentalists
have argued for years whether humans have
contributed to global warming, and to what extent.
The average surface temperature around the globe
has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880.
Some scientists say the increase could be part of
natural climate cycles. Others argue that
greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and
industry are largely to blame.

Willson said the Sun's possible influence has
been largely ignored because it is so difficult to
quantify over long periods.

Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role
is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes
every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called,
reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and
chieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping
down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in
about three years.

Connections

Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output --
are known to cause short-term climate change
on Earth. At solar max, Earth's thin upper
atmosphere can see a doubling of temperature.
It swells, and denser air can puff up to the
region of space where the International Space
Station orbits, causing increased drag on the
hip and forcing more frequent boosts from space shuttles.

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz

Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.

When lies are repeated often enough people like you
will believe them like religion without question.

Use your head and think about it. Do some research
in SUN OUTPUT WEATHER

I Googled that just now and found this:

How can you doubt the Sun is the most significant
factor?

Because he wants to. GW is his religion now. You shouldn't mess with one's
religion, Bart.

Max

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz

Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of
the earth?

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors
to global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that
because it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a
fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product
of increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming
of the earth?


The data shows CO2 levels rising as a CONSEQUENCE of global warming.
Not the other way around.


http://technocrat.net/d/2007/5/6/19282

and:

http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/05/fact_and_theory.html

and:

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

"Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate
conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach
in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News
soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies,
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006.
The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."



So, if higher levels of CO2 are an effect rather than a cause is it
possible that the sun cycles might have more to do with climate change
than humans? I think so.



Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.

I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.


Temperatures have been rising for about 18,000 years with a few minor
blips.


I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty


I wonder whether there are those who would profit from GW research $$
that have an agenda to push.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate
changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with
temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather
than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up-or
down-and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few
thousand years."

Hmm, C02 concentration is rising *now*, temperature is rising *now*, not
"a few hundred to a few thousand years" apart. That doesn't mesh with
the hypothesis you are propounding.


Temperatures have been rising for about 18,000 years with a few minor
blips.


I wonder if The Wisconsin Energy Cooperative has an agenda and if so
what direction it might lean?

Cheers
Marty


I wonder whether there are those who would profit from GW research $$ that
have an agenda to push.


Big oil is certainly profiting from GW research! Better them than people who
care about the environment!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.



So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.


Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of the
earth?



Well, gee, we now have how many millions of cars, trucks, factories, etc.
pumping carbon into the atmosphere... no way *they* could be responsible..

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Every reputable scientist knows that we are the prime contributors to
global
warming. If you know anything about the subject, claiming that because
it's
warmer or colder in a specific spot, you would know that's a fallacious
argument.

--
"j" ganz
Wrong Jon. The Sun is a million times more massive than the earth.
It is well proven that tiny fluxuation in its output directly effect
weather on earth.


So the Sun is responsible for the hellatious increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere... ok.

Can you directly blame CO2 levels on GW or are CO2 levels the product of
increased bacterial and fungal activity due to the natural warming of the
earth?



Well, gee, we now have how many millions of cars, trucks, factories, etc.
pumping carbon into the atmosphere... no way *they* could be responsible..


What are the numbers? How much does man contribute relative to natural
causes. Don't just irrationally bitch and whine. Show the numbers.