"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