[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I remember going over this issue in another thread. Turns out that it's not as black-and-white as you are painting it. Energy glutton is not the phrase.

Sure it is. Al Gore doesn't seem too impressed with the lifestyle he advocates for the "average" man. Have you seen how many trips he takes in jet aircraft per month? Does that not cause pollution? What about all that enegy he consumes rather than conserves? Bottom line, if you advocate a low calorie diet for everyone, and make everyone feel guilty about every piece of food they eat using false premises, and unsound logic.......then you go and feast 5 out of 7 days and nights at Hometown Buffet with tons of fried chicken, lasagna, rolls, chocolate cake etc....then you are full of crap. And sorry, saying that you offset it by walking there rather than driving doesn't help you look any better. Where is the "conservation" crowd when you need them.

OK, either you haven't bothered looking into any of these issues, or you have and decide to ignore what you've found. Or neither.
Solar radiation - THe sun is the source of all warming, but can the recent increases be attributed to increased solar activity, as Fred Thompson and other seem to think?
The Max Planck Institute say No
As for historical variations, yes the Earth has warmed before. But not like this. The big one that gets mentioned frequently is the Medieval Warm Period. Link
You're right about there being many natural sources of CO2, there are millions. But the Earth can handle those. The relocation of the carbon from under the Earth to the atmosphere in a very short time is an additional dose that seems to upset the balance.

Why yes. I have. And I also work alongside solar physicists at my job. I work in the commercial space sector and am in the process of of doing QA on new designs for the generation 2 satellites coming on line soon for my company. And these physicists look into trends of solar radiation cycles, CME's etc. so we can determine how they affect sub-systems onboard the satellites from first generation. And what considerations should be thought of for the next. I've talked to these people, and they have told me how the recent (10-15 years) solar cycles have been a factor in warming the atmosphere and there is a direct correlation into the heating of the surface. That affects long-term temperature averages. Of course their not publicly funded by George Soros, or ExxonMobile, so they don't have any discrediting Wiki articles about them. Thank goodness. I'm sure if they would be more public about it themselves, a nice little Wiki article would pop up out of nowhere to try and discredit anything that goes against the grain. I know thhat's how it works with the movement. Attack the messenger with a Wiki article and ignore the message. I'm not sure where these couple of people are politically. I've never asked them. But their reports don't seem favorable to the Internet articles I see posted from you or other hardcore man-made warming advocates. Take it or leave it...it's what it is.

[To me, this sounds like, "why don't they come up with an answer that I agree with"
Check out what climate scientists have to say about the sun's effect on the Earth's climate. Here

Right, but I'll still listen to my colleagues (with real credentials) who study solar physics, and it's effects before I listen to supposed "climate scientists". I'm not sure your link is credible. Realclimate???Geez.

You're aiming for something worthy, skepticism.
But as yet, most of the sources you've posted have been heavily biased. Some, you've posted twice, after others have pointed out flaws.

I see you've posted Avery & Singer again. The second time in this thread. Don't expect to be taken seriously, at least by me, if all you can find is gas-funded pseudo-research. Are you just googling "global warming skeptics" and posting up the results?

Also, I don't consider Pat Buchanan qualified to opine confidently on climate change. I just don't buy it.

Well it's just as easy to dismiss anybody from your sources. But the bottom line is I'm happy that real national governments aren't really taking the advice from your side. Kyoto, or anything like it, doesn't stand a chance in the USA. Which brings up another point. How come there are so many exemptions for China and India? Both of whom are gross polluters. Huge amounts of Carcinogens and other toxins flowing into lakes, streams and rivers. Which of course lead to the oceans? Have you seen some pictures of the water around some of China's naval bases? Have you seen pictures of China's major cities? Some days in Beijing make LA look like the Garden of Eden. And we don't hear a word from "big environmentalism" about any of it. Don't expect too much credibility until you tackle the big stuff first. You man-made global warming proponents kind of crack me up. Because any voice that goes against your conventional wisdom is thrashed. It's as if global warming is a religious venture for you. I'm not mocking you here. But there is so many inconsistencies brought forth. I don't know how much you've read in this thread, but I've said in one post above that I'm all for alternative sources of energy myself if it's feasible and cost effective. Solar, wind, hydro, etc. all sound good to me. Partly because I'm sick of my money going to the Middle East. Even though I disagree that we're on a path of doom, I still support the free market researching and developing methods for alternative sources. But what Gore, and others want in that movement seems untenable, unworkable, and just plain draconian. Especially for something they can't really prove. And I don't think we're going to get rid of fossil fuels for awhile despite any gains in alternative sources of energy. We can reduce consumption of it, but not eliminate it. That's just reality. And you guys are going to drive yourselves crazy. And you know what....we're not going to die. And in 20 years, the sky will be blue when it's supposed to, we'll still be able to enjoy an outing at the local lake, there will still be winter/spring/summer/fall, and we'll still have fluctuations in temperature ranges. And I'm sure your side will be pushing another doom and gloom scenario for the masses. Remember the 70's?