🚀 go-pugleaf

Don't worry, Fabrikant, you'll be going to a place much hotter soon enough.

I was amused to have seen *Fabrikant* write this:

> The summer of 2005 at the place, where I am now, was extremely hot: the
> temperature since May to September almost every day was well above
> 32�C. Everybody was blaming the global warming. This year, less than 5
> days were above 30�C. The rest of the summer was at comfortable 25�C
> or less. The Buffalo region got extreme amount of snow at the beginning
> of October. This has not happened in the past 100 years. Nobody was
> talking about global warming. Are we in a global cooling?
>
> Last year, there were so many devastating hurricanes, that the Latin
> alphabet was used completely and people in charge of naming had to
> resort to Greek alphabet. Again, everybody was blaming the global
> warming.

> Specialists were predicting this year to be even more devastating.
> Guess what? Not a single devastating storm touched US this year. What
> are those "specialists" saying now? Where is the global warming to
> explain this calm? Just how dumb are we?

As dumb as they want you to be, because they do not offer full disclosure as to 
/all/  the factors which contribute to this so-called "Global Warming".

Google "Sun Getting Hotter", and several hundred results come up with some 
rather startling, never-told articles, including this one for starters:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html wherein it 
says:

"There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two 
_Harvard_ researchers say: '*the* *Sun* *is* *increasing* *in* *brightness* 
*and* *radiance*.'
'Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 
300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming,' claims Sallie 
Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 
(CfA).

'We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the 
global rise in temperature that we are experiencing,' cautions her CfA 
colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. 'But we believe these variations are the 
major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles --  
the so-called greenhouse effect -- *appear* *to* *be* *secondary*.'" (emphasis, 
mine)

Go ahead, Google "Sun getting hotter", read a few of the rest of the results and 
get "enlightened".  All of you.

If we shut off all the fossil-fuel-burning engines /right/ /now/ and for thirty 
years, it would barely make a difference.

"Man-made" global warming?  I have serious doubts.  One volcano blast of Mt. St. 
Helens' enormity has a greater impact on "global warming" than anything a planet 
full of humans can do.  Let's not forget that methane emissions from cows (e.g., 
their farts) is also a major contributing factor which no one dares mention, at 
least not in polite company.

-- 
The *Original* Captain Ozone 

I Am *Not* Mentok wrote:
>
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html wherein it
> says:
>
> "There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two
> _Harvard_ researchers say:

You're "Harvard" "researchers" (Ahem! Cough! Cough!)
are Soon and Baliunas, who've both been on the
Carbon fuel industry take for many years now.
A partial and out-of-data list of money they've taken
from industry interests is below.


> '*the* *Sun* *is* *increasing* *in* *brightness* *and* *radiance*.'

In science, it's not somebodys word, but real data which
determines the facts.  What does actual data say?

Over the last 29 years direct, not proxy, measurement of
*the* *Sun's* *output* *has* *shown* *no* *long* *term* *growth,*
just a small amplitude 11-year cycle,
so something else must be warming the Earth:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

=-=-=-=-=-=

Willie Soon:
"Fraser Forum" contributing writer with Fraser Institute: $ 120,000
Science Roundtable Member with Tech Central Station: $ 95,000
Senior Scientist with George C. Marshall Institute: $ 515,000

Sallie Baliunas:
Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors with Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow: $ 382,000
Senior Scientist, Science Advisory Board Member with George C. Marshall
Institute: $ 515,000
Scientific Expert with Competitive Enterprise Institute: $ 1,645,000
Enviro-Sci host, Science Roundtable Member with Tech Central Station: $
95,000
Spokeswoman with Manhattan Institute for Policy Research: $ 175,000
Policy Expert with Heritage Foundation: $ 525,000
Position Paper Reviewer with American Council on Science and Health: $
85,000

In article <454a442a_3@x-privat.org>,
 "I Am *Not* Mentok" <CallMe@Home.Big.Girl> wrote:

> "Man-made" global warming?  I have serious doubts.  One 
> volcano blast of Mt. St. Helens' enormity has a greater impact 
> on "global warming" than anything a planet full of humans can 
> do.  Let's not forget that methane emissions from cows (e.g., 
> their farts) is also a major contributing factor which no one 
> dares mention, at least not in polite company.

Speaking of global flatulence, how does that compare to millions 
of acres of arctic region land turning up as swamp as 
tundra/permafrost melts releasing its burden of CH4?

-- 
American Soldier: http://www.soldierlife.com/page/2/
Graft thrives http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0317/p06s01-wogi.html
http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2006/09/iraqs-new-political-alignment/ 
Anbar attack http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/09/anbar-sunnis-turn/

Roger Coppock wrote:
> I Am *Not* Mentok wrote:
> >
> > http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html wherein it
> > says:
> >
> > "There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two
> > _Harvard_ researchers say:
>
> You're "Harvard" "researchers" (Ahem! Cough! Cough!)
> are Soon and Baliunas, who've both been on the
> Carbon fuel industry take for many years now.
> A partial and out-of-data list of money they've taken
> from industry interests is below.
>
>
> > '*the* *Sun* *is* *increasing* *in* *brightness* *and* *radiance*.'
>
> In science, it's not somebodys word, but real data which
> determines the facts.  What does actual data say?
>
> Over the last 29 years direct, not proxy, measurement of
> *the* *Sun's* *output* *has* *shown* *no* *long* *term* *growth,*
> just a small amplitude 11-year cycle,
> so something else must be warming the Earth:
> http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Willie Soon:
> "Fraser Forum" contributing writer with Fraser Institute: $ 120,000
> Science Roundtable Member with Tech Central Station: $ 95,000
> Senior Scientist with George C. Marshall Institute: $ 515,000
>
> Sallie Baliunas:
> Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors with Committee for a
> Constructive Tomorrow: $ 382,000
> Senior Scientist, Science Advisory Board Member with George C. Marshall
> Institute: $ 515,000
> Scientific Expert with Competitive Enterprise Institute: $ 1,645,000
> Enviro-Sci host, Science Roundtable Member with Tech Central Station: $
> 95,000
> Spokeswoman with Manhattan Institute for Policy Research: $ 175,000
> Policy Expert with Heritage Foundation: $ 525,000
> Position Paper Reviewer with American Council on Science and Health: $
> 85,000

Like this paper Roger....
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/

"The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant
positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima
of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help
climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on
climate."