It is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans.

A case could be made that incandescent light bulbs are indeed more enjoyable than fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?

It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?

Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia who explains that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream media. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic because people would be afraid of the uncontrollable forces of nature:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”



Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” at the bottom of this post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...radiation.html
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”


Last but not least here is a quotation from an article by the author Amitakh Stanford, you won’t hear this logical perspective in the mainstream media clearly presented like that:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar8.html
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.

The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”

Back in the '70s some of the same guys who started the Global warming thing were warning about the New Ice Age, thier solution for it is the same as today, more Govt control of the economy. Like has been said before, the Enviromental Leadership are Watermelons, Green on the outside & Red on the inside.

I remember the doom and gloom about the coming ice age. Now it is global warming. Wish the doom sayers would make up their minds. IMO temperature changes are cyclic and while we may have an impact, it is nothing but hubris to think that we are significantly affecting global temperatures.

I myself have always believed it was natural. Especially since 500 odd years ago we were in a mini ice age. It makes sense that we should go through a hot period. That and we give off the least amount of CO2 on the planet. Animal dung, volcanoes and rotting plants give off far more CO2 individually than we do.

Originally Posted by Tarra

It is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans.

Finally something I can agree with, we know the earth goes through warming and cooling periods and I still believe that this natural cycle is responsible for the lions share of what we term "global warming" however there is a man made aspect of this as well which contributes to the process.

The reason we tend to focus on the man made aspect of global warming is simply because that is the part we can do something about.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Finally something I can agree with, we know the earth goes through warming and cooling periods and I still believe that this natural cycle is responsible for the lions share of what we term "global warming" however there is a man made aspect of this as well which contributes to the process.

The reason we tend to focus on the man made aspect of global warming is simply because that is the part we can do something about.

Many people who look it as natural, especially me, would just argue that man's contribution is really just speeding up, but not by much. But in agreeing that it's natural doesn't mean that I disagree to cutting back on fuel and using renewable energy ect. Because it makes practical and economical sense.

Originally Posted by Yin717

Because it makes practical and economical sense.

Some does, but a lot of the proposals would lead to a reduced quality of life, higher taxes, reduced economic vitality.

Originally Posted by Yin717

Many people who look it as natural, especially me, would just argue that man's contribution is really just speeding up, but not by much. But in agreeing that it's natural doesn't mean that I disagree to cutting back on fuel and using renewable energy ect. Because it makes practical and economical sense.

I agree but I tend to believe we have had a significant effect on the frequency of the cycle which leads me to believe that we have had more of an affect than we think but I have no idea how you would ever quantify that as a number.

But I believe the move toward renewable energy is in the long term the only sensible option we have and as with most technology it will be expensive at first but over time will become more refined and streamlined into a cost effective option as well.

Originally Posted by MontyB

But I believe the move toward renewable energy is in the long term the only sensible option we have and as with most technology it will be expensive at first but over time will become more refined and streamlined into a cost effective option as well.

The issue I have with renewable energy at the minute is that it really isn't efficient. Although I agree that we will get far more efficient forms of renewable energy in the future I do think that constantly investing in it now could be a big mistake. We need a backup power supply before all fossil fuels run out and that's why I propose we build more nuclear power stations. To eb totally frank, other than the nuclear waste, it is a rather green form of energy and can last a long time. Admittebly there is the risk of a nuclear explosion but how many nuclear power plant explosions have we had? Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3. Compared to the amount of nuclear power stations we have in the world that is incredibly small. I'm surprised more haven't exploded actually. But yeah, I believe until technology has improved drastically we need to install some more nuclear power stations as backup power sources.

I don't have a huge issue with nuclear power although it is not something I believe would be a wise idea for New Zealand due to our small size and location on a lot of fault lines, basically while an accident is unlikely if there were to be one here it would destroy the economy of country not just a small portion of it.

As for constant investment in renewable energy unfortunately it is the only way we will ever develop efficiency, I am also in favour of continued investment in cleaning up and improving the efficiency of existing fuels such as coal which offers a huge source of fuel.