TIPS4YOU-IN

CO2 certainly affects global warming -to a small degree! Water vapour affects it significantly more. The Sun dominates the scene, however. IPCC doctrine overlooks the fact that Earth's surface temperature changes over past half million years or so, from Vostok Ice-Core analyses, are strongly asymmetrical, and that the dominant underlying mechanism cannot therefore be repetitive changes in the Earth's orbit, which would be predominantly symmetrical, akin to simple harmonic motion (the Milankovitch theory)in order to return the orbit close to its present form without making it unstable. The only other simple explanation of the cyclic solar energy changes sufficient to yo-yo the Earth's surface temperature through the 13 degree C observed range is that the Sun is a variable star with a total range of about 20% in its output. A plausable explanation for this is that the Sun, with its enormous gravitational field, sweeps up interstellar hydrogen and deuterium to feed its thermonuclear core during Earth's glacial periods when its output is low, then spurts into increased activity once it has thus gorged itself, every 100,000 years or so. This period varies according to the density of interstllar matter it encounters on its way around our Milky Way Galaxy. During its more active phase, radiation pressure increases dramatically to overcome gravity, so that hydrogen accretion is inhibited, until the 'digestion process' is completed and the energy output declines. The process then starts all over again. This is a characteristic of thermo-nuclear reactions, which are stage-wise and highly sensitive to isotopic cocentration and temperature, being easiest with the tritium-helium stage, more difficult with the deuterium-helium stage, and most difficult (i.e., needing the highest temperatures) with the extreme hydrogen-helium stage. Such a mechanism would be consistent with the observed asymmetry of the ice-core analyses. Why does the IPCC persistently ignore this aspect? Could it be that, like the UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Polution in its 22nd report, 'Energy - the Changing Climate', it has no-one aboard to voice simple astronomical questions? No sane person would ever question the existence of climate change: we have evidence all around us for that! But to try to pin all of it onto carbon dioxide increases due to mankind's actions is ludicrous, belying established thermodynnamic logic which underpins 'greenhosue gas' theory! One can show that a reduction in level from the present 380 ppmv or so to the pre-industrial age 280 ppmv interglacial maximum could reduce global mean surface temperature by only about 1/4 degree C. Similarly, allowing CO2 levels to rise to about 600 ppmv at most - since logistical and cost factors wouldn't let our extravagance reach beyond this - would only push this temperature another 1/4 degree C above its present level (of around 15 degree C.), assuming constant solar energy input throughout. Let's have some common-sense unbiased debate before we all go overboard on carbon footprinting!

There's no such thing as peak oil either. Robert Hirsch was paid off, and the ipcc is clever coup masterminded between the most developed countries of the world.

The flora of Earth can absorb a thousand times the carbon that humanity releases to the air. If global warming occurs, it should be shown the sun and volcanic activity is the problem. The sun has been radiating more the last 100 years, and volcanic activity has increased. Politics have steered the blame toward each other so we blame our neighbors, and of course the money that can be made on all this.

One large volcanic eruption can spew more garbage into the atmosphere than an entire year's worth of auto emissions and factory smokestacks. Sorry, but I don't think we should give up cars or factories and return to the stone age. The earth has been warming and cooling for four billion years, and mankind shouldn't be so cocky as to think it can predict the next 100 years of weather, let alone control it. Has anyone noticed that the alarming period of "global warming" represents the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, after which many of their weather-reporting stations were shut down due to budget concerns? Hmmm, remove Siberia's temperatures from the global averages and what do you thnk you'll get? Those computer "models" relied on by the Gore-istas don't take into affect cloud cover, sun-spots, El Nino currents, and on and on. You may as well buy a game called "Sim Earth" from the local software store. Sorry, but I don't think anyone really knows what the temperature was when Columbus landed in the Americas, and no one knows what it will be in 2015 either. Even if it is 3 degrees warmer, global food production will skyrocket as a result. But, in the end, Gore's gimmick may be brilliant. He cons the media into believing him (which isn't too difficult, considering they are mostly left-wing lunkheads anyway). And, of course, he already has liberal academia behind him. Then, REGARDLESS of what happens with the weather - global warming is conveniently blamed. An earthquake in Chile? Must be global warming. A typhoon off India? Must be global warming. A cold spell in Florida? Oh, that also must be global warming! A midwestern farmer shoots his family and kills himself? Aw, chalk that up to global warming as well. It can only help the cause. And there's only one solution, of course: world-wide socialism, with Al Gore and his leftists controlling EVERYTHING in their altruistic desire to save us all from ourselves! Those of you who believe the media global warming scares may do well to recall how they said we were all going to die from AIDS and bird flu. There are a TON of books refuting Gore's hypotheses. I've read a few clunkers, but most convinced me that my original global-warming theory skepticism was well-founded. Read and learn. Question the MOTIVES of the doomsayers. And follow the MONEY TRAIL.