A Hotter Sun May Be Contributing To Global Warming
no reason to be here writes "The sun seems to be getting hotter. Total radiation output has increased .05% per decade since the 1970s.
This article over at Yahoo! News has the scoop. Though .05% may not seem like much, if it has been going on for the last century or more (and circumstantial evidence suggest that it has), it could be a significant factor in the increase in global average temperature noticed during the 20th century."
> It's beginning to look like their agenda all along was
> to slow economic activity, and concern about the environment
> was only ever a vehicle for pushing that agenda.
Congratulations, you have just taken a small step into a larger world. Most debate you see in the popular press is like that, a public position covering one or more real reasons.
In the case of the enviromentalists they break down into two basic groups. The ground troops, who tend to be well intentioned but ignorant, actually believe they are the guardians of Gaia. Don't think too highly of them though, they are active because it boosts their ego to think themselves the chosen holy warriers of Gaia. Which is why they almost always exhibit such religious zeal and are impervious to any arguments counter to their preconceived notions. The leaders are almost always diehard Socialists/Communists, which is why the movement as a whole is often disparagingly referred to as "Watermelons", green on the outside, red on the inside.
And it isn't just the environmental movement, almost EVERY political argument is carried out the same way, which is why most people get turned off on politics, because when first taking an interest they realize that the two sides of any issue are talking past one another with arguments that don't match what they seem to actually stand for. Stick with it a bit and it starts to make more sense.
Just to show another example of how it works, consider current events. Nobody in this Iraq situation is coming anywhere close to stating their true positions.
Bush has becided that the only way to end Islamic fanatics wanting to blow stuff up is to end the tinpot dictatorships over there, Saddam was a convienent target to get a foothold over there. He is convinced (and I tend to agree) that if the US takes and holds one of those middle eastern kingdoms for a few years and remakes it in our image, the example will spread and a rising standard of living will end the desire to strap a bomb on. Of course that is the last thing he can actually SAY if he expects support from ANYONE. None of the aforementioned tinpot dictators would help overthrow themselves, the Demorats would be agahst at the notion that we want to spread our diseased notions of representive government and capitalism, Europe would 'just know' we are embarking on Pax Americana, etc. So we get weak arguments about WMDs, support for terrorism, etc.
France, Germany and Russia are fighting to keep Saddam in power long enough for sanctions to be lifted so they can cash in on the oil contracts they signed. They also want to prevent anyone from discovering just how much they have been breaking the UN sanctions by selling all sorts of deadly stuff to Saddam. And of course they all despise the US and want to see the last superpower humbled and reduced in influence because they feel small and insignificant and prefer to make us small instead of becoming great themselves. And they can't admit (even to themselves in some cases) to any of those reasons, so we get the current tripe from Paris.
The protestors against the war here in the states are mostly being financed by the Worker's World Party and others in the "Hate America" clique. The warm bodies are mostly the "I hate Bush" crowd. In Europe the protests are mostly Anti-American for whatever the current excuse happens to be. Same for the college students in the middle east. After all, most of the Muslim world doesn't actually like Saddam and his Islamic Socalists (Baath party) but if America is fighting him they know which side to pick.
Democrat delenda est