Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."

Comments

Global Warming

[XPeter]

Is complete nonsense to begin with. People like Al Gore fill your minds with this propaganda so that you'll go out and buy their *green* light bulbs (which emit mercury). I believe this for two reasons.

1. Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race.
2. The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part. If we were going into an ice age, I'm sure Al Gore would be saying "Save the dingos from the ice" instead of "Save the polar bears from the heat".

Just my two cents.

Re:Global Warming

[Frymaster]

People like Al Gore fill your minds with this propaganda so that you'll go out and buy their *green* light bulbs

so you prefer the propaganda from people like exon who want you to go out and buy their gasoline?

1. Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race.

sure do. and for a long time, before the advent of industrialization, the climate has experienced only moderate fluctuations even with all that volcanic co2. then along came escalades and coal plants and massive human-engineer deforestation projects that when added to all that volcanic co2, it tipped the balance to a general warming trend.

2. The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part.

of course the earth heats and cools on a cycle. no one is claiming otherwise. the concern currently is the amplitude of the cycle and the speed at which the general warming trend is expected to occur... not the existence of the cycle itself.

If we were going into an ice age, I'm sure Al Gore would be saying "Save the dingos from the ice" instead of "Save the polar bears from the heat".

uh, yes, of course he would. people who are opposed to climate change, which so many here seem to call "global warming", are not by extension in favour of global cooling. they're in favour of a global climate that is stable within the normal and natural rates of fluctuations.

Just my two cents.

and fair value at that price.

Great question.

[Beelzebud]

It's something I wonder about too. I think it mostly stems from people who just hate Al Gore, so they just ignore the science.

Well, DUH....

[Anonymous Coward]

With the poles of Mars *also* showing temperature increases, with the nominal heating shown here, it's probably not CO2 (because it's historically there to COOL the atmosphere) but a very unexpected source:

THE SUN. THE SUN IS MAKING IT HOTTER. WHO KNEW?

Guys, the "GlobalWarming(TM)" move is a political, not scientific movement to grab more, and more, and more power over the world's free citizens.

In a way much like journalism being seduced by money, scientists have also been seduced. In America we've gone from a few million in GlobalWarming(TM) research to billions. It's a business.

Now think about this a moment: we're all talking about fossil records versus computer models here. Which do you suspect holds the truth?

The fossil record shows that 800 years after the atmosphere gets too hot, C02 is released by the OCEANS (you know, 3/4 of the Earth's surface?) causing a cooling. We as humanity can't created this much change. It's simply not possible.

Anyone telling you differently is selling you something.

The Infallible Scientist

[djambalawa]

I'm amused to read the various arguments here and allegations of scientists cooking the books to suit their agendas and/or biases in the industry of GW. When one of us Intelligent Design folks dare to question the methods and agendas of evolutionists its met by shock and disbelief that we could be so ignorant to think that these people aren't just doing whats obviously right and we should just get back to our horse and cart and roaming our flat earth. Seemingly intelligent people even go so far to accept ridiculous notions as "dark matter has been further evidenced because our current models aren't working" etc etc... And yeah before someone says it of course both sides of the ID argument have biases and agendas which would direct them even unconciously - its just good to see acknowledged in this forum that even the holy scientist is human.

Re:The Infallible Scientist

[djambalawa]

Thanks for that. I didn't pay him honest.

Re:The Infallible Scientist

[djambalawa]

Sorry I shouldn't just post a sarcastic reply... here's a more polite reply;

"Science is not about the scientist, whether they are infallible, reputable or anything else. " Sorry I cannot agree with this - whether you like it or not and no matter how you define your holy grail of "scientific method" you're gonna have very fallible humans like us running the show who are prone to bias etc.

"Science is based on rational arguments" - so who is going to make these rational arguments and who's going to judge them as rational? The first sign of irrationality is to think oneself rational! (sorry that statement is irrational too)

"All of the science behind the IPCCs findings are there for you to read. So is volumes of litrature on evolution." Not sure of your point here - I am aware of a lot of work that has been done on evolution in the scientific community of course - why else would I write a post about how science supports it?

"You could contribute greatly to the worlds knowledge by finding errors or extra information that refutes either." I disagree mostly - people will generally believe what they want to believe and they'll find plenty of evidence to support it. I think its better to argue about the foundations of your belief system - which is why I'm posting this.

Until then expressing baseless opinions ultimately sourced from irrational religious belief systems will not win you any arguments or respect on matters of science. Here you have told me as a matter of fact that my opinions are baseless and derived from irrational belief systems and you have assumed that I want to win an argument or that I am at all interested in gaining respect on matters of science.

In reality you have surely just confirmed my original post with your naked biases and assumptions?

Re:Common Sense

[jcr]

climate change deniers

I get rather sick of skeptics being tagged as "deniers". By doing so, you're 1) trivializing the holocaust and 2) claiming a certainty that never exists in science, only in politics.

-jcr

Re:Conservation is not efficiency.

[bunratty]

Again, you're somehow confusing what the scientists are saying with what the politicians are doing. The science is in -- global warming is happening due to human activities. You may be right to argue that what is being proposed to combat global warming may have short-term economic consequences, but that doesn't mean that global warming is all made up for the purpose of destroying capitalism. That doesn't make any sense.

Re:Yeah but scientists are acting politically.

[bunratty]

No, the public will not be poorer at the end. The whole point of doing something about global warming now is to prevent and economic disaster in the future. If combating global warming were going to make people poorer, there wouldn't be so much effort behind reducing carbon dioxide emissions. There is debate about how much money we should spend on reducing emissions because there is disagreement about the discount rate to apply to the suffering of future generations. But as far as I know, all economists agree that it makes sense to spend some amount of money now to prevent global warming. The only disagreement is how much we should spend now to alleviate the problems of future generations. Saying we're going to be poorer at the end is ridiculous.