Quantcast

Evidence That The Earth Wobbling On It's Axis Causes Climate Change... Could This Finally Prove The Global Warming Alarmists Wrong?

chaoskitty123 2011/09/16 18:43:46
(Watch "How The Earth Was Made" Tonight At 6 Central Standard Time on the History Channel - the episode is called Sahara)

Dramatic discoveries in the Sahara Desert have revealed that approximately every 20,000 years, wobbles in the Earths axis as it rotates around the Sun cause monsoon rains in the South to reach further north to the northern tip of Africa. By studying layers of deposited sand in the ocean, they discovered that a permanent change occurred around 3 million years ago resulting in the formation of the Sahara Desert possibly due to continental land drift as much of North Africa was under the ocean and they have found the remains of whales between 3 million and 40 million years ago as great inland oceans became cut off over time that eventually were replaced by freshwater seas.

They have also traced ancient river patterns to find that at various times there were numerous rivers as large and larger than the Nile River and study of ancient lake beds fed by these rivers have found these lakes have dried up more than once.

Human habitation has also aided in recording these events as migratory humans followed the rivers and lake wet and dry periods. Animal migrations also aid in this and all the evidence points to a pattern of around 20,000 years.

Another factor is there are vast quantities of water which still exists under the Sahara and fish in these waters are the same as their southern counterparts... only much smaller because their ecosystem is smaller. In fact, there are huge underwater seas under the Sahara that exist three quarters of a mile down or further. There may even be as much fresh water under the Sahara in one aquifer as in all of North America above land including the Great Lakes... and that's only one aquifer as there are many under the Sahara.

But the greatest discovery is that each shift in climate occurred rapidly within a period of no more than 200 years. In other words, they would experience around 20,000 years of green lush life into a barren desert.

While this doesn't offer proof that Global Warming isn't man made, when the process of how the Sahara Desert was created have been presented without stating the Earth rotating on it's axis or that they were talking about the Sahara, Global Warming alarmists immediately presume you are talking about Man Made Global Warming... when they are then told they are wrong and they start denying it, they are presented with the entire story and they cannot deny the evidence points not to Man Made Global Warming but to a natural cycle man contributes nothing to.

There are many reasons why Global Warming can take place including Continental Shift and wobbles in the Earth Axis which shift entire regions into new climate zones which is also true in reverse as when the Earth wobbles shifting the Sahara into a wetter climate saturated by monsoon rains, the northern continents are shifted into colder climates bringing about an Ice Age.

Again, there can be many causes for Global Warming but Global Warming is a term created to explain the natural process of the planet warming after an Ice Age. The scientists using this term in reference to the man made Global Warming theory do so purposely to confuse the matter taking advantage of the fact that most people have such poor education about science and world climatic history that by calling their theory "Global Warming", it confuses the proven scientific fact of a natural process with an unproven theory where they claim that man made pollution is causing Global Warming.

Toss in other proven scientific facts like the Sun entering warmer or cooler phases, the Earth rotating slightly further or closer to the Sun, the planet becoming more or less active where volcanic activity is concerned... and you actually have several natural and scientifically proven causes for Global Warming.

In fact, the proof about man made pollution is that it has the same effect as several massive volcanic eruptions and that is it causes Global Cooling not Global Warming. This is also backed by scientific findings which Global Warming alarmists misrepresent as we recently went through a cooler period called the Little Ice Age that ended around 1850 after 300 to 700 years of Global Cooling science has proven came about after a period where more volcanic eruptions had taken place... note that Global Warming alarmists never talk about the Little Ice Age even though their own evidence reveals Global Warming didn't begin within the past few decades as they state, it had already begun before science began recording global temperatures.

In fact, between 1940 and 1975 when man made pollution was at it's worst, we find temperatures cooled instead of warming up. What brought that period of more moderate temperatures to an end was the success of environmentalists by the late 60's through the early 70's to reduce pollution. As environmentalists became more successful, temperatures began warming increasingly so that it is more true to call the the theory of "Environmentalist Induced Global Warming".

In fact, during the late 60's, to explain why temperatures became more moderate after 1940 causing climate change from the ever increasing temperatures we had experienced prior to 1940, the theory of Global Cooling was introduced where science explained that man made pollution was causing Global Cooling... it was even accepted to a point it was added to school science books.

Now, ironically, we are seeing more and more scientists beginning to speak about Global Cooling in relation to man made pollution and they are also addressing the other factors increasingly as causes for Global Warming / Global Cooling as a more natural process which man made pollution only serves to prove the process... not cause it. In order for man made pollution to make a true impact, we would have to create more pollution which would then have an adverse affect on Global Warming... ending it not creating it.

The Global Warming alarmists have it wrong and in fact have things backwards, man made pollution causes Global Cooling and reducing pollution causes Global Warming to kick back in as temperatures start rising again.

For more on the PROVEN science behind the Sahara Desert shifting between dry and wet periods every 20,000 years due to the Earth wobbling on it's axis, watch the tv series "How The Earth Was Made" on the History Channel... the episode is called Sahara and aired originally in 2009 revealing that Global Warming scientists have known these facts for over 2 years at least.

One last thought... in their zeal to stop pollution, Global Warming scientists are knowingly causing Global Warming to happen as all the known facts prove pollution does not cause Global Warming, it causes Global Cooling. In the past, scientists to gain the money they needed for their research have sacrificed the very integrity of the scientific method and their credibility for the sake of funding. The long term damage from this is twenty to eighty years rebuilding where the general population and political leaders place their faith in science again. The irony in this case is that the 60's scientists who proposed the theory of Global Cooling may now be proven correct after doubters claimed that the fact Global Warming kicked off again by 1975... but the doubter didn't factor in that environmentalists had also won many crucial battles to reduce pollution which may be the cause for temperatures beginning to increase at that time as Global Warming kicked in again due to environmentalist activity rather than pollution.

If you believe in Global Warming, ask yourself the one question that people like Al Gore do not want you to ask... What If I Am Wrong!? Because if you are wrong, that means Global Warming is just a natural process and if it is so devastating to the planet, then maybe we need to learn to control pollution as a way to control Global Warming since all the real evidence proves pollution causes Global Cooling.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Lynn 2011/09/16 19:35:25
    Lynn
    +5
    Once someone takes something purely on faith, it is very difficult to convince them that they have made a mistake.

    All the facts in the world wont shake most ecotards' faith in Algore and the myth of man-made global warming. They have their own set of "facts" that they will cling to, forever calling real facts "lies" and accuse anyone of presenting them of being "watchers of FOX news"....

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • gillian 2013/05/10 01:47:15
    gillian
    +1
    So the yo yo of opinion and science swings. The Global Wobble element in climate change has always seemed to me to be the most totally rational and simple answer to the whole thing. Living in Australia it is noticeable that when it gets unusually hot here (we are having 28 here in mid May!!), the Nth Hemisphere is wailing about having to dig them selves out of deep snow ! What worries me about pollution of all kinds, is the awful effects it has on health, e.g. Nuclear accidents, oil spills, and the horriffic birth defects,in humans fish, and other life forms, seen as a result. Has anyone noticed that in Tokyo people go about the streets wearing masks!! In the dry centre of Australia, unusual tropical behaviour is bringing rain further South more often, bringing up a mass of dormant vegetation.Lets adapt agriculture etc to the changes we experience.
    Clean the place up by all means, but don't expect the climate to settle!
  • Ken 2011/09/19 00:37:51
    Ken
    +1
    I think no one really has a clue.
  • Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/17 15:24:14
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Maybe once Algore finishes saving OUR planet, he can get an expidition to go to Jupiter and save that planet. Remember the comet or asteroid that impacted Jupiter several years ago? It's proven that all of their dinosaurs are gonna die from the impact. If we can convince Algore of that, maybe we can convince him to go there and do something about it!

    years proven dinosaurs gonna die impact convince algore convince Al gore on a rocket years proven dinosaurs gonna die impact convince algore convince Al gore on a rocket years proven dinosaurs gonna die impact convince algore convince Al gore on a rocket
  • S. Gompers 2011/09/17 07:13:43
    S. Gompers
    Here I thought it was my neighbor...
  • Bob Pooba 2011/09/17 04:08:00
    Bob Pooba
    It's warming either way.. I never really felt it was mostly attributable if at all to mankind, but It's still a serious problem.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/16 23:08:36
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I have never believed them to begin with.
  • rand 2011/09/16 21:19:12
    rand
    +1
    "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." J. K. Galbraith

    I read "Science Daily" and other scientific journals occasionally and when the vast majority of climatologists (98%) change their opinions, I will study the details again carefully. In the meantime all I've seen are hypothetical reasons why anthropogenic climate change isn't for real. Given the option between trusting my life to the majority of scientists or the majority of politicians, I'll choose the scientists every time.
  • johnc rand 2011/09/16 22:49:03
    johnc
    +2
    follow the money, those that support the gore man made global warming hoax, where do they get thier money?
  • rand johnc 2011/09/17 02:28:11
    rand
    +1
    I appreciate your cynicism, but science is not political opinion and most scientists entered their fields with a love of factual truth. I wish Gore had kept his nose out of the issue, but I'll stick with the views of the Libertarian Skeptic scientist Michael Shermer whose livelihood depends upon factual truth and credibility and on the vast majority of scientists. I've studied chemistry, physics, and ecology and find the climatologists findings to be highly objective.
  • johnc rand 2011/09/17 06:04:49
    johnc
    +2
    The climate changes, always has always will, Oceans will rise, Oceans will fall, I agree with the cleaner environment, but as so far say mankind activity is going to cause these changes I cannot get there from here. Earth has never, and will never have a constant climate. To me this whole thing if a scare tactic. follow the money, Yes, we should keep air clean water clean,. but face it, what it costs, now maybe food to fuel is a great idea to you, to me I see a world of hungry people, and those that say they are for the environment fly around almost daily in a 747 in fact 2 of them are in the air at the same time. So I follow the money, follow the power, I see "do as I say, not as I do" I'm a drill baby drill, drive opec out of business. develope things that work, not that can be sold on a scare tactic. but 1/2 a billion for a sun panel plant for 1,100 jobs for a year. seems a wrong direction to go to me, but to you, maybe.
  • rand johnc 2011/09/17 15:27:08
    rand
    +1
    Actually we probably agree that the solution is economic, as delineated in "The Rational Optimist". Like the author Ridley I don't pretend that anthropomorphic climate change isn't real. I just know that the nature of man will not reverse itself. Devastation of the environment will stop as humans reduce their proliferation and have certain degrees of security, both of which are directly correlated to prosperity.

    Just because the climate is always changing says nothing about man's participation in that. Two problems more calamitous than rising seas and warming arise from CO2: the increased risk of changing the thermal currents in the oceans which could lead to another ice age AND the acidification of the oceans could greatly reduce useable life forms. But again, I consider the debate pointless. I'll continue distrusting Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox News on this issue and relying upon climatologists and objectivists like Shermer. Best wishes to you.
  • johnc rand 2011/09/17 17:48:49
    johnc
    +1
    so, you like turning food to fuel?

    there was a mass extinction due to CO2, it happened in syberia, A crack in the earths crust allowed lava to ignight the massive layers of coal. So maybe if we want to save the earth we should slowly release the carbon contained in these reserves, it aid plant growth without a massive release, You are aware of the hot spot under yellowstone park? the No. American plate as it slides over this hot spot will expose these massive coal and petroleum deposits ignighting them. that instant release could lead to what you are claiming is happening, I am for the slow measured release, you are awaiting the massive release of a lot of CO2. we disagree,

    I really don't care whom you distrust, like I am sure you could care less about whom I distrust, I distrust Gore, Obama, this Shermer dude, where does Shermer get his money? follow the money my friend, Rush, Glenn, fox news gets nothing for telling the truth, and dispelling scare tactics. does Al Gore make money on this? does Obama get campaign funds from this? does Shermer get money for these claims? I suggest, you decide. :o)

    and the best to you, need carbon credits? 1/2 the Big Al Gore price, I have no mansions, I have no private jets, and I respect my marriage vows, I understand big Al is also invested in this failed solar panel plant that Obama promoted and had the loan modified to protect Big Al, forget the BS follow the money.
  • rand johnc 2011/09/17 21:17:07
    rand
    +1
    The ethanol program is a farm subsidized boondoggle. Why would you think I'd support it?

    Limbaugh makes $44,000,000 convincing people that their self-righteous rage is justified. Beck makes his dough reinforcing paranoid beliefs. Shermer makes his dough purely and simply by revealing the scientific. It's his livelihood and dishonesty would cost him dearly. I can tell that your distrust of him isn't based on his science but on the fact that he disagrees with you. As a scientist I would only expect him to agree with the experts. He knows that the odds of 98% of climatologists being on the take is virtually zero. He also is a scientist and can view the data and information objectively.

    If I put as much stock in money telling the truth as you evidently do, I probably would be less concerned with the science as well. As for Gore, I can't care less what he has done or is doing.
  • johnc rand 2011/09/18 02:01:32
    johnc
    +1
    it is considered green even though it uses lots of oil to make it.

    I consider Rush a huge success, a challenge to the LWNJs, and he is good at it.
    Glenn, again a great success, both believe in non violent opposition, I prefer that over what the left has with it's labor goons, but to each his own.

    So where does Shermer get his money? again with the percentages, there is not any proof that 98% of scientist agree with man made global warming, a left wing lie. we both kow that. Again follow the money who is supporting his opinion with dollars.

    again, I am for the measured release of co2, you must want it all put in the air at one time. the world is not ready for the extreme environmentalist goal, and when I see these folks live what they preach I may reconsider, right now all I see is do as I say not as I do. The does not impress me one bit. I recall a recent show on PBS about Big Sir, this woman complaining that homes built in a small cove would disrupt her view from her home in the wilderness, was she concerned about the environment or her view? I noticed at the end of the doc. she did not say she would remove her house from the pristene wilderness, built with wood from someone elses forest. to me they are the greediest people in the world.

    since you think this Shermer guy is not tilting his opinion based on $$$ show me. where his money comes from, etc.
  • rand johnc 2011/09/18 04:42:00
    rand
    Google "Skeptic".
  • johnc rand 2011/09/18 05:52:37
    johnc
    +1
    did, and your point? I have about 50 years of sales, those that don't question what they are told are easy marks, to me, the man made global warming sprang out of the extreme environmental movement. Like the words of Obama, they sound warm and fuzzy. his best was when he took over GM he went on TV behind a desk and said "Your GM warrentee is backed by the federal government" I expected him next to say "lean on the pen" in auto sales you would call him F&I, or closer. The idea of a cleaner earth, clean water, clean air, and reduce waste is a good idea, This global warming was a product to sell, and with the force of the government behind it, well the money will flow, and the reports will come in. follow the money, but if you are not skeptical, are you thinking of a BRAND NEW CAR? I would really like to be your auto consultant.
    let me know.
  • rand johnc 2011/09/18 17:05:30
    rand
    +1
    My point was to introduce you to an objective source whose income derives from science and verifiable fact. He's not capitalizing on anthropogenic climate change, simply reporting it objectively as the science which it is rather than as a political issue which it shouldn't be.
  • johnc rand 2011/09/18 18:20:16
    johnc
    +1
    follow the money, who and what support him, if you believe scientist are not also after the money, I have a bridge for sale.
  • rand johnc 2011/09/18 23:25:23
    rand
    Subscribers to "Skeptic" support Shermer. There are obviously scientists who will create research to "prove" that tobacco is good for one health. The vast majority are far more honest than those of any other profession. Love of factual truth is what drives them.
  • johnc rand 2011/09/19 02:01:59
    johnc
    +1
    follow the money, my friend,
  • chaoski... rand 2011/09/19 09:36:57
    chaoskitty123
    +1
    You haven't? Then you haven't studied even the basics. Look up Ice Ages and notice that when they end they are always followed by a period of Global Warming... that's where the term comes from and that's why Global Warming is a reality... but it's only a theory that Man Made Global Warming is happening. Science has pulled these con games many times in the past such as anthropology where for several decades the scientific research into human origins was thrown into ill repute because almost all scientists accepted almost blindly research discoveries such as Peking Man and so forth ignoring all evidence they were faked because it was good for getting research funds to continue their research.

    What I am saying is you don't have to believe me or them... I'm saying you have a brain, use it.

    All I am doing is giving you my findings by just examining the basics as lies are always revealed by people using common sense and asking simple questions.

    The Little Ice Age, check it out as it lasted between 300 and 700 years ending around 1850. Who provides that information? The very scientists telling us about man made Global Warming now. Common sense... if a period of Global Warming begins at the end of an Ice Age and we see Global Warming sets in at around 1850, then is this not the very natu...

















    You haven't? Then you haven't studied even the basics. Look up Ice Ages and notice that when they end they are always followed by a period of Global Warming... that's where the term comes from and that's why Global Warming is a reality... but it's only a theory that Man Made Global Warming is happening. Science has pulled these con games many times in the past such as anthropology where for several decades the scientific research into human origins was thrown into ill repute because almost all scientists accepted almost blindly research discoveries such as Peking Man and so forth ignoring all evidence they were faked because it was good for getting research funds to continue their research.

    What I am saying is you don't have to believe me or them... I'm saying you have a brain, use it.

    All I am doing is giving you my findings by just examining the basics as lies are always revealed by people using common sense and asking simple questions.

    The Little Ice Age, check it out as it lasted between 300 and 700 years ending around 1850. Who provides that information? The very scientists telling us about man made Global Warming now. Common sense... if a period of Global Warming begins at the end of an Ice Age and we see Global Warming sets in at around 1850, then is this not the very natural process these scientists told us happens at the end of an Ice Age?

    [IMG]http://i73.photobucket.c...

    The chart above is from the very source most of the Global Warming scientists get their information but most edit the chart to begin around 1975 or later... it comes from NASA and reveals all the facts I mention about Global Warming already taking place when global temperatures begin to be recorded and it ends around 1940 when world industrial output and pollution is recognized as being at it's worst as we were going into WWII and you will note that the temperatures become more moderate.

    Common sense... in the mid to late 1960's, millions of people were concerned about the harsh Winters and fear was setting in there could be another Ice Age coming among scientists who wanted to find why that might happen. Their answer was "pollution" and that it was causing Global Cooling.

    While modern revisionists try to tell us not all scientists believed this, enough did that it was put into all school science textbooks meaning we're being lied to again as they wouldn't have done that had there not been a huge number of scientists using that theory. In fact, environmentalists used it as well to attack pollution warning that we were causing an Ice Age. We are now told this was essentially bad science and a hoax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and yet, todays scientists who address Global Warming never mention this period between 1940 and 1975 nor the Little Ice Age.

    You say upwards to 98% of all scientists belief Man Made Global Warming is a reality... false. Like most polls, a poll was done of a small number of scientists and the results used to say all scientists believe the same is true.

    The same deception was used about birds and their relation to dinosaurs as several polls were done that revealed almost 100% of all archaeologists believed there was no connection and the scientists putting it forth were crackpots so that society as a whole believed they were crackpots. They ignored the real science which revealed that bird anatomy was almost identical to dinosaurs and no other species which existed. Then, they discovered dinosaurs with feathers and went back over past finds revealing that many fossils revealed feathers and that the scientists against the idea that dinosaurs and birds were the same species had purposely falsified their findings and even destroyed some fossil evidence to remove all traces of feathers photographs from the site where they were found revealed were there.

    So choose the scientists... if you do basic research you will find that the poll was only of a small number of scientists often saying Global Warming was a reality but not agreeing that Man Made Global Warming was a reality... thus the reason for confusing the terms so scientists can claim Global Warming is a reality and proven fact but then state very clearly that Man Made Global Warming is only a theory. They actually reveal they are deceiving people and it's easy to catch them if you simply understand the basics.

    They purposely do not talk about the Little Ice Age and only address Global Warming from around the mid 70's when if you go back just a little bit before that you find a complete contradiction that man made pollution causes Global Warming because Global Warming was already taking place and increases in man made pollution beginning at around 1940 STOPPED the process.

    Again, I'm not telling you to believe me or them... I'm asking you to examine the basic simple facts and that alone proves that the Global Warming alarmists are lying to us because the facts tell us something completely different.
    (more)
  • Mark P. 2011/09/16 21:06:40
    Mark P.
    +2
    Amen...I thought I was the only one that remembered my Earth science class.
  • Cold Warrior 2011/09/16 20:48:50
    Cold Warrior
    +3
    The Earth wobbled! Damn it! Al Gore fell over again, somebody help his fat ass back up.
  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2011/09/16 20:39:26
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +2
    Does this mean we are going to see Wobble Trading and Wobble Taxes?
  • johnc Pedro D... 2011/09/16 22:51:17
    johnc
    +2
    man made global wabbling will soon pass man made global cooling, man made global warming and the infant man made global dimming. Don't know yet how Big Al Gore will make money on it but he will try, I think the problem is Obie riding around in AF 1 daily. what a pimp wagon that has become.
  • Icarus 2011/09/16 20:36:25
    Icarus
    +1
    Good grief... Milankovitch cycles, we've known about them for decades, get an education.
  • chaoski... Icarus 2011/09/19 10:48:01
    chaoskitty123
    +1
    Yes we have known about them... and it seems that Man Made Global Warming activists don't know the first thing about them. It's not me who needs an education Icarus as you've seen me mention this before and you know I am well aware about the Earth wobbling on it's axis causing changes in global climate.

    So why is it that you never talk about it in relation to Global Warming? None of the Global Warming alarmists mention it just as they don't mention the Little Ice Age, the fact that Global Warming is a scientific reality because it's a natural process that begins at the end of an Ice Age... but Man Made Global Warming is only a theory of which scientists are purposely trying to confuse the two terms telling us how Global Warming is a scientific fact and two seconds later telling us Man Made Global Warming is only a theory.

    Good Grief... when you finally kick that football Charlie Brown, maybe then the truth will look different to you than it does when you're lying on your back.

    What I am trying to get through to people who actually don't know anything about this is that science has given us several "proven" scientific causes for Global Warming but man made pollution isn't one of them.

    Question Icarus... what if I am correct that since the mid 70's environmentalist siccesses in redu...























    Yes we have known about them... and it seems that Man Made Global Warming activists don't know the first thing about them. It's not me who needs an education Icarus as you've seen me mention this before and you know I am well aware about the Earth wobbling on it's axis causing changes in global climate.

    So why is it that you never talk about it in relation to Global Warming? None of the Global Warming alarmists mention it just as they don't mention the Little Ice Age, the fact that Global Warming is a scientific reality because it's a natural process that begins at the end of an Ice Age... but Man Made Global Warming is only a theory of which scientists are purposely trying to confuse the two terms telling us how Global Warming is a scientific fact and two seconds later telling us Man Made Global Warming is only a theory.

    Good Grief... when you finally kick that football Charlie Brown, maybe then the truth will look different to you than it does when you're lying on your back.

    What I am trying to get through to people who actually don't know anything about this is that science has given us several "proven" scientific causes for Global Warming but man made pollution isn't one of them.

    Question Icarus... what if I am correct that since the mid 70's environmentalist siccesses in reducing pollution have caused the natural process of Global Warming after the Little Ice Age to kick back in? It would mean science has just discovered a way to control the Earths climate and stop natural Global Warming. Pollution between 1940 thru 1975 was the worst in human history and we see temperatures level off and even drop.

    We see environmentalists from the mid 70's to the present day winning their wars to reduce pollution where they have influence and global temperatures rose. Now, if pollution causes Global Warming and environmentalists were reducing pollution in much of the world... then doesn't that contradict the idea that pollution is causing this? Again, from 1940 thru 1975 when pollution was virtually uncontrolled and at it's worst, we see Global Cooling and not Global Warming. Now, when science is telling us that nations like China are pushing out more pollution and levels of pollution caused by these new industrial powers are bringing pollution levels back to where they were between 1940 and 1975 undoing all the ood environmentalists have achieved... we are seeing global temperatures suddenly level off and cooling.

    The point I am making here Icarus, a point you obviously don't want to see being made, is that most people who believe in the theory of Man Made global Warming DON'T know about this... and thank you very much for telling them they need to get an education because they haven't got a clue what they are talking about and are just blindly following along like sheep believing what they are told to believe.

    Am I trying to encourage more pollution and end environmentalism?

    No, I am trying to reveal that yet again, the scientific community is supporting a hoax their own facts prove is false. However, the vast majority of the people they're selling this to don't know it's false and people like Al Gore have been selling it from an idealist pov rather than addressing the facts for what they are.

    Tell me Icarus, did the Little Ice Age happen?

    What happens when an Ice Age ends?

    Explain why when pollution was at it's worst between 1940 and 1975 global temps got cooler instead of warmer?

    Explain also how it is that as environmentalists won their greatest successes that Global Warming accelerated as pollution declined?

    Explain also how it is that global pollution is now rising in new industrial nations like China that global temperatures nation by nation including in the US are getting cooler and leveling off just like between 1940 and 1975?

    You don't need to have twenty years of higher education to take scientific findings and realize that the very basics of what these scientists are telling us are actually false... you only need an open mind.

    And to answer a question i asked you earlier, if what I am saying is true and Man Made Global Warming scientists and alarmists are lying to us, then reducing pollution will accelerate Global Warming and all the damage these scientists claim will happen... will be caused by them rather than prevented by them.

    That my friend is worth re examining their "facts" because if they are wrong and I am right then Global Warming alarmists are doing all this damage rather than polluters and we need to do research to discover the best way to control pollution... but also learn from the process to discover the best way to reduce Global Warming at the same time. If man made pollution causes Global Cooling like all the evidence they provide actually is telling us upon review rather than blindly believing what they tell us, then science has just discovered the means to control global temperatures and maybe even prevent the next Ice Age from happening.
    (more)
  • Icarus chaoski... 2011/09/19 11:01:48
    Icarus
    "So why is it that you never talk about it in relation to Global Warming?"

    Bizarre that you should say that, given that I have frequently pointed out what Milankovitch cycles tell us about climate sensitivity and the role of CO2 in global warming.

    pointed milankovitch cycles climate sensitivity role co2 global warming

    During Milankovitch cycles the variation in solar radiation input to the climate system amounts to no more than 0.25W/m². This is simple orbital mechanics which no-one denies.

    This tiny heating and cooling influence is enough, when amplified to about 7W/m² by natural positive feedbacks, to make the difference between today's global climate and one 5°C colder in which ice sheets a mile thick covered much of North America, Europe and Asia.

    Today we have raised the level of atmospheric CO2 by 40% above the natural level, methane by 150% and nitrous oxide by 18%. That represents a total forcing of 2.6W/m² - already 40% of the forcing responsible for those very large climate changes of the past.

    So, you can see that human activities are certainly capable of having a large impact on the global climate... and no-one thinks we are going to stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon, so it's only going to get worse.
  • seathanaich 2011/09/16 20:16:38 (edited)
    seathanaich
    +1
    I guess the fact that the earth's axis moves is news to the scientifically illiterate, but I learned this sometime in elementary school. However, most people hate school, and therefore don't learn simple things like this, so I guess it will be a surprise to many, especially in your country, which has the worst rates of scientific illiteracy and ignorance in the developed world.

    That scientific illiteracy is the reason why more people deny climate change (and evolution) than in anywhere else in the developed world.

    The migration of the planetary axis is irrelevant to the topic of human-made global climate change that has occurred over the past century.
  • Jay Theyme seathan... 2011/09/16 20:59:51
    Jay Theyme
    +2
    You didn't understand what the article was aiming at. It wasn't simply announcing the discovery of a moving axis (which you almost certainly did not learn in elementary school) but was supposing this may (in part) explain (some) climate change. Possibly changes seen in our time.

    The USA is, by a very healthy margin, one of the most scientifically literate countries in the world. It is a world leader in scientific advancements. This might explain why more people 'deny' pseudoscience. (and possibly producing more pseudoscience like 'climate change' (and evolution).

    The migration of the planetary axis is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not you still beat your wife.
  • seathan... Jay Theyme 2011/09/16 21:06:47
    seathanaich
    +1
    "which you almost certainly did not learn in elementary school"

    I certainly did. I'm sorry if you were busy ignoring everything your teachers said and avoiding the school library, but I wasn't. My kids read books on every possible topic, and the migration of the planetary axis is a fairly simple topic covered in lots of picture books targeted at young children.

    "The USA is, by a very healthy margin, one of the most scientifically literate countries in the world."

    I didn't say "world" I said "developed world". Please pay attention if you are going to comment. The US repeatedly has among the worst scores in scientific literacy in the developed world, as a poll on Sodahead within this week discussed, and which is common knowledge to anyone who follows such polls. It is also evident from constant data showing that the denialism of things like evolution and climate change is noticably higher in the US than in other DEVELOPED nations.
  • Jay Theyme seathan... 2011/09/16 21:28:30
    Jay Theyme
    +1
    That's interesting you can recall a migrating axis picture book. Can you recall any names or what grade this was? I'm not a 'migrating axis picture book' denier but that is really fascinating. How long ago was this? About 10 years ago?

    You were not confused by 'world' and 'developed world' but if you want to be playing games then stay with 'developed world' (whatever you think that means) and the USA is still right at the top as I described. That is partly why students from all around the 'developed world' want to get into MIT. The USA has leading science in nearly every field you can think of.

    And again, one way you can tell Americans have a high scientific literacy rate is that more American laymen will criticize pseudosciences like 'global warming' than you could find in some other nations. Actually, I have to it was in the UK I found the most people being openly critical and freely doing so in the media. But that's just me.
  • seathan... Jay Theyme 2011/09/16 21:33:37 (edited)
    seathanaich
    +1
    "That's interesting you can recall a migrating axis picture book."

    I recall an endless parade of books: dinosaurs, history, space and the planets being the three topics that I and my friends read the greatest variety of books on. Maybe you should walk down to a library, go through the kids non-fiction, and see what's there before you make snide comments on something you obviously aren't familiar with.

    "You were not confused by 'world' and 'developed world'"

    No, I wasn't. That was you that was confusing them.

    "The USA has leading science in nearly every field you can think of. "

    Who claimed it didn't? Pay attention to what people write, and stop making up things that aren't in my posts.

    "more American laymen will criticize pseudosciences like 'global warming'"

    Which speaks to the poor performance of their education system (and their high degree of Christian religious literalism) as has already been pointed out. You're just repeating yourself at this point, and I have no interest in doing the same, with someone who claims to tell others what they did or not not do in their youth. Bye.
  • BoomLover seathan... 2011/09/17 04:04:58
    BoomLover
    +1
    Somehow I just knew you were going to bring Religion into the mix...could tell it from your attitude while thinking you were putting Jay "in his place"...You sound like a homeschooler, and if so that is fine...however, please give your kids a chance to do their own research, and don't put them down if it goes against your thoughts or beliefs...that is true science, trial and error, they need to be able to discern the facts on their own , and know how to look for them.
  • seathan... BoomLover 2011/09/17 05:08:36
    seathanaich
    +1
    "bring Religion into the mix"

    Since it's the primary (and probably sole) source of denial of climate change, it's relevent to any discussion with creationist Christians who deny it.

    "You sound like a homeschooler, and if so that is fine"

    No. In my experience most of those are religionists trying to shield their children from high school biology. Nothing in my post gave any impression that I fear high school biology, and therefore home school my children.

    "please give your kids a chance to do their own research"

    You don't know me or my kids, so this is a pretty presumptive thing to say. It comes off as partronising and insulting. If that's your intent, then you suceeded. If it isn't, you might want to rethink. I'd be more concerned about child indoctrination by people like Jay, who deny the scientific method.
  • chaoski... seathan... 2011/09/19 12:54:31
    chaoskitty123
    It is not lol. Many are challenging the theory but the media isn't focusing on them because it doesn't suit their agenda. FOX, which is the most likely to give them a voice, get's more mileage allowing the left leaning media to promote the theory and shoot itself in the foot than it would by directly confronting it.

    Religion teaches climate change because in the Bible, and you really should know this if you've ever read it, the Bible talks about climate change on a regular basis but attributes it to God.

    Many atheists also deny Global Warming based on the facts. I addressed Global Warming the other day speaking about the Little Ice Age and one of the people responding answered stating he was an Atheist and gets called a Christian all the time by ignorant people who think that only religious people deny climate change. Like myself, he simply examined the facts vs the interpretation of those facts by Global Warming alarmists and found that the facts actually tell us the exact opposite of what we're being told they say by Man Made Global Warming supporters. The truth, he said, is that most rightwingers opposing the theory are likely to be religious and most leftwingers supporting it aren't likely to be religious... it's an ignorant stereotype based on political leanings. And let's ...















    It is not lol. Many are challenging the theory but the media isn't focusing on them because it doesn't suit their agenda. FOX, which is the most likely to give them a voice, get's more mileage allowing the left leaning media to promote the theory and shoot itself in the foot than it would by directly confronting it.

    Religion teaches climate change because in the Bible, and you really should know this if you've ever read it, the Bible talks about climate change on a regular basis but attributes it to God.

    Many atheists also deny Global Warming based on the facts. I addressed Global Warming the other day speaking about the Little Ice Age and one of the people responding answered stating he was an Atheist and gets called a Christian all the time by ignorant people who think that only religious people deny climate change. Like myself, he simply examined the facts vs the interpretation of those facts by Global Warming alarmists and found that the facts actually tell us the exact opposite of what we're being told they say by Man Made Global Warming supporters. The truth, he said, is that most rightwingers opposing the theory are likely to be religious and most leftwingers supporting it aren't likely to be religious... it's an ignorant stereotype based on political leanings. And let's face it Sea, I have seen you many times assuming that people who disagree with you are rightwingers and motivated by religious ignorance even when the issue has nothing to do with religion as you're doing here.

    If it had to do with religion, they would be admitting it's happening but trying to say it's a punishment by God.

    See... you really are ignorant and don't know what you are saying because if you examine that statement I just made above, you would know that religious people would in fact support it but say it was a punishment by God lol.

    They wouldn't need to shield their children from high school biology if you would stop making things political. Every Christian I know who denied evolution I only needed to explain how we have controlled evolution through selective breeding and crossbreeding giving us most breeds of cats, dogs, cattle, geese... almost every domestic animal we have was created by us altering them from what "God" created. Guess what Sea... THEY ACCEPT IT! You guys on the left do nothing but attack the political right and religious people until you reach a point where you're embracing Islam and Muslims while attacking Christians... and Muslims are further to the right than Christians by quite some margin. Their beliefs about gays and oppression of women are way further right than Christians today and yet you guys attack Christians while you embrace Muslims when if you had a lick of intelligence you'd stay out of it and let the two rightwing religious groups fight it out between themselves.

    Tell me I'm wrong Sea... because in the ignorance of embracing Islam, gays and women are abandoning the political left and even the Democratic Party as a whole because this is completely insane... and yet, no one on the left is challenging it because you seem to have the belief that the enemy of my enemy is my friend when where Muslims are concerned, they'd have every gay person in the country strung up by a rope or imprisoned and every woman a virtual slave in her own home.

    Presumption Sea... isn't that what you just did presuming that most opposed to the flawed theory of Man Made Global Warming are religious people. Basically, he did to you what you did to him proving you're not very observant which explains why you're missing the point I made about Man Made Global Warming. The point Sea is that if you open your mind and examine the facts for what they are rather than what you are told they are... they contradict one another.

    Again... why don't they talk about the Little Ice Age and the natural process of Global Warming that set in motion? Why don't they talk about the 35 years between 1940 and 1975 where temps became so moderate and cooler that scientists developed the theory of Global Cooling to explain it claiming that the worst period of man made pollution in world history caused temps to cool off... at least they acknowledged the Little Ice Age and stated correctly the process of Global Warming not trying to deceive anyone.

    The actual facts presented to prove man made Global Warming is real contradict the truth.

    The theory purposely leaves out over a century of actual scientific facts beginning around 1850 running through to 1975... a period of 125 years totally ignored by Global Warming alarmists. Explain that if you can because I didn't deny Global Warming is happening... I educated myself to the facts vs the claims made from those facts and omissions of history which completely discredits the theory of Man Made Global Warming and reveals that scientists knowingly have confused the natural process of Global Warming with the theory of Man Made Global Warming so they can claim Global Warming is a proven scientific fact... without denying that Man Made Global Warming isn't fact, isn't backed by truth and at best is an unfounded theory.
    (more)
  • seathan... chaoski... 2011/09/21 02:55:17
    seathanaich
    "Many are challenging the theory but the media isn't focusing on them because it doesn't suit their agenda."

    The reason they are "not being focussed on" is that they cannot back up their claims with evidence. That's how science works. If you don't have evidence, you try to use the political process, at the school district or higher, to censor from science classes that which you object to on religious grounds.

    "Many atheists also deny Global Warming based on the facts."

    I've yet to meet one, or talk to one, and that's not a coincidence or a surprise. CC denial seems to be completely correlated with denial of evolution. I've yet to talk to anyone on this site who only denies one of those two things.

    "because in the ignorance of embracing Islam, gays and women"

    How many gays and women have you ever heard or seen embracing Islam? And what the hell relevance does this have to a discussion on CC? CC isn't about left/right. Denial of CC is largely now confined to your country. Outside of the US, this debate ended years ago.
  • Annie~P... chaoski... 2011/09/22 14:39:40
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    Bingo CK! Excellent comments.
  • Annie~P... BoomLover 2011/09/22 14:38:13
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    Ha, the old Christian Card!!..... Leave it to a progressive to find a way to bring Christianity into a discussion of - the effects of the earth on its axis and climate change!!
  • chaoski... Jay Theyme 2011/09/19 12:21:16
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    He doesn't understand for the very reasons he attacked Global Warming deniers... a lack of education or illiteracy.

    Here's the point in a nutshell... the actual proof that Man Made Global Warming scientists tells us the exact opposite of their interpretation of it. In researching Al Gore in relation to Rick Perry, I learned that as late as the late 1970's, Gore was leaning in favor of man made global climate change. In the late 60's and early 70's, scientists trying to learn why Global Warming ended at around 1940 came up with the theory of Global Cooling which blamed man made pollution for causing it. The opposition to this were stating the opposite was true even though the theory of Global Cooling was already in almost every school science book because most accepted it as fact. But at around 1975, temperatures began to rise again so that the theory of Man Made Global Cooling fell out and over the next decade, their opposition continued to promote that if anything, man made pollution caused Global Warming to back up their theories about greenhouse gases and so forth causing a warming trend. This theory was further backed by discoveries on sister planets like Venus.

    However, these scientists missed one important fact about their theory as environmentalists were winning against p...

































    He doesn't understand for the very reasons he attacked Global Warming deniers... a lack of education or illiteracy.

    Here's the point in a nutshell... the actual proof that Man Made Global Warming scientists tells us the exact opposite of their interpretation of it. In researching Al Gore in relation to Rick Perry, I learned that as late as the late 1970's, Gore was leaning in favor of man made global climate change. In the late 60's and early 70's, scientists trying to learn why Global Warming ended at around 1940 came up with the theory of Global Cooling which blamed man made pollution for causing it. The opposition to this were stating the opposite was true even though the theory of Global Cooling was already in almost every school science book because most accepted it as fact. But at around 1975, temperatures began to rise again so that the theory of Man Made Global Cooling fell out and over the next decade, their opposition continued to promote that if anything, man made pollution caused Global Warming to back up their theories about greenhouse gases and so forth causing a warming trend. This theory was further backed by discoveries on sister planets like Venus.

    However, these scientists missed one important fact about their theory as environmentalists were winning against polluters by 1975 and the amount of man made pollution was being reduced. In fact, where we see environmentalists winning greater battles, Global Warming accelerates. That simple observation tells you what?

    Look beyond that and go back in time a bit to the 70's again. In the 1970's, scientists were promoting several theories as possible causes for Global Warming with the first being the end of an Ice Age... and to that end they pointed to the Little Ice Age which ended in about 1850. They also pointed out that the activity of the Sun can cause this and, in fact, scientists had noticed the Sun becoming less active just before a solar eruption at around 1859 that actually set telegraph wires on fire and would devastate all technology on the planet should such happen now... and scientists are telling us the Sun has entered a period of relative inactivity. Should that period of inactivity last, then it would reduce temperatures globally causing climate change just as it would increase global climate during a more active period as we've seen over the past 30 years or so until around 2009. Then, there was the observation that the Earth does not orbit the Sun in a perfect orbit as it sometimes rotates closer or further from the Sun... this too would affect global temperatures. Then you have periods where volcanic activity increases which they claim was responsible for several die offs of life across the planet in our past and which they believe happened just before the Little Ice Age started. Then finally, you have planetary shift which can do in once day what continental shift does over millions of years suddenly shifting every continent into a new region which naturally causes global climate change and melts the poles because they have shifted into a warmer climate where they melt faster than new ice accumulates.

    [IMG]http://i73.photobucket.c...

    What does the above chart tell you? It was provided by NASA and is the main supporting evidence for Man Made Global Warming but generally is edited so we only see from around 1975 to the present day.

    [IMG]http://i73.photobucket.c...

    Now, what does the second chart of US temps tell you over the same time period. US temps are a bit different and since around 2000 to 2003 has been in a cooling period at the time Global Warming advocates have been trying to scare the hell out of us that we're destroying the planet when what the US chart tells us is that environmentalism here has resulted in the exact opposite of what they're claiming as temps are dropping instead of increasing. This backs up what I have been saying where man made pollution causes cooling and not warming. You simply cannot deny this based on the actual information that their own scientists are providing... and yet, they are denying it which makes who the deniers here?

    Global Warming has been happening but it's the natural process following the end of the Little Ice Age. The term Global Warming precedes the Man Made Global Warming theory by decades and what scientists are doing is purposely confusing the two terms. They will at one moment tell you Global Warming is a proven scientific fact and at the drop of a hat say that Man Made Global Warming is a theory revealing they are purposely being deceptive and lying.

    The facts presented about the Sahara is to illustrate that the very scientists telling us that Man Made Global Warming is a fact have provided other facts that prove dramatic climate change happens. At around every 20,000 years, there is a Global Wobble which shifts the continents and over a brief period of around 100 to 200 years turns the Sahara Desert into green land teaming with life and water.

    How long have we been keeping records of global temperatures? About 130 years. About how long has it been since the Little Ice Age? About 160 years.

    When did we experience a decline or stoppage of Global Warming? During the worst period of man made pollution in human history. Environmentalism brought that to an end and reversed it causing what... the natural process of Global Warming that began at the end of the Little Ice Age kicked back in and accelerated based on successes of environmentalism accelerating.

    However, where we have little influence, such as China, we see man made pollution over the past decade increasing until now global pollution is again at around where it was in 1940 and what we see is Global Cooling, not Global Warming.

    These are their own facts... the very scientists who promote Man Made Global Warming provide the facts, the charts and the research... but it's their interpretation which is a complete falsehood and that's what people like Seathanaich are believing... the interpretation of the facts rather than opening their eyes to see that the very facts they're being given say the opposite of what they're telling us the facts say.

    Again, look at the charts above and using basic truths anyone can find anywhere... what do those charts tell us? They tell us Global Warming was already happening from the beginning of the century and maybe slowed down because of pollution... then, when pollution seemed to explode because of industrialization as we entered the WWII era, we see global temps do what during the worst period of man made pollution in human history... temperatures become moderate or even cooler.

    You don't have to be a genius here to understand that the facts we're being presented say the opposite of what the interpretation given with the facts tell us.

    It's all political for the most part as people on the political left represent the bulk of the believers and people on the political right represent the bulk of non believers.

    Many non believers know temperatures were increasing and they aren't stupid in regard to that fact. What they refuse to believe is that man made pollution causes it. Even if you don't remember everything you were taught in school, everything you learned in school is still there and on a subconscious level, you're mind is telling you somethings wrong with this theory.

    So it's not just rightwingers but they're more likely to listen to their doubts about this theory... leftwingers are more likely to ignore their doubts because what they're being told comes from environmentalists who will NEVER admit that environmentalists may have caused the natural cycle of Global Warming to kick back in.

    You got the idea of what I was saying as the wobble in the Earths axis in fact does correspond to changes in the Earths climate and if the wobble is more extreme as we see presented in the story of the Sahara Desert, it can create dramatic global climate change in just a few years as the story tells how the wobble actually creates climate change almost immediately but it takes a century or two for the sand to be washed away, for water to form lakes, for birds to fly north along with insects bringing seeds, for life as a whole to migrate and reappear where it has now become possible again for it to thrive.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 01:36:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals