Result of excessive fluoride exposure?

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Now wait a minute!  More probes are sent into the atmosphere now than it past centuries.  The climate has warmed in the past century.  Climate scientists are sending the probes.  Therefore, climate scientists are causing global warming.

Here's an interesting take on a recent CERN study which shows it it the sun which controls global climate.  Who would have thought?  The man-made global warming proponents on this board should try to look past the messenger in this story and consider the actual study results.

I damn sure reduced my carbon footprint since retirement.

I think homo sapiens are an egotistical bunch.  Still think everything revolves around them.

peco wrote:

No phreddy, CERN did not conclude that global warming is caused by the sun.  Quite the opposite actually.

Climate change deniers should actually make an effort to read and understand the evidence for global warming.

I never said CERN concluded that global warming is caused by the sun.  I said their study clearly shows that it is.  The fact that the CERN's Director General, Rolf-Dieter Heuer has decided not to back up his own study speaks volumns.

Rolf-Dieter Heuer, 15 July 2011 wrote:

I have asked the CERN colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

Since when did scientists start presenting their results without offering an interpretation?  Others not constrained by their boss at CERN are saying that the study finds cosmic radiation may be only one of many parameters, but it is a very significant one.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong here.

1.  Cosmic Ray radiation has nothing to do with the sun.

2.  A single study conducted in a laboratory environment using artificial generated cosmic rays and with pure gasses tells us little about what is actually happening in our atmosphere. It may show a mechanism and be a basis for rough modeling. But the very idea of correlation from such a single study seems weak till it is observed and measured in nature.

Well, solar activity apparently modulates the effects of cosmic radiation in our atmosphere.  Here is a scholarly article in lay terms from PhysicsWorld.com.  It presents both sides of this issue in a fair and understandable way.

XregnaR wrote:

Jesus fuck you people

Agreed.  It never ceases to amaze me how people without any background knowledge in a subject can so easily be convinced that by exposure to opinions about it they consider themselves informed. 

That said, global warming, anthropomorphic or not is the least of my concerns.

It's a fact that modern civilization is causing incredible damage to the biosphere.  Set aside climate change for a moment, and consider the overfishing and pollution of our oceans, the rapid depletion of aquifers, the depletion of cheap fossil fuel, the destruction of rainforest, the slow but insidious rise of ionizing radiation pollution, the junkyard we've made of orbital space, the loss of genetic diversity... ad nauseum.  Couple that with the far more than linear rise in population and we're well and truly fucked.

I'm not too concerned about global warming either.  My problem is the punitive restrictions that environmentalists and law makers are placing on our energy generation.  The so-called emissions into the atmosphere Ranger speaks of are mainly carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant at all.  It's what we exhale with every breath we take.  Man made carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere amounts to less than 4% of the total (the vast majority is naturally occuring).  And carbon makes up only 391 parts per million of the atmosphere.  Up about 4 PPM since 1990.  Is that strong enough evidence to shut down industrial production world-wide?  Can we at least listen to other opinions on the matter?  Is the notion that the sun controls global warming so wacky that it must be shouted down by those receiving grants to perpetuate their own theories and agenda?  Question authority people!!

phreddy wrote:

I'm not too concerned about global warming either.  My problem is the punitive restrictions that environmentalists and law makers are placing on our energy generation.  The so-called emissions into the atmosphere Ranger speaks of are mainly carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant at all.  It's what we exhale with every breath we take.  Man made carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere amounts to less than 4% of the total (the vast majority is naturally occuring).  And carbon makes up only 391 parts per million of the atmosphere.  Up about 4 PPM since 1990.  Is that strong enough evidence to shut down industrial production world-wide?  Can we at least listen to other opinions on the matter?  Is the notion that the sun controls global warming so wacky that it must be shouted down by those receiving grants to perpetuate their own theories and agenda?  Question authority people!!

4 PPM can make a huge difference.  The climate and ecology of the planet is quite finely balanced.  When you start dicking with it in one area, it has a certain capacity to rebalance by changing another area, but you can't do that forever, and the changes are never positive.

The notion that the sun controls global warming is utterly wacky, and has been disproven clearly and conclusively, so yes, it must be shouted down by those receiving grants to perpetuate theories that, for the short term, haven't been shown to be incorrect.

Question authority people... but learn to admit when you're wrong.

The smartest scientist is one who knows he doesn't have enough data to make a conclusion.

yes, I agree with that.