Selfsufficientish.com

ellie12022 wrote: there are scientists who believe that the activity of the sun is what affects our temperatures more than anything

ellie12022 wrote:I no longer believe in ' global warming' caused by humans, as apart from anything else it is obviously a way to tax us further. (and bring in one world government) I have heard that Dr David Bellamy was sidelined from mainstream media for daring to disagree with the idea.

There were emails leaked just before the conference which seem to indicate that data was fudged to show the existence of global warming, and indeed there are scientists who believe that the activity of the sun is what affects our temperatures more than anything (and temperature changes are apparently occurring on other planets too)

I believe It is up to us to use our common sense on whatever level we can to make decisions we feel will benefit ourselves & our planet.

And not to act from fear

gdb wrote:no longer believe in ' global warming' caused by humans? It's not a question of belief or disbelief. It isn't a religion...

What is there to "not believe"?

Minnesota wrote:concluding that the small preportion of C02 released by human activity is the driving force of global climate change is such a stretch of faith that it very well must be a religion.

What the evidence shows....So what we have on the best current evidence is that

1. global temperatures are currently rising;
2. the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
3. the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
4. there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
5. the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
6. if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
7. the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
8. water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
9. determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
10. the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.