So I was just browsing around, you know, the internet, looking for something to blog about that might be interesting. I saw a report that the ski resorts in Vail Colorado were glad that we now have a single-party congress because now something would be done about global warming. After all, it is totally global warming’s fault that they are having slower-than-normal business this year, and might need aid in these tough economic times.
The report does fail to mention, however, that last year, the Colorado ski industry enjoyed some pretty good snowfall. I believe the term ‘record’ was used, but I am just going from memory, so do not quote me.
I saw An Inconvenient Truth. It was a decent film as far as production goes, but I never buy into anything that is one-sided. Like my politics, I want to hear the honesty from both sides. Tell me the TRUTH unwashed and let ME decide what I think is right.
So anyway, of course, the movie did much to stir the debate about global warming. As such, I decided to get some dissenting viewpoints. They are always present, and so it makes it hard to know what it is true and what is not. I tried to get scientific data, not something put out by media.
Then I struck a VERY interesting article written back in 2003. I would have to call it scientific- it is from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. If they don’t have data, who would?
I won’t bore you with the entire story, but will say that you should read it in its entirety here. I will provide you a synopsis.
The sun works in cycles. A solar cycle runs about every 11 years, when the sun hits a ‘maximum’ energy output due to sun spot activity that is pointed our way, which is followed by a slow period of ‘minimum’ output.
Interestingly, during the slow periods, it has been noted that the energy output (the minimum) has increased by about .05 percent per decade. That is a pretty small number, but according to NASA, that very little, sustained over a long period (say about 100 years?) could have a significant impact on climate.
SIGNIFICANT impact on climate. SO what they are saying, in effect, is that even though we only have really good, solid data from about 1970 onward, we can determine that the sun’s increased activity could be a major factor in the cause of global warming.
While .05% is not much, one must also understand that 2% of the sun’s output equates to the entire energy used by the ENTIRE PLANET in a full YEAR.
Why was I not told this? I am an avid science geek and I have not once heard of this. Could it be because guys like Al Gore, who make money (in the form of donations to their foundations) from spouting the end of the world won’t let us? Is it because there are those who legitimately want the world to go back to a non-industrialized place and so will help hype up the actual problem? Perhaps the ‘green’ people have a vested interest in getting THEIR products marketed over, say, current industries?
I am all for protecting the environment. I am all for making our planet as healthy as possible by recycling and trying cleaner fuels. What I am NOT about, is getting snowed over again and again by people who have the money and resources t0 scream louder than me.
The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?