despite the intent of this article being used as a means of supporting the anti agw debate. It is quite interesting and raises some intersting points and many ideas that I believe myself.
"There never has been a stable climate over the course of history, and there isn’t going to be one in the future.”
totaly agree.
i to believe the sun is the major influencing factor in determining the climate, and the sun cycles of the sun being responsible for most significant change.
I also believe in the greenhouse effect. Different mixtures of gasses will alter the amount of heat retained in a system. basic thermodynamics.
I understand the point that in a decreasing solar cycle adding to the greenhouse effect will "At most it will help temper the temperature decrease a bit."
here you have to opposing influences, the solar cycle decreasing the temperature with our influence on the greenhouse effect trying to influence it. Sun wins and the net is still a decrease.
but what happens when the solar cycle is increasing the temperature in combination with our addition to the green house effect?
The rate of increase in change and magnitude of change will be increased. Its like two waves meeting in th eocean the total height is the sum of both.
It is the rate of change that makes it hard or easy for systems to adapt.
the best point was this oe
"Instead of attempting over-rated and ineffective climate protection, all efforts should concentrate on global environmental protection: clean air, clean water, uncontaminated soil and an intact ecosystem are among the fundamental rights of people"
basically stop polluting, the focus on carbon is poor ad is the cause of much of the debate.
The debate should never have been about carbon, just pollution. It doesnt even have to be about temperature. we should be reducing polution because it is right.
i dont have the answers but maybe we will be better off if our intentions were cleare in the start
