you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]agelmat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are you suggesting scientists didn't account for that data? Because they did. And it's still abnormally warmer.

Now whether we should unend our entire lives for this is the question. I don't think we need to but we definitely need to stop/lower pollution as much as is feasible

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No they removed the influence of the sun. They used a stupid trick for that. They claimed that the energy-output of the sun was constant, because the UV-light is close to constant.
But there are much more wavelengths and ways in which energy is transferred. The X-rays outbursts can cause some additional energy, but the solar wind appears to be the greatest influence.

The problem is that the climate science do not understand the sun. They do not even understand a lot of physics and chemistry. And in astronomy they are making a mess of it too.

Stopping Pollution needs a constructive solution. Not a destructive one. The problem is that the governments are all pushing for destructive solutions, because they are all paid by the big corporations. And those big corporations want to make money by pretending something is a solution, while it is not.

Example: A lot of "recycling" is just the export to 3rd world countries with less environmental and less health regulations. That is why they wanted to push the international "free trade" agreement, to make it impossible for countries to introduce better environmental or better health regulations.

Planting trees are a good solution, and downscaling big industry. Local farming. Local social economies are very good, because people start caring about each other and their surroundings. And people in such economies are often proud and caring of their town, forests or farm products.