The Sun Causes Global Warming

Result of Global Warming
Result of Global Warming | Source

Cosmic Rays Promote Cloud Formation

Poor Al Gore, looks like got filthy rich for nothing. Turns out that cosmic rays promote the formation of clouds. More clouds cooler earth. Less clouds warmer earth. Since the sun is the major source of cosmic rays, the sun controls whether the earth is warming or cooling. How do we know, the scientists from CERN, a highly prestigious European scientific institution.

Cosmic Rays Form Clouds

Scientists have created a chamber where they can recreate the earth's atmosphere. In that chamber they were able to show that cosmic rays promote cloud formation. While it is entirely plausible that man may somehow impact climates in some modest miniscule way, the big driver is actually the largest heavenly body in our solar system, the sun.

Politics or Science?

Seems the whole debate about whether man is causing global warming has become both political and a bit too emotional. Sadly there has been probably more politics (guess who funds much of the research...governments and politicians) than science.

One beings to wonder how so many people could have ignored this idea of the sun being the main culprit. Think about it for a minute. The largest most dominate body in our solar system. It has the largest source and output of energy

The reason this is bad is because between the outing of the fudged data from supporters of man made global warming and now a scientific study which indicates the cause of changes in earth's temperatures is the sun. Didn't see that one coming...okay that was a cheap shot... back to my point, this debacle has undermined the science community.

History has suggested that the scientific community has been held to a certain reverence. After all these are pretty smart people who do things that make our lives better. The fact that it is clear that science abandoned principle and followed the money casts a certain amount of doubt over future findings. Add this to some of the other findings that seem questionable like second hand smoke and you start to establish a credibility gap. Not because they were wrong but the attempt to shut down the debate. Words like settled science ring hollow.

One can only hope going forward robust debate will be the future of science. The truth will eventually find its way out so why not let it come out through scrutiny and if it stands up then the scientific community can build on that truth to answer the next big question.

More by this Author


Comments 8 comments

WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

One way to test the authenticity of a theory is to observe who supports it. Man caused global warming is strongly supported by the wealth redistribution, socialist left. In fact, it is almost exclusively supported by the left. That should be an obvious warning.

What is their solution? Redistribute America's wealth and cripple hated capitalism by severely limiting the use of energy.

And who is their champion?

Al Gore?

Are you kidding me!


Tom T profile image

Tom T 5 years ago from Orange County, CA Author

@ Will Starr - Yes follow the money and you will find billions of reasons why people want this to be real.


Ivorwen profile image

Ivorwen 5 years ago from Hither and Yonder

Imagine that! ;)

A couple years ago, when the debate first started to really heat up, I remember reading an evolutionary based article that stated the earth was currently in its fourth ice age -- an ice age being defined as having polar caps. If this is the fourth ice age, then doesn't that mean the earth has gone through this whole 'global warming' thing at least three times before? And what were those last three blamed on? *ahem* Cause by?


Tom T profile image

Tom T 5 years ago from Orange County, CA Author

@Ivorwen - Again...more common sense in the face of evidence that man was not the real cause. Thanks for stopping by.


IronBrown 4 years ago

Of course the sun is responsible for the rise in temperature, that isn't even up for debate. It is a change in our atmosphere, that is trapping the heat. As far as settled science, scientists do not subscribe to that line of reasoning. The foundation of science is based on rigorous scrutiny of the testable evidence, and scientists know that any model of nature that they create is really only an approximation. That being said everything you need to know to predict global warming can be learned in basic chemistry. Because these are fundamental chemical reactions that are repeatable and testable. It has been 60 years since science recognized the danger of releasing green house gasses into our atmosphere, and yes it has been a general consensus among scientists since that time. For the last 200 years we have released as much CO2 every decade, as we had in the entire combined history of mankind up to that point. At that present rate we will double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the next ten years. We are 60 years late on a back up plan, and we have maybe a decade left before major climatic ruin. This is your end game plan, denial?


Tom T profile image

Tom T 4 years ago from Orange County, CA Author

@IronBrown - Thanks for commenting. I will agree with part of one of your statements, "The foundation of science is based on rigorous scrutiny of the testable evidence,...", but I have to take issue with a couple of your points.

The unanswered question here is man's contribution, not as you suggest, basic chemistry. While we have scientific data to show that man's contributions have risen, there is still not proof that man is causing, as you call it, climatic ruin.

While we can agree man has added CO2 to the atmosphere, the entire contribution from man is but a small fraction of a percent of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from other natural causes.

Still yet, C02 is only a little over 3% of all greenhouse gasses. The largest contributor is water. Add in factors like the sun's contributions, rising temperatures in Mars etc. and the notion that we have such a delicate eco system that mans meager contribution can cause climactic ruination starts to unravel.

The second issue is the idea of settled science. Science never settles. Just recently CERN announced findings that call into question Einsteins theory of relativity...those nasty little neutrinos. If we can question such bedrock issues that have stood for many years with far more science behind it than man made global warming, then it is quite reasonable that the idea of settled science in global warming would certainly be open to significant scrutiny for a lot longer.

I am not arguing for anything more than an open debate. Terms like "settled" science and words like denial are used to push back against those who question the "facts" as they are presented because so much political capital is invested in this settled science. I say political because the urgency behind this supposed settled science is that the solution is a wholesale surrender of economic freedom to some international governing body.

If you then look at this though this political lens where it has been revealed that data was manipulated and cherry picked to validate the science of man made global warming, concurrent with that, evidence is presented that suggest a plausible alternative theory, it begins to make sense that those pushing for the science to be 'settled' now are not really after science but control.

The bigger point is that when these influences are revealed as drivers behind the settled science, it calls into question the scientific process and the scientific community. That is not good for science and the scientific process, nor is it good for civilization. Free and open debate with sincere scrutiny is good for science and good for civilization.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I have a question for Ironbrown:

What is the optimal global temperature?


Tom T profile image

Tom T 4 years ago from Orange County, CA Author

@WillStarr - Interesting question....makes you think.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working