Originally Posted by Jubelum
Because the things being proposed will only make a "better world" in the view of people who are completely in love with telling others how to live their lives.
You've swallowed the premise that global warming is all our fault, and that anyone who does not buy that premise hook, line, and sinker must "not want a better world." Horse shit. If you wanted to stop global climate shifts, or create them, and were given any power you wanted to achieve the goal... you'd fail. You don't control the sun. You don't control volcanoes. You don't control water vapor. And come to think of it, you had nothing to do with climate shifts for millions of years before Albert Gore found a new way to push his central planning wet dreams.
The global warming hysteria is the new home for the 60s left... and anyone who dares to challenge their usurpations of personal freedom is labeled as a "planet hater" and tarred accordingly. (Sure to follow in responses to this very post...
Volcanic eruptions are short term (short of a megavolcano, in which case all bets are off, as in run for the hills on the next continent)) and overall don't contribute significantly relative to GHG emissions of human origin.
Water vapor is a given, it's already part and parcel with the carbon cycle, the atmosphere can hold only so much water vapor, and then you know, it kind of rains.
The sun? D'oh! That's what's known as a non sequitur. I happen to have done a lot of recent work with sun spot data and solar irradiation empirical data, so the first thing to realize is that there are no predictive models for solar variations, it's simply too complex, anyone that suggests otherwise is simply blowing smoke up their own arse.
Also sun spot cycles are on a ~22-year cycle, not 11-year as suggested by laypeople, simply because the Sun changes polarity north-south-north, but sun spot numbers, in and of themselves, make no distinction as to the sign of this polarity. I know what I'm talking about, as I've analyzed literally thousands of ocean wave gage time series.
So basically, the historic sun spot data is unsigned positive, with a minimum of zero, so that when looking at historic sunspot data and attempting to correlate it to instrumental irradiance data, the sun spot data shows zero correlation to the instrumental record as it approaches zero.
But please skip over the above, and ask yourself this question;
How does one put a metric to the Sun when there are no sun spots? Oh, look no sun spots, but my thermometer and my toes say the Earth is freezing, therefore let's give the Sun a -100 sunspots.
Anyway, approximately 30-years of instrumental data shows that for that period of record, solar fluctuations are something like 1 part in 1,400 parts (I would have to confirm that, since it's been a while).
As to the rest of your "argument" (it's the basic talking points incoherent rant hoisted upon it's own petard), how should I say it?
Basically it doesn't hold water.