An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth
 

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned...nG=Search+News



An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth
By Brandon Keim October 11, 2007 | 12:17:08 PMCategories: Climate, Government
A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth can't be shown in schools unless accompanied by materials explaining the film's inaccuracies.



.

As I watched this film, I noted some of these inaccuracies. Too me, the film felt a little too much like watching a Michael Moore movie. When you combine some truth with inaccuracies, you lose all credibility in my eyes. It is sad, because I like the cause he is fighting for.

I thought it was a great film....

I used to agree totally with his agenda.But since then I've looked deeper into the subject and now I'm on the fence.Some very good arguments for both sides of the issue.No one is saying global warming doesn't exist,but how much of an impact we have is something even the scientists can't agree on.But then again global warming aside,breathing in all that crap (pollution) isn't doing us any good.

As a science teacher I get very frustrated when I hear people arriving at conclusions based on incorrect information. Newspaper columnists, editorialists, TV shows, bloggers and politicians are not the most reliable sources for information. Yes they have opinions but their conclusions may be faulty and they shouldn't be looked at as experts when looking at scientific topics.

These people and especially courts look at problems deductively - you look at information to support your argument and do not put forward information that does not support it. We all know defense attorneys would not bring up evidence in court that would help convict their client.

Science works through inductive reasoning. Gather the evidence and arrive at a conclusion. Science is continually changing and conclusions are based on the evidence at that particular time.

Just because someone is a scientist does not he or she should be considered an expert. I would not go to my dentist to look at a broken leg.

Many of these global warming naysayers are picking pieces of evidence to support their argument from out of date information or from people who are not experts in the field.

Here is who I listen to.

Climate scientists doing current science: http://www.realclimate.org/

Or the Royal Academy of Science whos members have included Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

These are the experts not some judge who doesn't understand how science even works.

The experts are unanimous. Humans are affecting the climate.

To me the evidence is not definite that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. There is evidence that greenhouse gases possibly or even probably cause global warming, but not that they are definitely responsible.

Unfortunately there has been an Orwellian type of approach by the global warming crowd. Like Al Gore claiming that "the debate is over" and anyone who opposes the global warming theory is either a right-wing conspirator or some kind of a nutcase. Instead of using science and reasoning to back up their position, the global warming people are trying to intimidate people into agreeing with them.

By the way I read that Al Gore's mega-mansion consumes 10 to 20 times as much energy as the average American home. That is really talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Even many of the scientists whose names are listed on publications supporting the global warming theory have disagreed with it. They have asked their names to be removed from global warming consensus statements and their requests have been refused.

For science to work properly there has to be a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Without freedom of expression and freedom of thought, science is dead. Kind of like the church putting Galileo on the rack for claiming the earth goes around the sun. That is what Al Gore and his global warming crowd are doing. The real tragedy would be if the global warming theory is true, and Gore and his crowd through their intimidation and propaganda tactics discredit the very theory they are trying to promote.

This is the sort of stuff that drives me crazy. Where do you get your information? Show me the peer reviewed scientific journals that say the evidence is not definite that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warning. Don't repeat stuff that you have heard on websites, radio, newspapers and magazines.

The scientific method is the process by which we develop knowledge about the world around us. Since its development our knowledge of science and the application of that scientific knowledge in the form of new technology has changed our lives in ways earlier people could not even dream about.

It is a very organized process that starts with a hypotheses, testing of that hypothesis through experiments and collection of data and arrival at a conclusion. That conclusion is sent for publication in a journal and accepted and published if there are no flaws in the methodology. The knowledge is shared - even negative results.

This process is understood by scientists but not by many members of the public.

It is not based on opinion. It is not based on the public perception at the time. It is not a debate.

Read the two links I posted above - especially the second one talking about some public fallacies. Better yet, read some of the scientific journals.

Don't accept what Gore has to say or what the naysayers say.

Do some research yourself.

BTW. The oft repeated information about Al Gore's energy consumption in order to discredit him is from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research which claims to be "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research institute" but in fact has a president who is linked to National Taxpayers Union and the American Enterprise Institute which are in fact funded by Philip Morris Tobacco and by "big business and the promotion of free enterprise" respectively. (sourcewatch.com)

Gore's home does use 12 times more energy than the average Nashville home but is 4 times larger and houses his business offices as well. Electricity is purchased through the "Green Power Switch program which generates power through solar, wind and methane gas" (snopes.com)

Do some research for yourself. Don't accept what others are repeating.

Look at what the climate scientists are saying.

Peer reviewed scientific paper and petition.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

From this site

http://www.oism.org/

This and other papers are why I'm on the fence,until these guys figure this out.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life"

Not an accredited university. Not a scientific journal. Looks like they work out of a barn.

Of the "faculty" members.
Martin Kamen died in 2002
Bruce Merrifield died in 2006
Fred Westall is a biochemist and the others are chemists, physicians and a veterinarian.

Its president Arthur Robinson " an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
He publishes a`: "pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter packed with information and comment on science, technology and energy and on those who would restrict your access to it."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

These are the people you are getting your information about the climate on.

Look at http://realclimate.com for the comments of scientists who actually work in the field including climate



- Show me other papers you base your conclusions on.

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money. Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.

I see so these scientist aren't scientists.Two have died so their research is useless? Following that line of reasoning we should dispose of the Theory of Relativity because Albert Einstein died in 1955. One is a crackpot on the fringes,shouldn't a good part of research be on the fringes? How else are we going to progress.Because a person isn't part of the " In Group" doesn't lessen his/her research effort.All that aside as I look into the issue,one idea keeps nagging me.If global warming is largely caused by our emissions of greenhouse gas,then its a problem we should have been looking at 30 years ago.Not because of global warming,but because of air pollution that has been poisoning us since shorty after the beginning of the industrial revolution.If global warming is naturally occurring with minimal input from humanity,then the money and time being spent on proving other wise would be better spent on ways to make our air cleaner to breath.For me global warming in its self is becoming a small issue.Its either the wrong reason to do the right thing,or one more reason in a long list of reasons, to do the right thing.I would rather see the grant money,and money spent in the media to push these agendas,turned toward practical research on ways to clean up our environment.

Almost forgot,here's an interesting survey

http://forecastingprinciples.com/Pub...armAudit31.pdf

I am more concerned about the other effects of increased CO2 in our atmosphere, rather than the alleged effects of CO2 on global warming.

One thing reefing has taught me is the importance of CO2/bicarbonate chemistry to our oceans and indeed to all living things.

We are breathing in a much higher concentration of CO2 than we have in the past. How does this affect our health? Could it be the explanation for various illnesses for which the cause has not yet been found? I could list scores of medical problems which have no known cause, maybe the increased CO2 in our atmosphere could be responsible for one or more of these problems.

There are other phenomena in the natural world, for example the widespread loss of amphibian species, which have no clear cause. Could the increase in atmospheric CO2 be a factor here?

I would rather see research money devoted to these issues rather than being flushed down the toilet promoting the global warming "consensus".

Not doubting global warming (hey, sort of keeps me employed) but one thing I still have a hard time grasping is how you can tell the temps thousands of years ago by drilling for ice cores.

All research is dependant funding. That source of the funding is usually the University's own research budget, governments, charitable foundations, the military or corporations. The military and corporations are less likely to fund research that is not going to result in some useable product or application. Very rarely will these groups fund pure science for altruistic reasons.

Consider the court case that started this thread. It was started by a headmaster who was funded by "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html

If you look at the previous post. The scientific method and inductive reasoning searches for the truth whatever that may be. Some conclusions will be unpopular and against popular opinion but opinions have no role in science.

It is through experimentation, collection of data and publication in peer reviewed journals (peers = scientists conducting research in that field) that our body of knowledge increases.

Have you got any names of debunking scientists who have lost funding?

Ignore the politicians and the lobbyists. Don't accept one one side or another says.

Look at the research from the scientists with an open mind and no preconceptions. If you truly understand how science works you'll see that global warming is real.

They never did any research in climatology! Even if they did, their research would not have any current data because one died 5 years ago.


Research on the fringes - yes. Listening to crackpots - no.

Maybe it should have been looked at 30 years ago but the Kyoto Accord was signed in 1997.

forcastingprinciples.com "The Forecasting site seeks to develop a set of principles to guide forecasting for problems in management, operations research, and the social sciences"

These guys aren't climate scientists!!!!

One is from Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University in Melbourne and the other from Wharton Business school

This is how:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

Sorry that was the wrong link

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

"The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago."

"The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment."

"The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999"

"The Heartland Institute has received annual donations from Exxon-Mobil in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000."

-WIKIPEDIA

Like the use of 'inferred' and 'models'.

That all maybe true,but who payed the bill doesn't negate the fact that it was a survey of climate scientists.As I said earlier,both sides have an agenda.
But the funny thing is,if they would have put their money into research aimed at dropping emissions, or possible containing emissions in some way.They may be able to change the burning of fossil fuels from producing greenhouse gasses/smog to something more enviro friendly.And in doing so,wouldn't feel threatened by this issue.

"Bray and von Storch, 2003

A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch [30] [31] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[32][33"

"The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet"

-wikipedia

1. Partially funded by Exxon
2. Rejected by peer reviewed scientific journal
3. may not be a survey of climate scientists
4. 1996 and 2003 surveys

What is the agenda of the Joint Academy of Sciences of the G8+5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa) in its June 2007 declaration?

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken".

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/G8_...eclaration.pdf

Bah... Y'all can quote survey after survey showing eachother wrong all you want...

CO2 Levels are still very low compared to past millenia; this is why grasslands are still growing, and forests (trees) are in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

My major issue with the climate change theory is the simple fact that they're ignoring the scientific method. You can't "Prove" global warming based on computer models; computer modeling can't even tell us accurately the temperature tomorow - let alone next year. Computer modeling can't account for all variables (let alone the butterfly effect).

Do I wholeheartedly agree in global warming, definitely not - do I completely discredit it - definitely not.

Y'all can argue till you're blue in the face about the issue, Lets just see what the next 10 years brings... And I betcha we'll be back onto a panic over global cooling...

Ha, ha, ha - well put and no doubt. Fear mongering has been around since the world began and it is a great way to make money. Governments can justify deeper cash grabs when the world is falling apart. Can't you just picture one of those cave dudes with a "Repent - The End is Near" sign, except now Al Gore is the caveman. The more the world changes, the more it seems to stay the same.

This isn't a debate, it's a scoffing, sneering, and shouting match. The debate has been over for quite a while. The debate was won by the scientists. I'm not sure who's winning the shouting match yet.

I Believe one person on climate change, a buddy of mine in inuvik. No one in his family or anyone elses can ever recall even hearing of the permafrost melting etc. Ask someone up north who lives there, and doesn't venture up a few months a year to dig for oil, what they think of climate change.

Oh and using wikipedia to back up any claims, for whatever side...is simply idiocy.

Wikipedia as a source = hilarious.

</academic POV>

BTW, this thread delivers. I really enjoyed reading what pinhead and everyone else has been putting forth.

Bottom line to me is we are spewing a bunch of crap into the atmosphere and we ought to cut down on it whether or not it is causing climate change. For our own health as well as for the environment.

Short term we are going through a heating period no doubt. Whether this is long term or not remains to be seen. And whether it is caused by man or not can at best be an educated guess.

Anyway that is about it.

OK lets try this again.

Don't misrepresent the data to support your arguement. This is a typical response of the "denyers". Misinterpret, use references based on old data, take information out of context.

You provide us with this from wikipedia

And it is completely wrong. The article does not say this anywhere. In fact the same article says something completely different.

"During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm"

Did you even read the article?


One of my earlier statements was the average person does not understand the scientific method or how science works.

Science can't really prove anything - but we can show it is very likely. Science is continually changing as new experiments, newer technology and new data are gathered. As more information is gathered our ideas change. Some hypotheses are discarded, some are modified and some are confirmed. If a hypothesis results in a correct prediction we high confidence in it. That is not to say that new information will come to light that causes us to modify our hypothesis.

We were able to correctly predict eclipses long before we had spacecraft and technology to confirm our models of the orbits of the earth and moon.

Computer models depend on accurate data. By taking data from years already past and entering them in our models we should be able to reproduce the course of the climate in last century. They match with what actually happened. Our models are correct. These same models are now being used to project what is likely to occur.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232

And if we wait 10 years and you are wrong?

For those who don't like the links in wikipedia and sourcewatch, I'd be happy to forward the original reference.

Just read them and voice your opinion after you have all the facts rather than repeating these inaccuracies.

Since we can't reliably predict what the weather will be like two weeks from now, I am at a loss to understand how we can predict weather years in the future.

Thats pretty much where I sit on the issue as well.If we take care of the big problem,any symptoms of the problem will clear up along with it.From there we can see what we're left with.

Pinhead lets do it your way. Lets read what you posted.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

This is an article written 12 years ago based on information gathered 10 years before that. It seems to me if the data where a little more recent it may be different but what do I know....I just read that I'm not smart enough to understand.

The article was published by the American Geophysical Union. So what I did was research them.Their position statement on climate change was written by 3 people, Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel and starts saying " Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

I don't think that anyone disagrees that we have an influence on climate change.

But here is what I found most interesting, a statement by John Christy, In The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, Christy is quoted as saying, "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true." That statement was March of this year.

What I see that troubles me most is that if anyone doesn't agree with you they arn't informed well enough to understand "the" truth. Scary!

Scott

fence sitter
 

I too am a fence sitter...... want a good book to read about the 'truth'.... Michael Crichton -> State of Fear. Good read and it clearly puts into perspective the red herrings presented to all of us, including 'science'. It also has a great little blurb at the back of the book explaining 'Eugenics', a very strange outlook on genetics that some very prominent 'scientists' supported at the time. One great thing I have learned about science, give it enough time and it will be disproved and re-created to fit someone's perspective or agenda. When I was a kid, it was acid rain and a cold war looming over all of us. It has been replaced with global warming. Anyone heard of the dimming sun? Check it out, it has thrown another wrench into the 'models' climatologist's use to statistically prove their theory, and if there is one thing I remember from university stats, they cannot be trusted, it is an educated guess, just like weather. We will have to wait till the new quantum computer comes out to properly grind all the numbers, including intangibles that cannot be included in today's models. Also check out HAARP. I believe this is what is causing all of our weather issues right now.... and I know, crackpot right? Nope, this is for real and they are doing some very strange things to our atmosphere and ionosphere, very scary things that could end all life on the planet in a heartbeat. And also, no one has touched on the emissions our earth pours out every day from volcanoes. Their emissions in a day (combined) far outweigh what we can do in a decade. Do I think anyone here is right or wrong, nope, I just think it's great we are talking about it. And my final point, tongue in cheek, I think this is just a way to justify increased fuel costs. :lol:

Cheers,
Phil

Once again we have someone commenting on things where they don't have all the information. This is not a matter of intelligence.

Scientific Journals are subscription based. The cost for subscriptions can be ridiculous amount. They very rarely allow access to their articles over the internet unless you are a subscriber. I happened to do a quick search internet accessible articles and came up with that article from 1995. Proper research would require you to access a university library that subscribes to these journals. One tool you can use at universities is is a database called metalib. By doing a search on just one of their many subject databases I came up with 23 references to ice cores & climate, seven of which were published in 2007. Proper research would involve more searches going to the library to read these journals.

You also seem to associate the American Geophysical Union with OISM and the Heartland Institute. AGU was formed in 1919 and is an international organization of over 50000 geophysists - not a group with a PO box and 2 of the 8 listed faculty dead.


Read this statement carefully. "natural influences cannot explain" means humans are responsible! That was Christy's position in 2003.

By 2007 his position had changed as illustrated in the quote from the discounted
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1517515.ece
"Great Global Warming Swindle"

Christy's position on global warming in the documentary was based on the analysis of satellite data that was collected in the 1990's. There were errors in the way data was collected and analysed http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6778

He has not yet made a statement based on analysis of more recent data. Will he change his position again? Falsifiability (discarding) past hypotheses is a key to the scientific method

- Don't agree with me.
- Be a skeptic but be skeptical of both sides. I consider myself well informed and I have done my research. I looked at the question with an open mind and have found overwhelming evidence.
-Show me some research to help me change my conclusion. - just don't give me yet another source from someone other than a climate scientist.

My conclusion is the based upon the scientific method which is tried and tested for the last 400 years. That is the "truth" that I understand.

Eugenics - philosophy not science

Acid Rain - reduction in emissions in modern cars and the 1990 US clean air act have slowed its effects

Cold War - politics

Global Dimming -2007 studies show it has rebounded since 1990 which correlates with the reduction of chloroflurocarbons in aerosol spray cans

HAARP - funded by the military yes. But also by 14 universities including Cornell, MIT, UCLA & Stanford. If its being used to alter the weather or shoot down spaceships its a pretty big conspiracy.

Volcanic emmisions - 130 million tons/year humans 6.1 billion tons/year

Could supply references if needed but I think I will just leave it.

I've made my point.

Hope people have not taken anything personally.

It is interesting to see that the denial machine is still running well. This is an absolutely classic example of how it works too, look at the little blurb with the link:

An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth
By Brandon Keim October 11, 2007 | 12:17:08 PMCategories: Climate, Government
A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth can't be shown in schools unless accompanied by materials explaining the film's inaccuracies.

Somebody reads that and they see get the impression that the film is inaccurate. If you read the judge's decision you find that he lists 9 points he disagrees with but uses the term "broadly accurate" to actually describe the film. Yes, that is a direct quote from the judge.

I seem to remember Gore touching on the denial machine in the movie but it is something that people seem reluctant to really consider. The same people who were involved in the cigarette industry's maneuvers ten years ago are the people leading this "skeptic" movement. Pinhead even pointed it out 2 pages ago and everyone still missed it. The PR company in charge of it is the same, the polling consultant is the same guy and even some of the oft quoted scientists are the same. How can a guy who stood up and said "cigarettes are not addictive and pose no serious health risks", be considered a reliable source for cookie recipes never mind something this important!

Anyone else love irony? There is a wicked little chunk of it buried in our discussion here. Swags pointed out Crichton's book State of Fear which is a pretty decent little read, I'd recommend it as well. Now to be fair to Swags I don't think he brought it up to use specifically as a counterpoint to Gore's movie but fear mongering is something people trying to get emissions changes done are accused of regularly. Especially Gore. There is a far better book recently published about using fear based arguments to shape political discussions. It talks about how fear really works, how it shapes our memories and discussions and using recent political events shows how it is done. It talks about why it is a bad strategy from a public good perspective as well. An excellent read called Assault on Reason written by .... wait for it ..... Al Gore.

Really though it doesn't even matter what happens with the global warming debate, our ability to have a decent public debate has been destroyed. The lesson to take away from this is that if you need to do something in the public interest that's going to cost somebody with deep pockets some bucks, you're boned. These guys are so good you don't stand a chance. We can look at the current debate as an example, try this little thought exercise:

We're a group of people who have all had the benefit of a decent basic education just because of where we live. We come together because of our hobby which surely isn't rocket science but I think we can say that if you're reasonably successful with a reef tank you're probably not a moron. None of us are climate scientists either so we're pretty much basing this decision on the credibility of the people making the arguments.

Everyone can agree with that right? Okay here goes.

On one hand we have the largest international scientific consensus in human history and on the other we have an Exxon-paid-for speech by the "smoking doesn't hurt you" guy.

I mean really, WTF? How is this an even sort of difficult call? As a former and much embarrassed by it fence sitter I urge you all to look at the people who are pushing this skeptic junk, it will really open your eyes.

My prediction is that in 15 years the earth will go through a natural period of increased cooling.

A few scientists will come up with a theory to explain how man has caused this through increased emissions. Their theory will be based on models and extrapolations from tenuous data. No one will be able to prove conclusively whether their theory is true or not. Then opportunistic politicians will jump on the bandwagon and promote the global cooling agenda.

Rather than using reasoning and science to determine the cause of the problem, it will become an article of religious faith that man has caused global cooling. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled a "denier" and a campaign of threats and character assassination will silence all dissent on the issue.

Nice post, Midgetwaiter.

This is a PR campaign, not a debate. In a debate, we'd recognize all the logical fallacies being brought to the table, and shred them for points. Wiki link just for fun. There are so many, it would be fun, and you'd score huge! Sadly, there are no points, and the techniques are so familiar from current public discourse in politics and sales that they feel comfortable and true. Stephen Colbert would be proud.

From the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that IBM perfected, to the say-it-until-it's-true practice of the political propaganda machines, we're well conditioned. In this environment, it is no longer necessary to supress the truth (China should take note). You can simply create earnest talking points and buy the truthiness back.

All scientific theories are eventually disproved anyway, so I guess I'll have to agree that this global warming thing is probably a flash in the pan. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to ignore gravity for a while and have a nice float around.

Instead of just tipping your hat to Pinhead on a well debated topic you post this drivel :lol: :rolleyes:

Money is the root of all evil. Until we can remove this aspect from the scientific community, I'll have a hard time believing anything they come up with. (of course this is pretty much impossible) I perfer to believe what I see with my own eyes.

Oh, and until they can predict the weather for 24 hours and be completely accurate consistently, I will definately not trust them to predict the weather accurately a week from now. (let alone a few years or decades)

If humans affecting the climate how do you explain global worming and polar ice melting on other planets for example Mars ?

( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html )

and even Pluto (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html ) (It is a planet BTW:wink: )


There are no SUV’s on Mars eccept “Rover” LOL no fossil fuels being burn, no humans so why all of our solar system planets are experiencing global worming?
Let’s take a look at larger picture and keep our heads cool and open minded shell we?

There is an opinion that this has to do with torsion physics (http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.ph...=334&Itemid=30 ) of the planetary motion; and as our solar system enters an Photon belt energy layer (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...+energy+&meta= ) , only these two events alone are changing our narrow minded picture and maybe that is why all the planets have the same trend in global temperatures increase.

Russians have done extensive research in this area
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...G=Search&meta=


~~~