Global warming...not so open and shut?

[6SpeedTA95]

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears



WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of
peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global
warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that
a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise
importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder
with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that
human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many
people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies
are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and
Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media
attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as
global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is
there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer,
the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500
Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The
researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites,
lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and
astrophysics.

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a
moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have
never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the
other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle
averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million
years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the
trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm
periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark
Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost,
widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus
of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models
only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of
the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not
caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals
only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year
record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and
thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the
Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The
physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and
pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice
cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been
analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures
during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must
have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S.
Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that
grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the
telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot
cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated
that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of
the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying
small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional
peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will
publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that
their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without
any corporate contributions.

For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute
Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500
Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net


SOURCE Hudson Institute

This is not the first and wont be the last article that mentions hundreds of scientists who have been basically ousted from their positions because of their views on global warming. It is not just a single person or a lone scientist that thinks these theories, emphasis on THEORIES, are flawed.

Fact is these are theories and in reality there are many many holes in the global warming argument.

AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles

[Scrum]

The Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank.

Edit - Neg rep for this post as being partisan? It's a fucking fact.

[abregar]

How'd I know that the attacks were going to come. Some people have an overinflated sense of the signifigance of mankind. The earth has been warmer and it has been colder. Global Warming is a natural occurence.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by abregar

How'd I know that the attacks were going to come. Some people have an overinflated sense of the signifigance of mankind. The earth has been warmer and it has been colder. Global Warming is a natural occurence.

I have never heard anyone argue that fact. It's a bit of a strawman.


And this has nothing to do with "an overinflated sense of the signifigance of mankind". Look at the disasters we have been able to do on a small scale like the Salton Sea in California.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

This is not the first and wont be the last article that mentions hundreds of scientists who have been basically ousted from their positions because of their views on global warming. It is not just a single person or a lone scientist that thinks these theories, emphasis on THEORIES, are flawed.

Fact is these are theories and in reality there are many many holes in the global warming argument.

AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles

um, this article was already posted in the Lab forum 2 days ago.

[abregar]

Yes mankind may be able to effect changes on a small scale, but on a global scale. Like I said the earth has been warmer in the past. They have found fossils of tropical flora and fauna in the midwest afterall. It has also been been colder, ice age anyone. Were these manmade catastrophies or natural occurences. The earth is just going through a phase, there is absolutely nothing that mankind can do to reverse this trend.

[P/N]

Originally Posted by Scrum

The Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank.

Edit - Neg rep for this post as being partisan? It's a fucking fact.

It's a fact that you are partisan or it's a fact that someone pointed it out? If you're going to go around giving negative rep to anyone who disagrees with your opinion, then you should expect the same in return. Looking at my own rep, you have given me three negative reps. I suppose that the old saying is true - "If you can't take it, don't dish it out".