Author Topic: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers  (Read 9510 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« on: September 12, 2007, 05:15:54 PM »
500 scientists refute global warming dangers
'Centuries of human history say warm periods are good for people'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605

Dennis Avery

More than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting the current man-made global warming scare, according to a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute.

The assessment supports another study on which WND reported recently, one that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. Those results prompted Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the global warming scare, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked 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," he said.

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease," he said.

Other researchers have found evidence that sea levels are failing to rise importantly, storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder and human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice the number of people as heat. Another result was that corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies are "adapting well" to the routine reality of changing climate, the analysis said.

The issue of global warming, of course, erupted with the release of the film that former Vice President Al Gore made  and stars in  called "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Oscar. It now has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.

Despite the publication of such global warming debunking conclusions in journals including Nature, Geophysical Review Letters and Science, there's been little media attention, he said.

"Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," noted Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The scientists were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, who previously has reported there has been little or no warming since about 1940. The two also co-authored the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," from peer-reviewed studies in specialties including tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have had a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it  except a moderate warning turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," added 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."

Singer said climate model-builders probably have developed a consensus of guesses. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause," he said.

He said 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 Celsius, he said.

The analysis said the historic evidence of the temperature fluctuations includes the 5,000-year record of Nile floods, 1st Century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portray sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and cloudiness during the Little Ice Age.

Physical evidence includes oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, sea and pollen fossils and ancient tree rings.

For example, Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service studied seven species of relict trees that grew above today's treeline and concluded temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on Whitewing Mountain in California were about 3.2 degrees warmer than today's temperatures.

Singer said experiments also have shown more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the Earth create more or fewer low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space  which amplifies small variations in the intensity of the sun.

The earlier study "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the study, which was accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.

WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.

Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.

"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."

WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.


Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2007, 05:19:10 PM »
Quote
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

Leftists weep real tears.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

drewtam

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,985
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2007, 05:35:44 PM »

...The scientists were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, who previously has reported there has been little or no warming since about 1940. The two also co-authored the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,"...


Ummm, which is it? Little or no warming or unstoppable global warming?


To beat a dead horse, I think current AGW is more inconsistent than 30rnds from AK off the hip. But I am not willing to accept anyone who comes along and tells me what I want to hear.

Drew
I’m not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The… tactleneck!

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2007, 06:04:43 PM »
"In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.""
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."


Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2007, 01:41:29 AM »
If there is global warming/cooling, I'm blaming the big ol' glowing yellow ball o' flame in the sky.
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

SkunkApe

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2007, 04:51:27 AM »
Maybe these 500 scientists can book a cruise through the now-open Northwest Passage:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22423319-5003402,00.html




wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2007, 08:07:57 AM »
Maybe these 500 scientists can book a cruise through the now-open Northwest Passage:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22423319-5003402,00.html


I know some of these 500 scientists.  Trust me, they aren't skeptics.  Read my link.

Ron

  • Guest
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2007, 08:31:48 AM »
Quote
If there is global warming/cooling, I'm blaming the big ol' glowing yellow ball o' flame in the sky.

The sun responsible for global warming? What a concept, lol.

The cracks and fissures in the AGW juggernaut are starting to appear. The planet will warm and cool with mans presence on it just as it did without his presence throughout its history.

Global climate changes, adapt or perish.

AGW = tilting at windmills

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2007, 09:14:44 AM »
Global Warming, a consensus of a numer of scientist and Al Gore.
Comsensus is not scientific.

con·sen·sus    (kn-snss) KEY 
NOUN:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

Do you remember reading in your history classes the consensus (it was believed) that the world was flat?

Do remember in your history classes the consensus (it was believed believed) that the sun revolved around the earth.

These consensus were prove wrong with time, and time will determine if we are in a global warming period to be followed by a  cooling spell.

Note - Chicago had a record low this morning.  Global Warming, we'll see.

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2007, 09:58:20 AM »

Note - Chicago had a record low this morning.  Global Warming, we'll see.

I thought this was the most nonsensical part of your post. Chicago isn't the world. Global means world, not Chicago and not the lower 48 states as some have also recently decided global actually means. There is little argument remaining about whether the globe is warming, only a few arguing as to why it is warming.

Global warming is a scientific theory, not a consensus. The consensus is reached because most scientists hold that this theory is the most likely explanation for what is occurring. Although consensus is not directly scientific, it does come about because of scientific understanding, and thus attacks on consensus as 'unscientific' are just silly.

Anybody else see the 1972 J R Sawyer paper from 'Nature' recently? That sort of undermined the whole 'they said it was cooling in the 70's' nonsense. You can find it on Connolley's blog (Stoat).
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2007, 12:23:17 PM »
Global Warming, a consensus of a numer of scientist and Al Gore.
Comsensus is not scientific.

con·sen·sus    (kn-snss) KEY 
NOUN:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

Do you remember reading in your history classes the consensus (it was believed) that the world was flat?

Do remember in your history classes the consensus (it was believed believed) that the sun revolved around the earth.

These consensus were prove wrong with time, and time will determine if we are in a global warming period to be followed by a  cooling spell.

Consensus != scientific consensus

The scientific method is less than 70 years old.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/flat_earth.html

Quote
Note - Chicago had a record low this morning.  Global Warming, we'll see.

Chicago != global average

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,450
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2007, 05:16:26 AM »
Does the climate change periodically?  I think everyone who has a brain understands this is so.  The historical record seems to point this out.  Does man contribute to significant climate change or any climate change?  I don't believe there is any hard science that proves that at all.

Does that mean we should not be wary and careful about our activities?  Certainly not.  Does it also mean that America should throw itself back into the stone age while the rest of the developing world continues to pollute at monumental levels?  No way!  Follow the money and the politics.

Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind.  Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug.  The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well.  I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2007, 06:56:02 AM »
I don't believe there is any hard science that proves that at all.

...

Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind.  Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug.  The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well.  I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?

That just reads like 'I have beliefs and opinions and will express them despite any contrary evidence'. I thought those leftists were the ones who had 'beliefs' in the face of facts.

I'm absolutely certain that you've posted pretty much the same thing in previous threads and been responded to with information that should at least cloud your certainties.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

TexasRifleman

  • Guest
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2007, 07:00:13 AM »
Saw an interesting news report a while back but I can't find much on it now that said basically a Toyota Prius does twice as much damage to the environment over a 2 year period than a Hummer.

The lead smelting involved in making Prius batteries is just awful, but since it's not done here in the US the tree huggers are OK with it.

Out of sight out of mind I guess. Like you say, regardless of contrary evidence the object is to make everything the United States fault for some reason.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,369
  • I Am Inimical
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2007, 07:00:39 AM »
I know there's a lot of controversy over whether man has the capacity to change the climate, as if somehow the earth is far too big for man to affect in a meaningful way.

Even a cursory examination of the impact that man has had on other massive, earth-wide systems should be more than enough to make people realize that yes, man can impact something as large as the earth.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

AntiqueCollector

  • New Member
  • Posts: 37
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2007, 11:14:07 AM »
I know there's a lot of controversy over whether man has the capacity to change the climate, as if somehow the earth is far too big for man to affect in a meaningful way.

Even a cursory examination of the impact that man has had on other massive, earth-wide systems should be more than enough to make people realize that yes, man can impact something as large as the earth.

But given the evidence (sun warming, other planets warming, evidence of warm/cold periods throughout human history, volcanos giving off more "greenhouse gas" than human activities, etc.) and the foolish statements of some of the global warming activists (for example, blaming the moose in northern Europe for contributing, etc.) and the fact that many advocates of human caused global warming theories are at best questionable (ex.: Al Gore), I think that in this case, it's highly unlikely we're the cause of it. The environment overall is better off now than 100 years ago (just look at old photographs from a century ago and read descriptions).

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,369
  • I Am Inimical
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2007, 12:08:09 PM »
We may well not be the cause of it.

But we very well may be contributing to it in a significant way, possibly in ways that we've not yet realized.

To thrust one's head into the sand when positive steps can be taken, steps that would go a long way towards improving our world independent of any warming processes, is Ludditeism at its worst.

I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.

Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

AntiqueCollector

  • New Member
  • Posts: 37
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2007, 12:21:19 PM »
But the "steps" being touted by activists as the "solution" are nothing but radical environmentalism and big government at its worst. Radical leftists are using this issue as the justification for pushing their ideas through when otherwise they wouldn't be.

Ron

  • Guest
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2007, 12:21:55 PM »
Many of the actions that are outlined to help stop the alleged AGW are actions we should be taking anyway in pursuit of clean energy and energy independence.

To use scare mongering consensus pseudo science does a disservice to the issues surrounding energy independence. The issue can stand on its own merits without Al Gores blathering on about the end of the earth.

Hopefully when the AGW hysteria is shown to be overblown the energy independence and clean power issues won't be thrown out with the bath water.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2007, 12:29:13 PM »
We may well not be the cause of it.

But we very well may be contributing to it in a significant way, possibly in ways that we've not yet realized.

To thrust one's head into the sand when positive steps can be taken, steps that would go a long way towards improving our world independent of any warming processes, is Ludditeism at its worst.

I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.


Could I have some objective proof of that part in red?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...

AntiqueCollector

  • New Member
  • Posts: 37
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2007, 12:33:36 PM »
The problem is no real solutions have in fact been offered to make us energy independent. Ethanol is not the answer, nor is vegetable oil, to get the high levels of production we are used to in agriculture currently we require enormous amounts of petroleum, for energy, chemicals and the production of the tools and products needed to produce the crop. This isn't even taking into account the fuel needed to distill alcohol, produce lye and methanol for the making of biodiesel out of vegetable oil, etc. If we go to all organic methods to avoid the use of oil in growing our crops, yields will be lower and we will need more land for farming than currently. And in the meantime every developer who can is paving over farmland to expand cities. We don't have much arable land left to spare.

This also forgets that when we depend on agricultural products for fuel besides just as food, food prices will rise and become the next oil...and solar power requires many petrochemicals to produce panels, batteries, wire insulation for wires, etc., etc. There are far more problems with all of the current alternative energy sources than solutions for them. Not that we shouldn't explore them and try to solve the problems, the problems are simply immense.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,450
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2007, 01:16:25 PM »
I don't believe there is any hard science that proves that at all.

...

Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind.  Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug.  The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well.  I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?

That just reads like 'I have beliefs and opinions and will express them despite any contrary evidence'. I thought those leftists were the ones who had 'beliefs' in the face of facts.

I'm absolutely certain that you've posted pretty much the same thing in previous threads and been responded to with information that should at least cloud your certainties.

On the contrary.  I have not seen any information at all that "clouds my certainties".  I have not said that weather patterns have not changed or are changing or denied they will change.  I've had some interesting reads furnished by a member of THR, who's opinion and research I respect, that believes land speculators would be well served to buy land in Alaska.  He believes the science proves that climate change is occurring.  He quotes a lot of sources.  I've read a number of them.  There is a lot of support for each other; those who believe as they do. and ignore those who do not.  What I don't buy into is that man is the reason and somehow we need to take drastic steps in the direction of government intervention on a grand scale ie: draconian socialism.

Al Gore and his ilk are in it for notoriety, money and the power.  The Global Warming thing is a political power/money grab.  How many scientists wrung their hands over the oil well fires in Kuwait; that predicted those fires would bring on "Nuclear Winter".  I agree with Dixie Lee Ray, Phd. who said that a lot of what we are fed is malarkey for reasons of power and money.   She also said that the louder the scientist, the more shaky his science.  But at the same time, in spite of the malarkey, it is reasonable to take what steps are necessary to be a good husband of our resources.  I remember winter in my youth.  The coal smoke hung over the land and cinders and ash darkened the snow.  Running around like Al Gore screeching the sky is falling and propagating myth as truth does more harm than those of us who are skeptics.  If Al Gore knew his hiney from a hole in the ground, he'd get much more attention by telling the truth and promoting the advance of clean, safe nuclear power.  Not a word from Al.  He's too busy letting Hollywood kiss his behind.

I'm no scientist, but there seems to be more scientists taking a position lately, including some early doom sayers that have reversed themselves regarding man's contribution, that counter the so called "consensus".   Again, I'm not scientist, but I have lived long enough to have observed that the sky is not always falling because some scientists say so.  In fact, most of the time their conclusions have been off the mark in a very wide variety of notions.  I am especially wary of statist and socialist scientists.  I'm also old enough to remember that in the early 70's we were all going to freeze to death suddenly because of global cooling.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

tyme

  • expat
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,056
  • Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?
    • TFL Library
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2007, 03:22:44 PM »
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Mike Irwin
I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.
Could I have some objective proof of that [last] part in red?
I don't know about 100 years ago, but I'm fairly sure there was no smog problem in urban areas 200 years ago.

The statistics strongly suggest that there is climate change.  What remains disputed is how much of it is caused by industrialization, how exactly industrialization is causing it, whether stronger environmental protection limits on industry would be effective in stopping it, and whether global warming is a potentially catastrophic problem that we need to fix right now.

For instance, it seems plausible to me that sludge we're dumping into the oceans might increase bioactivity on the low end of the food chain (which is being observed), which could heat up oceans fractionally.

It also seems plausible to me that increased efforts to curtail global warming might hamstring industry, preventing research in bioengineering, physics, and chemistry that might lead to real long-term solutions to global warming, either by counteracting it or eliminating its real causes.

Even if we were the primary cause of global warming, we've changed the biosphere so much that there might be nothing we can do about it now, other than continue on and look for artificial solutions.  Simply cutting back CO2 production (if CO2 is in fact the primary cause of global warming) may not do anything if we've kicked the biosphere into some other equilibrium / local minimum where higher CO2 levels are expected.
Support Range Voting.
End Software Patents

"Four people are dead.  There isn't time to talk to the police."  --Sherlock (BBC)

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: 500 scientists refute global warming dangers
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2007, 03:48:00 PM »
Quote
Al Gore and his ilk are in it for notoriety, money and the power.
Al Gore is already wealthy.
Al Gore received more than 50% of the popular vote in a Presidential election and has shown no interest in running again: do you really think that PowerPoint lectures on global warming increased his 'notoriety' or 'power' compared to, say, becoming a power broker in the Democratic Party?

Now, who else are included in this ilk? What "money" and "power" have they grabbed?
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."