challenge to scientific consensus

[lord_casek]

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

 

 

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

 

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 have 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.

[lord_casek]

i need to point out that this was funded by big oil.

 

and here is a point/counterpoint deal

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/

 

 

i still think natural warming is what we are experiencing, but wanted to be fair to all.

[Fist 666]

i guess they'll find out who was right in 1500 years...

[Module X]

i still think natural warming is what we are experiencing, but wanted to be fair to all.

 

...spoken like a true internet-educated scientist.

 

No, I'm not being fair. I just don't feel like arguing.

[lord_casek]

...spoken like a true internet-educated scientist.

 

No, I'm not being fair. I just don't feel like arguing.

 

never claimed to be a scientist. just stating my view.

thought i'd be fair and post both sides, though.

[Cracked Ass]

Funded by big oil = straight up lies.

Scientific fact.

[Cracked Ass]

The latest findings (by real scientists, not corporate shills) show that global warming is worse than previously thought. Discrepancies between the pan evaporation rate and expected global warming scenarios revealed that, ironically, small-particle air pollution has been MITIGATING the global warming effect by as much as 50%, due to its role in creating clouds that are more opaque and therefore reflecting more sunlight. As the US and many European countries have worked on reducing small-particle pollution via cleaner fuels and smokestack scrubbers, without significantly addressing greenhouse gas emissions, this "global dimming" effect is starting to disappear, which only makes the warming problem that much worse. Some clever climate scientists who study world pollution patterns, particularly dispersed airplane contrails, jumped at the chance to take all kinds of "control" measurements in the 2 days after 9/11 when planes were grounded and the skies were free of what was otherwise a constant source of pollution. The results were staggering: the average temperature range increased by more than 1 degree on all of the days the planes weren't flying, meaning that without that blanket of pollution being put up daily, the sun was free to heat the planet.

That creates a dilemma: cleaning up air pollution worsens global warming. And what the pollution was doing was masking the true severity of the global warming problem.

My source is a recent NOVA broadcast called Global Dimming. Try and see it for a more detailed version of my summary here.

[lord_casek]

The latest findings (by real scientists, not corporate shills) show that global warming is worse than previously thought. Discrepancies between the pan evaporation rate and expected global warming scenarios revealed that, ironically, small-particle air pollution has been MITIGATING the global warming effect by as much as 50%, due to its role in creating clouds that are more opaque and therefore reflecting more sunlight. As the US and many European countries have worked on reducing small-particle pollution via cleaner fuels and smokestack scrubbers, without significantly addressing greenhouse gas emissions, this "global dimming" effect is starting to disappear, which only makes the warming problem that much worse. Some clever climate scientists who study world pollution patterns, particularly dispersed airplane contrails, jumped at the chance to take all kinds of "control" measurements in the 2 days after 9/11 when planes were grounded and the skies were free of what was otherwise a constant source of pollution. The results were staggering: the average temperature range increased by more than 1 degree on all of the days the planes weren't flying, meaning that without that blanket of pollution being put up daily, the sun was free to heat the planet.

That creates a dilemma: cleaning up air pollution worsens global warming. And what the pollution was doing was masking the true severity of the global warming problem.

My source is a recent NOVA broadcast called Global Dimming. Try and see it for a more detailed version of my summary here.

 

 

you know what some people call "chem trails"? i recently read that it's being put in those weekly reader type magazines that elementary schools get that chem trails are real and it's for "our protection against global warming."

 

here are some global warming related articles

"i was on the global warming gravy train"

http://www.mises.org/story/2571

 

"greenhouse simplicities"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/

 

"global warming serves...."

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_warming_hysteria_serves_a.htm

[LIVERWURST*]

 

here are some global warming related articles

 

 

"global warming serves...."

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_warming_hysteria_serves_a.htm

 

 

Man, you opened up a thread criticizing something that is accepted by both real academia and the entire collection of western governments referencing something you yourself know is completely unreliable as a neutral voice?

 

You than continue to back up your ideas with an article whose header is "Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government"? That is not a related "article" - that is a dude with a website writing something you agree with.

 

 

 

...oh that's why I don't come into Crossfire unless I'm drunk!

[lord_casek]

Man, you opened up a thread criticizing something that is accepted by both real academia and the entire collection of western governments referencing something you yourself know is completely unreliable as a neutral voice?

 

You than continue to back up your ideas with an article whose header is "Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government"? That is not a related "article" - that is a dude with a website writing something you agree with.

 

 

 

...oh that's why I don't come into Crossfire unless I'm drunk!

 

 

 

i was just backing up my beliefs.

 

the rest of it, i dunno. if there wasn't grant money involved,

some of these scientists (on the man made global warming side of things)

wouldn't give a shit.

[Module X]

never claimed to be a scientist. just stating my view.

 

I'd like to say you're entitled to your own view on the subject, but I don't think you are. That's not supposed to be an insult; neither am I, really, and neither are most people. Politicizing global warming as if it's a "belief" to be held or rejected is absurd. At this point, global warming is fact. Ok. Whether or not it's "natural" or man-made is the subject of climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, etc. The politicization of the issue has caused so many oversimplified and agenda driven articles about global warming to be produced, thereby creating an overflow of people who think they have an educated opinion on the topic, that I think it takes a serious dedication to the issue to have a valid opinion that goes anywhere beyond "yes, global warming IS occurring." As a student of science (a different field) I have an appreciation for the amount of nuance lost in translation from hard science to popular articles and beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, people might as well be arguing about the existence of the Higgs particle with little to no knowledge of quantum mechanics or mathematics. Global warming is complex. But, since it's a relevant topic to pretty much everyone, the basic facts I think every layperson needs to consider, then, are these: 1. It is happening. People have had demonstrable impacts on the environment for thousands of years. We now have more people, and more powerful technology. That means...2. Better do something about it. 3. What do we do? Listen to the scientists. Not one or two. All of them. Most them are, after all, saying pretty much the same thing.

 

I'm gonna go eat a burrito, then get drunk and fart and burp a lot, so I can contribute lots of methane to the atmosphere.

[lord_casek]

question: wouldn't co2 be a benefit since higher co2 levels make plants grow faster, better, bigger?

#2: the sun has gone through many cycles. wouldn't evidence show that this is just one of them?

 

i've got more, just a headache now. burrito sounds good.

[Module X]

Are you serious? (Not trying to be a jerk, I can't tell if you're kidding or not.) Both of those questions are empty conjecture.

 

#1: I don't know, I'm not a biologist. But making plants grow is not the only thing CO2 does (i.e. greenhouse effect...look at Venus). Also, if any benefit exists in this regard, human deforestation probably outstrips it.

 

#2: You can't just say "wouldn't evidence show" something without providing evidence. Evidence shows that the current warming trend is unparalleled in hundreds of thousands of years of history. That is, to our best scientific knowledge. The burden is on you to disprove scientific consensus, or provide a specific example from astrophysics that is relevant to our situation.

 

Honestly, from a scientific point of view both of those arguments are nonexistant.

[lord_casek]

Are you serious? (Not trying to be a jerk, I can't tell if you're kidding or not.) Both of those questions are empty conjecture.

 

#1: I don't know, I'm not a biologist. But making plants grow is not the only thing CO2 does (i.e. greenhouse effect...look at Venus). Also, if any benefit exists in this regard, human deforestation probably outstrips it.

 

#2: You can't just say "wouldn't evidence show" something without providing evidence. Evidence shows that the current warming trend is unparalleled in hundreds of thousands of years of history. That is, to our best scientific knowledge. The burden is on you to disprove scientific consensus, or provide a specific example from astrophysics that is relevant to our situation.

 

Honestly, from a scientific point of view both of those arguments are nonexistant.

 

fair enough.

 

since we get most of our oxygen from the oceans and not from forests

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/v/summaries/aquatichighco2.jsp

 

and relating to the sun (solar cycles)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

 

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm

 

 

 

to back up my claim about oxygen from oceans, this says half, i have read more than half, half, but never less than half

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html

 

an article from national geographic. i'm sure if you have any capabilities to do some research for yourself, you can find more.

[metronome]

i need to point out that this was funded by big oil.

 

and here is a point/counterpoint deal

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/

 

 

i still think natural warming is what we are experiencing, but wanted to be fair to all.

 

you know, I agree with you that there is a degree of natural warming going on, but it's being exponentially added to by carbon emissions

[lord_casek]

of course we are doing some damage, but not all of it, and i don't really think the impact by man is the one that is setting us up for certain disaster.

[Module X]

since we get most of our oxygen from the oceans and not from forests

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/v/summaries/aquatichighco2.jsp

 

Not sure how this is relevant. We're talking about CO2 emissions, not oxygen levels. I know about the implications of the ocean's capability to act as a sink for CO2 in the atmosphere. But from the oceanography course I took this summer it seems that, while the ocean removes a lot of CO2, the impact of significant increases in CO2 in ocean water isn't well understood...because it hasn't really happened before like it's happening now. Anyway I don't think these articles about photic layer oxygen production are very relevant to anything we've been talking about.

 

and relating to the sun (solar cycles)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

 

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm

 

Kind of interesting. The second two articles aren't really relevant. The first is something to think about, but it's still speculative. Is there an historical precedent for this degree of warming from solar cycles, excluding the 11-year cycle?

 

I still don't think global warming is the kind of topic a non-scientist can claim to have much of a valid opinion on. Global climate change is an extremely complex subject. But humans dump a lot of shit into the air. We are causing more and more global change the more advanced we become. It's naive to think we're not affecting the climate. And it's just stupid not to think that, no matter what, we should be taking measures to reduce our impact. Until we invent the technology to live on other planets, we've only got 1 to work with here. Oh yeah, and...

 

"We have 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.

 

How about Venus? That's a pretty good real-world example.

[lord_casek]

[russell jones]

just tell us what's in the video, don't just post the link otherwise I will ignore it!

[metronome]

of course we are doing some damage, but not all of it, and i don't really think the impact by man is the one that is setting us up for certain disaster.

 

what? no ... you have this statement backwards.

[thinksmall]

Humans have, currently and previously, an extremely minimal affect on the warming of the globe - and that is the 'non issue'. Even pre-bush, the evidence tells that humans have little to do with it.

[thinksmall]

````````````````````````````````````````````````

`[occurrence]```->```->```[outcome]`````````````

```````````````````````|````````````````````````

```````````````````````|````````````````````````

```````````````````````V````````````````````````

````````````````````[affect]`````````````````````

````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf