Excerpts:
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.
...
"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.
Posts
6 comments:
""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,"
Who made this "recent claim"?
I would hate to learn that the Hudson Institute was attacking a strawman, as the Institute is so widely respected, particularly for the scientific rigor of its "findings."
Well, if you Google "inconvenient truth", you'll find a site called "climatecrisis.net". Click on "the science" there, and you'll see this paragraph:
---
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1 The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
---
If you fail to read footnote 1, I think the above paragraph is very misleading.
Tom
Hmm.
Do you think that putting information in a footnote is less misleading than a critic pretending that the footnote doesn't exist?
Unfortunately, that site is not the only one to say things like "global warming is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence".
I think a good portion of the population has been mislead into thinking along these lines: there is a scientific consensus that the global warming threat is extremely serious and that humans are to blame.
Do you disagree?
"Do you disagree? "
I think you didn't answer my question.
I'll answer yours: yes, misleading information about climate change has surely been promulgated. But in stark contrast to the IBWO debacle, the most blatantly deceptive information does not appear to be coming from scientists. The major scientific studies are just that: scientific studies with conclusions, recommendations and appropriate caveats.
The global warming "threat" is not a threat. It's here. It's serious. Nobody doubts this.
As to whether "humans are to blame," well, the scientific consensus is that they are to blame at least in part. Again, I don't think this issue is seriously disputed anymore and I'm not aware of any serious countervailing studies showing that humans need not worry about affecting the climate with pollution or deforestation or whatever. Are you?
The real problem, Tom, as I showed you here is that if you want to tackle this issue as you did with the IBWO (and I think your work there was superlative) then do not go to these hack secondary sources for your "information." Do what you did with the IBWO: find the quotes and statements from the proponents of global warming themselves, in their context, and highlight them for us to see how terribly misleading those quotes are. If all of this global warming business is really just a hoax propelled by feel-good environmentalists and anti-business concerns, it will become evident from the propaganda.
Then you will have made your point the honest way.
Thank you for your response.
To answer your first question more thoroughly, I would say that it is very misleading to make this statement: The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. while this very different statement appears only in the footnotes: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate.
I'm not just nitpicking here--An Inconvenient Truth presents an extremely alarming message based on the first statement above, while basically ignoring the IPCC statement from the footnote.
In contrast, I don't see any misleading information in the linked article. If you see some, please feel free to point it out.
"I think your work there was superlative..."
Agreed :^)
"I'm not aware of any serious countervailing studies showing that humans need not worry about affecting the climate with pollution or deforestation or whatever. Are you?"
No.
"do not go to these hack secondary sources for your "information."
In the IBWO case, I referenced a large number of secondary sources, and I will continue to do so in the catastrophic AGW case.
I would appreciate it if you would answer this fair, yes-or-no question: Do you think that Al Gore has promulgated some seriously misleading information about climate change?
Post a Comment