Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity

Drudge ^ | jan 30, 2007 | Matt Drudge

[Notwithstanding]

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. --- break --- Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

[jackieaxe]

Stop confusing me with facts here. My mind's made up and it's George Bush's fault. \sarcasm

[ELS]

bttt

[Ditto]

Thanks. I'll listen to it tonight.

[Phantom Lord]

Is that graph derived from information from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite in whole or in part?

The reason I ask is that NASA discovered that the alitmeters had a fatal flaw in the mathamatics of its data processing software that caused its readings to be off by as much as 500%.

[SpitfyrAce]

You certainly are a well read and informed person in this area, full of links and graphs and articles supporting the "man made global warming" theory. I can't debate the suns effect on the planet, or the cause and effect of various gas and water vapor with you - I don't read enough material on this subject to be a worthy debater. I assume by the sheer volume and rapidity of your responses that you have an agenda, but I don't know what it is.

I'm wondering if you can humor me. Can you answer two questions, without links to external sources?

1. Has the Earth ever been warmer on average than it is today?

2. Does the Earth go through hot and cold cycles and is it possible that this warming trend is just another cycle?

Thanks

[Rodney Kings Brain]

I guess that pesky E.T. must have traded his magic flying bike in for a Hummer!

[OESY]

Global Warming is the new religion for the Godless crowd,
because the Party Faithful needed something to believe in.

After Communism became a ticket to long-term poverty and
saving Social Security and Medicare required compromises,
Global Warming became the Cause Célèbre of the Effétè Elitè.

.

[edsheppa]

If the tech is feasible, then do it on a small, individual scale: the area around one's own home, for example.

Done. When outside I will sit in the shade on hot days and in the sun on cold thereby controlling the incident solar radiation upon myself. I assure you it works.

it should be proved to be risk-free

There's no such thing in this life. But I agree that the reliability of the technology should be determined as best we can before applying it full scale.

applying the same Precautionary Principle

I reject this principle.

Since none of this is about climate change

It isn't none, at least not on my part. The historical evidence for significant global temperature swings is quite reliable. Significant global temperature swings will be very costly no matter the direction. If the cost of eliminating or moderating these swings is less, we should consider doing it.

I fully expect the Progressives and the GW crowd to go ballistic over any attempt to intervene in natural solar processes.

Agreed. I mean isn't it immoral to drive gas guzzling SUVs? Obviously we must do penance for it. Some technological quick fix doesn't satisfy the suffering requirement.

[edsheppa]

the Progressives and the GW crowd

BTW, there are other groups who I find just as offensive. One is the contingent who think, as an article of political faith, that Global Warming is false. Because it's mostly leftists who advocate human caused warming, they must oppose it.

Also, not all of the folks who accept human caused warming are to be condemned. There are many who are entirely level headed about it like Lomborg.

[reformedliberal]

Which civilizations? Those of the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 900--1300 AD? Those of the minimas that occurred between 1650--1850, with brief warmings between them? What parameters of definition are being cited here for "civilization"? For that matter, please define "climate stability."

Technology which hasn't been needed and therefore not thought of nor invented yet could certainly provide underground living habitats, covered fields, desalinization from all that extra water, whether occurring from expansion due to temperature rise or melting fresh water ice. Sodium Chloride and other alkalies like Sodium Bicarbonate can be combined and baked to form relatively durable substances, so why couldn't we use the salt from desalination, mixed with alkaline salts left after small lake evaporation, perhaps infused with some sort of nano fiber made from all that excess carbon to create habitats, dikes, or other useful things in the future? For all we know, the impetus of climate change will spur human technological development in ways we cannot even imagine today. These sorts of technological adaptations are available to us today. We are researching and developing technologies that will allow human habitation of the Moon and Mars, not to mention space.

We can breed all sorts of plants that are adapted to all sorts of conditions, from less light, less moisture, salt-saturation, extreme heat, even soiless cultivation right now, so why couldn't this be done even more efficiently and to a greater extent in the future?

Why would freshwater resources be reduced? We have advanced recycling capabilities right now and, as noted, desalination techniques.The reports I have seen forecast droughts in some places and torrential rain in others. Since all the water we have right now has always been on Earth, if we can free up that which is presently frozen, we will have access to increased supplies and if we can transport hydrocarbons by pipeline, then transporting water will be possible, as well. If we have a century before coastal communities are threatened, then we have enough time to relocate people, build even better dikes/seawalls, just like the Dutch have already done, elevate habitat or perhaps cope in ways we haven't yet thought of.

Do you have actual sources for these "scholarly papers"? I am afraid I don't have a high tolerance for argument by intimidation. I saw my first "scholarly" attempt at this sort of fear-mongering in 1965 when the appraisal company where I worked received Lester Brown's huge, expensive resource maps *proving* that we would run out of all commodities and the ability to feed humanity by the 1990s. I remember Ehrlich writing and being promoted for his neo-Malthusian ideas in the 1970s. There have been "proofs" of all sorts of catastrophes for hundreds of years and not a single one has stopped the human race from adapting, mainly because none came to pass.I have been hearing about excessive heat from global warming for 19 years now and hardwoods still grow in the upper Midwest, winter still occurs, rivers and lakes still freeze, rains come in the warmer seasons, crops grow, people live on barrier islands and along coastlines and commoditties still exist and are utilized.

At one time, it was thought to be *impossible* to travel in space, due to the threat of ionizing radiation. There were once no cures for diseases that today are curable or at least survivable. Prosthetics have advanced to the point where amputees compete competently in many physical sports and some soldiers return to the battlefield with them. Cataracts were once non-removable, then, even though removed, necessitated contacts or thick glasses afterwards. Today we have implanted lenses and it is even possible for some people to regain focusing capability with the interocular implants.

"Impossible" is what spurs invention. Scholarly reports come and go. Earth and humanity, so far, still endure.

[Phantom Lord]

One is the contingent who think, as an article of political faith, that Global Warming is false. Because it's mostly leftists who advocate human caused warming, they must oppose it.

While that is part of what drives many to dismiss out of hand the GW crowd, their track record is something that should make one sceptical of anything they are claiming with certainty. We have been running out of oil and will be out of oil in 10 years has been repeated since the Nineteen teens. The Population Bomb and the mass starvation and dying that was to have occured 20+ years ago is another. The "death" of the oceans 20 years ago if we didn't do something in "10 years" is another. "Silent Spring" another of their doom and gloom causes that turned out to be absolutely false. Same with Alar. The list goes on and on and on and on. While vitually 100% of their past predictions having been wrong, I am skeptical of their current predictions.

[edsheppa]

You're conflating two different, but overlapping groups. I agree that the doom-n-gloom crowd have a poor track record. But Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory doesn't really have enough track record to judge. There's little doubt that the Earth has been warming. And there's little doubt that CO2 is a warming agent and also that human activity has increased its atmospheric concentration.

But there are good reasons to be skeptical. No theory should be used a basis for public policy unless its reliability can be determined. I don't see any convincing way to demonstrate recent warming is determined to any significant extent by greenhouse gas emissions. There's no way to go back and change CO2 concentrations to validate the models. Predictions of global temperatures fifty or a hundred years are no help as they can't be validated here and now.

What would be convincing is predictions of global temperatures for some limited time in the future, say five or ten years. These could be compared to predictions of other models If GW models outperform the others significantly in that time frame, it might be reason enough to act.

[reformedliberal]

I agree that there is discernible climatic change. I doubt that more than 10%-15% is anthropogenic in origin. However, by *this*, I meant the hysterical attempts to either impose economic sanctions on development or the equally hysterical suggestions to somehow construct some sort of super global sunshade when we have no idea how this will effect global climate including wind/rain/ocean currents, et al.

We all utilize shade and sunlight to regulate our own micro habitat. I simply do not trust any agency or group to do this on a global scale.

While I also agree that P3 is ridiculous, it is quite irritating to be told we should undertake some huge technological attempt to deflect insolation on a global scale because the risk of extreme accelerating warming is "predicted". We have a dynamic, cyclic climate. I personally doubt we are going to experience warming on such a scale that we need to spend huge sums of resources, time and talent to redirect insolation. It is actually, from all I have read, more possible that the opposite might occur and we might experience another little ice age before we experience super warming. Since I live at 44 degrees North, in an area that was free of glaciation the last number of times, I don't really see the need for methods to increase global insolation at this point, either. I believe we will cope with whatever happens on smaller scales.

Isn't it interesting that only the American SUVs are implicated? Are there no SUVs anywhere else in the world? Only evil Americans are supposed to do penance. I am surprised the hysterics haven't come up with some way to exempt non-Caucasian Americans from all such sacrifice.

[Phantom Lord]

A local talk show host had a similar argument to the one you just put out about the "5 to 10 years". He suggested that the GW scientists, Heidi Cullen, and her friends show us that they have the ability to predict, with decent accuracy the avg. temp in a variety of months for something simple like the next two years. Predict with accuracy where flooding where occur in the next couple years, along with drought, and other weather related incidents.

For if they can do that, then their predictions even further in the future should hold some weight. But if they and their super computers can not even predict the avg. temp for July two years in the future, why should we believe or give any credence to what they say will be the temp in 100 years.

Hell, the weather man has great trouble predicting weather 5 days from now!

[reformedliberal]

It is completely possible to acknowledge that we are in a warming portion of the climate cycle without being hysterical and advocating draconian responses.

We actually shouldn't even refer to *global* warming, as it has been reported that no discernable warming has been perceived in the Southern Hemisphere over the past 25 years. My Kiwi correspondents have complained for months about their cold, wet summer. That is anecdote, not data,of course, but then, so is a lot of the information being disseminated in support of anthropogenic warming.


I just don't agree that the changes are severe enough to warrant the sorts of huge space-based responses that will take so long to implement that by the time they are in place will be obviated by yet another swing in the opposite direction.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It seems to me that "good" news would be that we've found a way to dampen the global climate changes."

Your comment seems to suggest that the climate of - say - 80 years ago was the "baseline" or "normal" or "ideal" global climate, and that any deviation from that, one way or the other, is bad. Is that what you believe and - if so - is there any scientific basis for that belief?

[Steve_Seattle]

I'm convinced that part of the fanaticism of the global warming fanatics is that Bush is skeptical about global warming, so for them that just raises the ante immeasurably.

[Lunatic Fringe]

If Climate-Change scientists want their theory to stand up, they should welcome challenges. Since they do not, glaring flags should be raised.

[Phantom Lord]

I think what we all need to do, just to be safe, is drive a car like Eddie Finnerty on Grounded For Life.

Someone, please post a picture of that car.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I just don't agree that the changes are severe enough to warrant the sorts of huge space-based responses that will take so long to implement that by the time they are in place will be obviated by yet another swing in the opposite direction."

You touch upon one of my beefs with the global warming crowd. I don't deny that the world's climate might be slightly warming, and that part of this might be caused by human activity, but I am very suspicious when global warming alarmists insist that ALL of the effects of global warming will be UTTERLY DISASTROUS for human civilization, so that we must therefore cede all political authority to unaccountable international organizations who will determine everything from A to Z about what is allowed or not allowed in society.