Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 141

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalNation View Post
    So why would anyone want to luck up stuff for you to read again.
    I had heard that there were a large contingent of scientists who have published papers which discredit anthropogenic global warming. I am on a quest to find at least one of those papers, as no one seems to want to reference one. All people want to do is bitch about Al Gore's SUV and reference magazine articles and occasionally journal articles which do not make any claim that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.


    As a scientist in training I seek the truth, and if it is true that their is no scientific consensus for global warming, there would be abundant evidence of this in the scientific literature. I just need a little help finding it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    san antonio
    Posts
    3,310
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

    I don't think there is really any serious way to either prove or disprove "anthropogenic" global warming. Leaving out the "anthropogenic", we already know that the Earth's temperature used to be much warmer than it is today, then went into an Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago. Ever since then the Earth has been warming up. Since there is no dispute that the Earth has been naturally warming up for the last 10,000 years, there is virtually no way to tell the degree at which our pollution today is effecting the Earth. Even if it was, it might just be speeding up an already natural process. But so many factors determine the Earth's weather and temperature that in order to prove "anthropogenic global warming" you'd have to prove that all of those other factors are not increasing the global temperature, and that the small percentage increase of CO2 is increasing it.
    PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
    "Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
    You can't spell Liberals without Lies.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theHawk View Post
    I don't think there is really any serious way to either prove or disprove "anthropogenic" global warming. Leaving out the "anthropogenic", we already know that the Earth's temperature used to be much warmer than it is today, then went into an Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago. Ever since then the Earth has been warming up. Since there is no dispute that the Earth has been naturally warming up for the last 10,000 years, there is virtually no way to tell the degree at which our pollution today is effecting the Earth. Even if it was, it might just be speeding up an already natural process. But so many factors determine the Earth's weather and temperature that in order to prove "anthropogenic global warming" you'd have to prove that all of those other factors are not increasing the global temperature, and that the small percentage increase of CO2 is increasing it.
    Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution. You appear to not know what you're talking about.


    And like I said, I'm not trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm just asking for one solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper which has disproved it. Since we all know anthropogenic global warming is such a big hoax, you'd figure that there would be actual science which disproves it. I don't want your layman's opinions of why you "feel" anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible" because the world is just so gosh darn big - I want the opinion of an expert in the field who claims anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


    Is that really too much to ask?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    FOUR PAGES now....


    and after four pages we have learned so much about Al Gore's light bill and how global warming is a big hoax and how its definitively not anthropogenic in nature....



    yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


    STILL WAITING.....


    Anyone want to make bets on when such a reference will be posted? I'm betting it will take 20 pages.
    Last edited by SpidermanTUba; 08-08-2007 at 08:24 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187319

    Default

    yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.
    Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."
    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

    In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[10]

    A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[11] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[12]

    Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[13][14] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[15]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#_note-7
    all hail the politics of science journals......

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1
    Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."


    If Dr. Baliunas truly feels that way about the way science is done, then the fact that she has worked for numerous Exxon front organizations in the past should be enough to convince you she is biased.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    FOUR PAGES now....


    and after four pages we have learned so much about Al Gore's light bill and how global warming is a big hoax and how its definitively not anthropogenic in nature....



    yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


    STILL WAITING.....


    Anyone want to make bets on when such a reference will be posted? I'm betting it will take 20 pages.


    Global warming is a hoax. Al Bore is not living his life as he demands we live ours - why does he not lead by example?


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red states rule View Post
    Global warming is a hoax. Al Bore is not living his life as he demands we live ours - why does he not lead by example?
    Of course global warming is a hoax, its obvious. The world is so gosh darn big, and all these scientists are conspiring together because they are greedy people. The only exception is people like Dr. Baliunas, who works for Exxon front companies in published in financial magazines.

    So since its such a hoax, there has to be dozens of scientific papers which claim it is wrong. I just want one.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    san antonio
    Posts
    3,310
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution. You appear to not know what you're talking about.
    Yes, I know, they've increased from 0.028% to 0.0363%. In other words, a small amount.




    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    Since we all know anthropogenic global warming is such a big hoax, you'd figure that there would be actual science which disproves it. I don't want your layman's opinions of why you "feel" anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible" because the world is just so gosh darn big - I want the opinion of an expert in the field who claims anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.
    If you don't want my or anyone elses laymen's opinions then why did you open this thread? You're doing nothing but giving your laymen's opinion too.

    And secondly, where did I ever say that anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible"? Don't quote me on things I did not say.
    It may very well be possible, I said it would be extremely difficult to prove. I do believe that our pollution is effecting our planet, but I nor anyone else, knows to what extent. I think the issue has been politicized and thus highly exaggerated.
    Politicians like Al Gore are using it to invoke fear into people. For example in his book he shows a picture from about 100 years ago of a glacier, then shows a picture from today. It clearly shows the glacier retreated. We're supposed to look at this and say "Oh My God" and get outraged. But he fails to mention that these glaciers all over the world have been melting away for the last 10,000 years. You can't accuse him of lying, but it is an omission of the facts in a sly manner in order to get people to rally to his cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    And like I said, I'm not trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm just asking for one solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper which has disproved it.
    Well if you're not trying to prove it, why do the rest of us have to disprove it?
    Nobody has to disprove a theory. Its up to scientists to prove their own theories. And anthropogenic global warming is just a scientific theory. I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.
    PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
    "Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
    You can't spell Liberals without Lies.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187319

    Default

    Why?
    because if Exxon funding is relevant, federal funding is equally relevant.....if you want to waive the issue of funding for both, it's fine with me....we can concentrate on the facts of the matter....but if funding on one side is of interest, funding on both sides is as well......

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187319

    Default

    Do you honestly believe that for-profit corporations which would lose billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn are somehow less likely to influence the scientists they fund than scientists which are funded by the public?
    nope, I honestly believe that both will be influenced equally by the goals of those providing funding......

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    because if Exxon funding is relevant, federal funding is equally relevant.....if you want to waive the issue of funding for both, it's fine with me....we can concentrate on the facts of the matter....but if funding on one side is of interest, funding on both sides is as well......
    You're right. And since one is funded by a for profit corporations which stands to lose billions and billions of dollars if the wrong scientific conclusions were drawn, and the other is a government handing out public dollars through granting agencies such as the NSF, where the peers of the scientists requesting the grants determine who gets the grants - and not CEO's with no scientific experience whatsoever - anyone with any common sense at all would see that Exxon is clearly not as unbiased a source of funding as the NSF.

    Do you understand profit motive? Do you understand that the NSF is a not for profit government agency - and Exxon is a for profit private corporation whose goal is not to produce good science but to make money?


    You have reduced yourself to the "everything is the same as everything argument" There are blatantly obvious reasons to suspect the scientific research that is paid for by a for profit corporation. You simply choose to ignore them, just like a few years ago when there was a segment of the population that held on to the belief that smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful since Phillip Morris' scientists said they were OK.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theHawk View Post
    Yes, I know, they've increased from 0.028% to 0.0363%. In other words, a small amount.
    Yeah, 30% is small, right. Lets see what happens if you get stuck with a 30% tax hike, see if you call it small then.

    You don't know much about .. numbers, do you?


    If you don't want my or anyone elses laymen's opinions then why did you open this thread?
    I started the thread because I wanted to see peer reviewed scientific papers which claim global warming is wrong. You should have picked up on that by now.

    You're doing nothing but giving your laymen's opinion too.
    I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking for papers which claim global warming is wrong. That's not "giving an opinion", that's "asking a question"


    You don't know much about ... words, do you?
    I do believe that our pollution is effecting our planet, but I nor anyone else, knows to what extent. I think the issue has been politicized and thus highly exaggerated.
    And what factual basis in the scientific record do you base this on?

    Politicians like Al Gore are using it to invoke fear into people. For example in his book he shows a picture from about 100 years ago of a glacier, then shows a picture from today. It clearly shows the glacier retreated. We're supposed to look at this and say "Oh My God" and get outraged. But he fails to mention that these glaciers all over the world have been melting away for the last 10,000 years. You can't accuse him of lying, but it is an omission of the facts in a sly manner in order to get people to rally to his cause.
    Politicians? This is the health and science board, isn't it? Have you been able to comprehend my numerous previous posts pointing out that Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with the scientific process?


    Well if you're not trying to prove it, why do the rest of us have to disprove it?
    Nobody has to disprove a theory. Its up to scientists to prove their own theories. And anthropogenic global warming is just a scientific theory. I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    san antonio
    Posts
    3,310
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    Yeah, 30% is small, right. Lets see what happens if you get stuck with a 30% tax hike, see if you call it small then.

    You don't know much about .. numbers, do you?
    If my taxes were 0.028% and went up to 0.036% I don't think I'd be complaining at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    I started the thread because I wanted to see peer reviewed scientific papers which claim global warming is wrong. You should have picked up on that by now.

    I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking for papers which claim global warming is wrong. That's not "giving an opinion", that's "asking a question"
    No, you started this thread on a political debate forum to stir up shit, as usual. If you want to search for a particular type of scientific papers then you came to the wrong forum. You knew exactly what you were doing when you started the thread so don't try to downplay it now.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    You don't know much about ... words, do you?
    I know enough about words to know when someone is tiptoeing around the subject because he doesn't actually want to be held accountable for what he is implying.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    And what factual basis in the scientific record do you base this on?
    Here's just one. Try searching and finding your own.


    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=13


    Arctic temperature records – According to the computer forecasts, climate over polar latitudes is very sensitive to global warming. The forecasts say that the polar regions should have warmed by roughly 2 C in the last 50 years, enough to begin melting polar ice. Melting the polar ice produces a positive feedback that amplifies any warming. The reason is that ice reflects much of the sunlight and helps keep the polar regions cold. But as the temperature rises and the ice melts, the bare ground or sea underneath absorbs more of the Sun’s energy and magnifies the warming. One long-term view of the lower Arctic (Figure 4) comes from proxy records like tree-ring growth.[9] There is a rapid warming in the record, but it began in the mid-19th century, and must be natural because it predates most of the rise in the air’s carbon dioxide concentration. This record suggests that the Arctic has cooled since 1950. Instrumental measurements (Figure 5) also contradict the intense warming trend projected by the computer scenarios. On the average over the last 40 years, the temperature does not show the large, increasing warming trends projected by the computer simulations.[10] That observed lack of warming may seem contradictory to recent newspaper reports of a thinning or diminishing extent of Arctic sea-ice.[11] However, sea ice will change in response to several factors, including not also temperature, but also ocean currents and salinity, wind, terrain, etc. The recent observed sea-ice changes cannot have been caused by human-made global warming because Arctic temperatures are not showing the expected increasing warming trend. No increasing warming trend of the kind expected from human-made global warming has occurred in recent decades, when most of the increase in the air’s carbon dioxide concentration took place. In the test of the Arctic temperature record, the computer scenarios exaggerate the observed warming by more than ten-fold.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    Politicians? This is the health and science board, isn't it? Have you been able to comprehend my numerous previous posts pointing out that Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with the scientific process?
    Yes, politicians. Or other yahoos like yourself that pretend to be interested in real science in order to promote your own agenda.
    You're a well known political hack from the other board. You're here to make a political point, not to debate factual scientific evidence about global warming. You're not fooling anyone.




    I'd like to see a "solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper" that proves that the 0.5 degrees centigrade increase in the global average temperature over the last 130 years is NOT apart of the completly natural and cyclical global warming period followed by an ice age. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

    Evidently you not only can't use the quote function properly, but you also avoided my request.
    Last edited by theHawk; 08-10-2007 at 02:40 PM.
    PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
    "Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
    You can't spell Liberals without Lies.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,569
    Thanks (Given)
    470
    Thanks (Received)
    532
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    10
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1486131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    I would like to see a reference to a single peer reviewed scientific journal paper which claims that anthropogenic global warming is false.

    By "peer reviewed scientific journal" I do not mean papers from right wing think tanks, or papers from financial magazines, or papers from research groups set up by Exxon-Mobil - I mean peer reviewed scientific journals in a relevant field, for instance the "Journal of Climate"
    Sorry to be beating a dead horse here but he asked for this information so here it is. Not just one scientist but 500.
    I find it funny that the more this is studied the more we find we dont fully know or understand....


    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.
    Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:
    http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Gl.../dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1
    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
    Hudson Institute
    Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." -Dr. Randy Pausch


    Death is lighter than a feather, Duty is heavier than a mountain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums