Dec 28 2006
Still More Evidence that Global Warming Ain’t Us
A Hudson Institute report shows still more evidence that if global warming is occuring, it isn’t our fault. LifeSite has the details:
The general warming of global temperatures in recent decades appears to mostly be the result of a regular, sunspot induced climate cycle that has been occurring roughly every 1500 years for at least the past one million years. Climate physicist S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, discussed the substantial evidence for their new book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,” at a Hudson Institute book forum in Washington, D.C. last month.
The book is said to make a very powerful case that the current climate trends we are currently seeing are in fact part of a product of a solar-linked cycle that creates harmless naturally warmer conditions approximately every 1500 years.
Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an agricultural economist and former senior analyst in the Department of State, began the discussion noting that the Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century and records indicate grapes were being grown there again in the 11th century, both situations indicating that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.
Additionally, scientific analysis of ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic found that there is a clear record of a moderate, abrupt 1500-year climate change cycle running all the way through all the major warmings and all the ice ages. Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.
December 28th, 2006 at 14:32 pm
Hey, hey, hey now. Stop trying to use rational, scientific, fact based explanations in this debate. Let’s keep it on a purely emotional and political basis where truth is not a necessity.
December 28th, 2006 at 14:45 pm
My bad. I keep forgetting that physical evidence is irrelevant to the discussion.
December 28th, 2006 at 14:54 pm
Rational, scientific and fact based information doesn’t come from a think tank with an agenda and ideology that is not scientific. I had never heard of that site in your link, so I checked it out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute
I have seen scientific discussions elsewhere dismissing the cycles as cause of the current situation.
Carbon in the atmosphere correlates with temperature very well over hte past 600K years. There is no single cause of atmospheric conditions, but it would seem wise to reduce carbon output drastically.
December 28th, 2006 at 16:49 pm
Let’s see, there is evidence in the sun of long term cycles affecting the earth and evidence in ice cores laid down long before present civilizations — evidence that doesn’t fit AlGore’s cries of doom and gloom. The Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had more impact on the atmosphere than all of the Industrial Age. I’m coming around to an understanding that climate can and does change, but any man-based impact is miniscule.
December 28th, 2006 at 18:07 pm
I have seen scientific discussions dismissing this cycle as the cause of our current situation. What do you make of the carbon levels as correlated with temperatures over the last 600K years?
Also, I looked at your links and cannot take seriously as a good source of scientific information an organization of this kind, with an ideological agenda. That never makes good science. Here’s where I found a description of the organization.
December 28th, 2006 at 18:07 pm
shoot sorry about that. Please delete that. Got too many windows here.
December 28th, 2006 at 18:47 pm
Do you think they have an ideological bias because they present material that refutes current thought on global warming?
December 28th, 2006 at 21:58 pm
Leftist ideology on nearly every issue that confronts us today is based on fear and trying to scare people so that they’ll fall lock-step into the elitist left’s vision for the world they want. Global warming isn’t a stand alone issue, it’s a symptom of the overall psychological disorder that is liberalism. These people have been pulling this environmental mumbo-jumbo since the very first ‘Earth Day’ when I was a kid. You can take highlight film from ‘Earth Day’ every year since it was started and you couldn’t tell them apart. Goofballs dressing up in gas masks and grim reaper costumes proclaiming the death of poor Mother Gaiea, or whatever it is they worship. The current debate on global warming is just another scare tactic to push the agenda of the left. There’s article after article with opinions, facts and other theories which debunk the whole concept of global warming, all from scientists who have credentials just as impressive, if not better, than anyone the left has promoting it. The fact that a movie was made by a pathological liar and political has-been who sees this as a way to keep his name in the public eye is not proof of global warming.
December 29th, 2006 at 01:15 am
Also, I looked at your links and cannot take seriously as a good source of scientific information an organization of this kind, with an ideological agenda.
Why not try going to the Hudson web page and look at the lightweights they have spewing an “ideological agenda”.
Ladarzak, I think you may be somewhat biased by your own ideological blinders. Hudson does research. Using actual scientists. Looking at what real data says.
If that offends you then I truly am sorry for where you are. As your own blog states, you’re at a “ringside seat as we go down the tubes.” If our society is going down the tubes, it’s not for the reasons you think.
December 29th, 2006 at 03:34 am
I did look at Hudson’s site FIRST. They are committed to free market this and that. THat is a social agenda, not a scientific one. Science can serve no agenda and still be just science.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Not to split hairs, but a commitment to free markets is not a social agenda, but an economic one. And the free market concept is only one area of HI’s expertise.
You hit the nail on the head by identifying your concerns as social. “Global warming” has never been a scientific issue, but a social agenda with a thin veneer of pseudo-science and pantheistic Gaia-ism. Thanks for putting that out in the open.
As for your comment that science can serve no agenda and still be just science, that has never been the case, except perhaps in the context of basic theoretical research. Larger “science” has always had a motive or served a public interest. Was Louis Pasteur’s research into the causes of disease free of motive? He was serving an agenda to improve society - colored largely by his devout Catholic background, by the way.
Science always serves an interest. In the case of alleged global warming, I’ll look at the real research on both sides of the issue and probably make a decision based on which has done their homework. Presently the man-based global warming crowd is on very thin ice in this regard.