Jan 30 2007

Science Says Global Warming A Natural Phenomena

Published by at 12:44 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

The problem with the “Man-Made” Global Warming crowd has always been their ADMITTED lack of hard evidence. They supposed Global Warming was tied to human activity and ran from there – demonstrating a complete lack of the scientific method and making all their predcitions and assumptions no more scientifically based than an episode of Star Trek – feasible but not real.

Drudge is reporting what many of us engineers and scientists knew already, that Global Warming can be demonstrated to be a natural, recurring phenomena:

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.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

These books are now on my must read list and maybe I wil have some time to blog about them. But the fact is if there evidence is this broad and consistent then their conclusions or many times more solid than fantasies that have been in the news to date. A goog theory is supported by the evidence, the historical record, and can predict some future outcomes. The “Man Made” theorists have to ignore conflicting data and records, and are not able to predict a damn thing. But when you see evidence confirming something from all these diverse and independent records you can be confident in your conclusions. The truth is when you see a record temperature it is always ‘since 19xx’ or ‘since ’18xx’. And since we STILL do not have accurate global records of temperature going back more than 20 years or so we should be wary of any conclusions that are solely based on that data.

If we want to address the challenges of the higher temperatures then address ways for society to adapt. Like saving the rain forest in South America and extasblishing a new one in the sub Sahara desert through desalination plants and terra forming. Let’s reclaim some of the endless (and useless) deserts. That would cost much less and produce much more benefits.

60 responses so far

60 Responses to “Science Says Global Warming A Natural Phenomena”

  1. Terrye says:

    If I remember correctly the “human” portion of the socalled global warming is a fraction, less than 2%. So do we drain the oceans? After all they are responsible for global warming too.

  2. Retired Spook says:

    It’d help the debate if we saw less assertion of authority and more numbers.

    And that’s something you WON’T SEE, Aitch, because there is no “consensus” on the numbers. The number is whatever a particular climate modeler says it is based on whatever data he/she inputs into the model.

    I’ve read a lot of those journals too, Jim; thousands of pages over the last 3 or 4 years in an effort to educate myself about this issue, but I read both sides. I stop by RealClimate.org about once a week. Michael Mann, who runs that site, has been under a barrage or criticism from many in the climate/physics/geology communities for his “hockey stick” analysis because it literally ignores the medevil warm period and the little ice age. His model has been reproduced using random data with the “same” result. There has been widespread scrutiny of (and disagreement with) the theory that the observed warming over the last century or so has, in any significant way, been caused by human activities. The pendulum is starting to swing the other way in the scientific community. The MSM and the political and ideologically (and, yet financially) motivated folks still haven’t signed on yet. but it’s only a matter of time.

    You made the following comment earlier in the thread:

    One can address global warming from a leftist, centrist, or rightist point of view, but address it you eventually must because it is part of nature, not part of politics.

    You would think that’s the way it would work, but, unfortunately, if ever an issue was hijacked by politics, GW is it.

  3. Retired Spook says:

    And then, of course, there’s a lighter side to the issue.

  4. Retired Spook says:

    And then you get beyond “lighter” to the tootie fruity end of the debate.

  5. Joe Buzz says:

    If weather fluctuates how can the climate not? I cant wait until Mr. Gore educates the world about Plate Tectonics…..

  6. Taumarunui says:

    Jim, the world was warmer than today during the holocene maximum (6000 years ago) yet no scientist argues that that warming was human induced. Can you please get the scientific consensus to explain why the natural mechanisms that caused the earlier warmer periods are not causing the current warmish period?

    The GW alarmists create the impression that CO2 emissions are all created by human activities. The reality is that “Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.”

    (See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)

    We know that CO2 concentrations have been an order of magnitude higher than today in the Earth’s past. Where do you think all our fossil fuel (C) came from? Yep, you got it. It was in the atmosphere as CO2. Even if we burned all the coal and oil buried in the Earth’s crust we still couldn’t cause the planet to burn up.

    The history of the last 1000 years tell us that humanity thrived during the warmer periods and had a really miserable time during the little ice age. So, why should we assume global warming is bad? We might lose some land to rising sea levels bit we’ll get far more back as glaciers retreat and frozen tundra becomes habitable.

    Back in the holocene maximum temperatures were about 2°c higher than they are today. The world survived. The polar bears and penguins survived. Even the caribou survived. So I don’t even buy the mass extinction claims that some GW alarmists are making.

  7. Ronsch says:

    The problem is not just the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but the rate of change. There was precedence for the dramatic increase in concentration of greenhouse gases that we are witnessing today at the paleocene/eocene boundary some 55 million years ago. The increase in concentration raised the acidity of the oceans and the result was the greatest extinction of carbonate sea life in the history of the planet (“British Scientists say Carbon Dioxide is Turning the Oceans Acidic”, Kenneth Chang, NY Times, July 1, 2005) . There was also a 12 degree centigrade indrease in atmospheric temperature. Recent research reported in the NY Times showed that the summer daytime temperature in the Arctic was 74 degrees Fahrenheit. From that it is fair to infer that much of the northern hemisphere of the planet was uninhabitable at least in the summer. Google “ocean acidification” for details.

    Land life seems to have survived that time, no extinctions reported there, but life on much of the planet was clearly degraded. And for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren the existence of sealife will be found only in the remote tales of their ancestors.

  8. AJStrata says:


    While you are correct, it is also correct not all cycles produced extinctions. Just because one did does not mean they all did or all will.

    I assume you are willing to admit the cycles are not uncommon and many times are not disasterous?

  9. Zorak says:

    I post this every time someone on the GW debate comes up with the New Theory That Invalidates The Preponderance Of Known Facts. Here’s my three step algorithm:

    1) Surf to realclime.org.
    2) Search on the name(s) of the individuals proposing the new theory (i.e., “Avery Singer” “Svensmark”).
    3) Read.

    This of course doesn’t have the satisfying clarity of just reading those opinions that support your worldview; but, then again, you may just learn something.

  10. Ronsch says:


    What happened at the paleocene/eocene boundary wasn’t a cycle. They aren’t sure yet what caused it, but there was a huge increase in greenhouse gases, not necessarily composed completely of CO2 and not explained by any cycle of atmospheric concentrations. It was in fact something similar to what is happening right now.

    There is some evidence that warming in Siberia is going to cause a large bubble of methane from the melting permafrost going in to the atmosphere aggravating considerably what we are doing with CO2. This is one possible explanation for the paleocene/eocene increase, that cyclical warming caused a similar bubble of methane. The only problem now is that what we have now is double what happened then.

  11. owl says:

    Amazing. MUST take immediate action.

    Is that like the hormone pills that the experts forced down women’s throats for many years because they ‘knew’? News Flash: All women should immediately stop those meds because we made a slight error. Ooops…..they might damage instead of protecting the heart.

    Or…..the current discussion of common vitamins.

    By all means…..try to control the earth’s climate. Comforting? If you can’t control vitamins or an accepted medication after decades, excuse me if I am a)sceptical if it’s possible and b)scared chitless if you can.

    Thank you AJ.

  12. AJStrata says:


    I never said it was a cycle. What I asked for you to admit is there have been many temperature cycles and they have NOT become an extinction event. You point to this event as if this is what we are headed into, but the record shows the odds are we are heading into a normal cycle.

    Just trying to get you to agree what you brought up was the exception, not the rule.

  13. The Macker says:


    Now the “chicken Littles” can bash PM Stephen Harper for a while and give Bush a rest.

  14. Ronsch says:


    And I didn’t say that the temperature increase was the cause of the extinction, but in fact was due the acidification of the ocean due to the rapid increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. And I stated that the increase in the temperature is likely to make things very uncomfortable over the planet at times, but as you say, this doesn’t cause any land based extinctions.

    It took 200,000 years, however, for life in the oceans to return to normal after the largest extinction of carbonate sea life in the oceans. Even a thousand years from now, clams, oysters, shrimp, coral, etc., and any sealife dependant on them, will only be part of some distant historical memory.

  15. Retired Spook says:

    And for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren the existence of sealife will be found only in the remote tales of their ancestors.

    It took 200,000 years, however, for life in the oceans to return to normal after the largest extinction of carbonate sea life in the oceans.

    And it’s all gonna go down the crapper in 2 generations? And you eco-kooks wonder why we don’t take you seriously, LOL.

  16. momdear1 says:

    Having served on the Board of Directors of a National “Environmental” Organization , which was pledged to work with and support mutual “actions” (demonstrations, marches, etc.) of all other dissident organizations, I can attest to the fact that none of the national dissident organizations , including the so called environmental orgs. care a whit about the causes they claim to champion. The purpose of these groups is to organize local grass roots groups which they hope they can get out into the street s to support their favorite projects and make it look like they have widespread support.

    Global warming science comes from the same pseudo sceintists who gave us the “Alar in the Apples” scare. Shortly before that scare was proved to be a scam, one national leader bragged, “If you think what we have done to the apples is great, just wait until you see what we are going to do to the tomatoes.” One prominent national leader bragged, “I can bullshit anybody about anything.”

    Most of the pseudo scientific reports are written by Doctors . Most of these Doctors have Phd’s with degrees other than in science. Some of these “scientist” writers have Phd’s in Psychology, Theology, etc.

    As was quoted to me, “the purpose of all dissident groups is to unite all dissident groups and empower them to overthrow our government.” Written into purpose in the charter of all these organizations is “for social and economic justice.” That is code for overthrowing our government and set up a socialist/communist replacement.

    Anyone who buys into their global warming scare is a fool. The utter stupidity of egotistical, self centered people thinking that man can upset the balance of nature is ridiculous. For every action, there is a reaction. Nature rights all wrongs. Have you noticed that instead of bitching about “greenhouse gasses’ they have switched to directly condemning the production of carbon dioxide. This is the next step in demanding that we reduce the world’s population by at least 2/3. By any means possible. People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The demand for euthanizing the eaters and now producers will be the next item on their agenda, to” reduce the amt. of carbon dioxide” people are spewing into the air. And it looks like people will be stupid enough to buy it. Don’t they teach that plants take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen in elementary science any more? But then, these social planners think they are smarter than God. or maybe they think they are Gods.

  17. gil says:


    There is just one way to describe your long babble…….


    Please next time try to give us all ignorant bloggers some references that support your bull. That my help with skeptics like me…. I live next to what is left of a lake in South Texas…. Falcon Lake….. A big beauteful lake I went fishing since I was a child is for the most part gone because droughts in South Texas have become extreme and frecuent…… Austin, San Antonio, etc rutinely go into mandatory water conservation every summer…..

    I don’t know if it is Global Warming…. But you Sir are not going to tell me that I have a lake to go fishing any more because I don’t…. So you Sir are some kind of “intellectual” in need of getting out and getting dirty . I can only tell you about my part of the world, and I can also tell you that if you come down here and start with your “There is no Global Warming” bull, you better be ready for some angry words in return.

    One thing is for shure tough…. Your brain is over heating.

  18. Aitch748 says:

    So, Gil — you can’t have droughts in Texas unless there is global warming?

    As someone already mentioned, warming the earth generally means making the climate wetter, because more water evaporates into clouds, particularly from the oceans (and comes back down as rain). A colder climate means, generally, that more water freezes and is thus unavailable as rain to replenish shrinking lakes and rivers.

  19. gil says:


    I hope you are not taking me for some dum Cowboy looking for an excuse to explain his portion of the world. No Sir we have been having droughts in Texas since way before my grand dad was born. What I am saying is that the droughts are becoming longer, and more frecuent. And I am not the only one saying it. Come to Texas and you’ll hear it all the time everywhere. Some Texans believe in Global Warming others don’t, and that’s fine… But for the most part for Texans there is no doubt any longer…. Is hotter than ever.

    I respect your opinion, but I do take issue with people like momdeari’s post that try to impress with “disertations” that trash thousands of serious dedicated good people (scientist) around the world that have come to the conclusion that there is Global warming without posting ONE reliable source to contradict them.

    Is a dishonest way of debating and it is not fair play. The people saying that there is Global warming desrve your respect, and mine just as much as you would like your views to be respected. The difference between you and the Global Warming people is that if you are wrong……… Beauteful Hearth will not be there for our descendants. That’s is too much to risk on an ego trip.
    Our Lake in South Texas will probably not be there for my great grand kids, and that truly makes me sad- they would have love it.

    When in doubt…. Don’t take the risk.

  20. Ronsch says:

    Retired Spook:

    Yes, it’s going down the crapper in two generations unless we stop the influx of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The problem is that the oceans aren’t able to handle the rapid increase in the greenhouse gases. If the change were gradual, no problem, but it is the steep gradient that’s causing the problem. And we know what happens because it happened before, at the paleocene/eocene boundary, when the rapid increase in greenhouse gases caused the oceans to acidify and destroy all carbonate sea life and that which depends on it. Google “ocean acidification” for the whole story. There you will also see the data on the increase of acidification of the oceans over recent decades.

    And the rest of the world may not go down the crapper in two generations, but 74 degree temperatures in the Arctic, now confirmed to have happened at the paleocene/eocene boundary, does suggest some problems elsewhere in the planet. Maybe there won’t be any extinctions, but it’s going to be mighty uncomfortable below the 35th parallel. And those kind of temperatures certainly mean a lot of melted glaciers implying a raised ocean level with most of florida under water. Maybe land life won’t be down a crapper in two generations but it’s sure going to be different.