Sep 12 2007
500 Scientists Explain The Inconvenient Truth To Al Gore And The UN
I posted recently on how a recent survey showed falling support for the idea the current warming of our planet is due to mankind since the Global Warming charade began 20 years ago. Basically, the more scientists looked at it the less likely they were to blame mankind as the driver behind the warming. Now 500 scientists are out with studies demonstrating why mankind is not the force behind the current (and probably normal) warming trend:
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.
The fact is this is not new or devastating. There is no consensus except one – the claims that man is causing the current warming trend are based on incomplete and error ridden models and unscientific extrapolation of what could be very moderate indicators. Any REAL scientist would have proven there COULD NOT BE any other larger forces behind the warming. Forces that will swamp and make laughable the efforts by fanatics to cripple our best economies to shave a few percent of the C02 levels, which only contribute 3% to the Green House effect anyway. This is rapidly becoming a joke about the making of a mountain out of an ant hill. the relative size comparisons are becoming very close: a 10% drop in a gas that effects 3% of the Green House effect means a .3% impact. But if the Green House effect only applies a tiny fraction of the warming because it is swamped out by other, cosmic or solar system level events, then what is the point? Al Gore, the inconvenient truth is you, sir, are an idiot on matters of science and engineering.
Too bad. So sad. Did the global warming crowd really think all the legitimate scientists in the world would keep quiet about this farce? I guess that did. They thought if they were loud enough the plan would succeed. That is the dem mantra after all. Scream about something until it is accepted as fact.
You have got to be kidding me. EarthTimes.org is an open source propaganda vehicle, which in this case was merely reprinting crap from the prnewswire. A closer loook at prn indicates they merely package PR (get it) propaganda handouts from corporations. Their terms even say the PR releases are responsible for the content, NOT prn.
So what you have reprinted is a propaganda handout from the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think tank founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. Corporate contributors include Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.
Members include Richard Perle and convicted felon and traitor I. Lewis Libby. The Institute has also taken positions critical of environmentalism and Dennis Avery, as Director of the Hudson’s Center for Global Food Issues, has written in opposition to those who favor the adoption of organic agricultural methods, acting as a sock puppet for Con-Agra, Cargill and Monsanto.
Oh, and where are the names of the 500 scientists???
SS,
Don’t conservative think tanks have the same right to be heard as progressive ones? And isn’t it good to debate the merits of climate theories, environmental management and gricultural methods?
Macker,
I’m happy to say I could not agree with you more.
Open debate based on the best available science is the best hope for humananity. I merely wish to note that a PR release sponsored by agri-business and a right-wing think tank does not necessarily carry the same weight as peer reviewed scientific publications.
I also don’t mean to imply that the findings of the 500 scientists reviewed don’t carry weight; but often the issuer of the PR piece is more concerned with cherry picking than with adequately presenting the full scientific inquiry.
The core of Singer and Avery’s book can be found in this earlier paper. My comments here.