T Nation

Global Warming Is Natural


Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions “pointless” as sun is cited as climate change culprit

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month’s International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

�??The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: �??Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.�??

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: �??The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth�??s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth�??s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless �?? but very costly."

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN’s own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/consensus.htm

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

I’d just finished reading about this paper on another site. Is it just me or was 2007 a busy year for papers published contrary to the IPCC’s view?

How dare you?!

Attacking global warming is like attacking Al Gore!

It is like saying he doesn’t deserve that Nobel prize, and his entire post political career is nothing but a chicken little shtick.

Did we say we want your facts to interfere with our beliefs?

Remember there is a consensus that human caused global warming is a fact, and one person already said that is how science works. If the group thinks it, it must be true.

Don’t you realize that the ice caps are going to melt in 3 years? The oceans are going to rise a thousand feet, and all the squash will die out, not to mention the beetles, rabbits, bears, fish sticks, polar bears, and iguanas.

Secret socialist engineering, uh I mean global warming is a fact proven by tv shows and advertising. Not to mention that unbiased organization Greenpeace.

This is another plot by Bush. That guy should be impeached. Not sure why, but he should. He lied, about something I guess, because people told me that, so he should be impeached. Because he actually caused global warming. Yeah, he caused it.

Where the hell is Captain Planet? I learned all my facts from watching him.

Duh! There are millions of factors involved in the warming and cooling of the planet.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Duh! There are millions of factors involved in the warming and cooling of the planet.[/quote]

Wrong. It is all CO2. Nothing else matters.

global warming & cooling of the earth may be natural - however what we humans do in the name of luxury and convenience by raping this earth - is not. just my $0.02…

Damn, There goes Al Gore’s peace prize.

And he was so proud of memorizing all that scientific jargon that he doesn’t understand. Maybe he should just write a book on how often Bill got head in the Whitehouse?

[quote]lil_azn wrote:
global warming & cooling of the earth may be natural - however what we humans do in the name of luxury and convenience by raping this earth - is not. just my $0.02…[/quote]

That has always been my position; even though GW may be a natural occurrence outside our control, that is no excuse to be irresponsible and pollute our planet. But I guess the left needs GW to be true to have some issue to push to get elected.

[quote]lil_azn wrote:
global warming & cooling of the earth may be natural - however what we humans do in the name of luxury and convenience by raping this earth - is not. just my $0.02…[/quote]

Oh my god, people are raping the earth? Are there little holes everywhere?

Right now America is embarrasing itself in Bali.
How about another creationism thread?

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right now America is embarrasing itself in Bali.
How about another creationism thread? [/quote]

Comparing man made global warming to creationism is very apt but I don’t think that is the comparison you are trying to make.

The science is certainly mixed but the church of the IPCC often misrepresents what the scientists are saying. Their lies push me in the skeptics camp. I am glad my country is taking a stand against this lunacy in the face of the media distortions and IPCC lies.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right now America is embarrasing itself in Bali.
[/quote]

hmmm…even though the entire developing world is exempt - though they will account for the great majority of growth in CO2 emissions over the next few decades? By 2009 China - which is not a Kyoto signatory - is predicted to have higher CO2 production than the US.

Also, the treaty has been “cleverly crafted,” according to Warren Meyer, so that the targets are relatively easy for them to meet, and very difficult for the US to meet:

[i]"Rather than freezing emissions at current levels at the time of the treaty, or limiting carbon emission growth rates, the treaty calls for emissions to be rolled back to below 1990 levels. Why 1990? Well a couple of important things have happened since 1990, including:

a. Europe (and Japanese) economic growth has stagnated since 1990, while the US economy has grown like crazy. By setting the target date back to 1990, rather than just starting from the day the treaty was signed, the treaty effectively called for a roll-back of economic growth in the US that other major economies did not enjoy.

b. In 1990, Germany was reunified, and Germany inherited a whole country full of polluting inefficient factories from the old Soviet days. Most of the dirty and inefficient Soviet-era factories have been closed since 1990, giving Germany an instant one-time leg up in meeting the treaty targets, but only if the date was set back to 1990, rather than starting at the time of treating signing."[/i]

And there’s other similar stuff for other parts of Europe and Russia.

Btw, to date, despite the advantages Europe wrote into the treaty for itself, most of the european nations are still missing the Kyoto targets.

What’s most amazing, these very flaws are why the Senate voted 95-0 in 1997 not to sign or ratify the treaty, unless these flaws were fixed. In fact, then Veep Al Gore agreed that the treaty should not be signed without repairing these flaws - which were never made, and Europe was never going to make.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right now America is embarrasing itself in Bali.
How about another creationism thread? [/quote]

I thought man made global warming was similar to the belief in creationism. Blind faith in something where the science falls apart if you actually look at the facts.

Except that belief in global warming will actually have an active negative impact on society, whereas the belief in creation is just a belief. Other then a few arguments over school textbooks, it really will not impact society.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice

Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice

SAN FRANCISCO�??Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.

In recent years, Greenland�??s ice has been melting more and flowing faster into the sea�??a record amount of ice melted from the frozen mass this summer, according to recently released data�??and Earth�??s rising temperatures are suspected to be the main culprit.

But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth�??s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth�??s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

�??The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,�?? said lead scientist Ralph von Frese of Ohio State University. �??However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too.�??

The corner of Greenland where the hotspot was found had no known ice streams, the rivers of ice that run through the main ice sheet and out to sea, until one was discovered in 1991. What exactly caused the stream to form was uncertain.

�??Ice streams have to have some reason for being there,�?? von Frese said, �??and it�??s pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of the ice sheet.�??

The newly discovered hotspot, an area where Earth�??s crust is thinner, allowing hot magma from Earth’s mantle to come closer to the surface, is just below the ice sheet and could have caused it to form, von Frese and his team suggest.

�??Where the crust is thicker, things are cooler, and where it�??s thinner, things are warmer,�?? von Frese explained. �??And under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica, natural variations in the crust will makes some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others.�??

What caused the hotspot to suddenly form is another mystery.

�??It could be that there�??s a volcano down there,�?? he said, �??but we think it�??s probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice.�??

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right now America is embarrasing itself in Bali.
How about another creationism thread? [/quote]

The self-proclaimed “consensus” behind man-made global warming is one enforced by threats, intimidation and ignorance, as is again being proven by media coverage of the latest UN meeting in Bali, where skeptical climate scientists are being shunned and ignored if they dare express an opposing viewpoint.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=174&Itemid=1

Anyone have an opinion on these three google videos? Are any of them worth watching?

  1. Great Global Warming Swindle

  2. Green House Conspiracy

  3. Global warming doomsday called off

Just something I’ve never understood;

Say we sign the Kyoto treaty. Assuming it’s the BS treaty every GW-hater shits on, it really won’t do anything, right?

So why not just sign the fucking thing, and get slightly less hate in the international community?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Just something I’ve never understood;

Say we sign the Kyoto treaty. Assuming it’s the BS treaty every GW-hater shits on, it really won’t do anything, right?

So why not just sign the fucking thing, and get slightly less hate in the international community? [/quote]

If we signed it and then blatantly ignored it, how would that reduce animosity abroad?

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Just something I’ve never understood;

Say we sign the Kyoto treaty. Assuming it’s the BS treaty every GW-hater shits on, it really won’t do anything, right?

So why not just sign the fucking thing, and get slightly less hate in the international community?

If we signed it and then blatantly ignored it, how would that reduce animosity abroad? [/quote]

Seems to be what most other countries did.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Just something I’ve never understood;

Say we sign the Kyoto treaty. Assuming it’s the BS treaty every GW-hater shits on, it really won’t do anything, right?

So why not just sign the fucking thing, and get slightly less hate in the international community? [/quote]

Yes this is the reason to do anything, for improved popularity.

Last report I read the Kyoto treaty was a complete disaster, and compared to the countries on the treaty, America was actually more successful then most of them were.

By signing it, we were the ones who would be held to it. We were the only ones the whole Earth would watch and complain if we didn’t make it. Instead they are complaining that we didn’t sign it.

And now that it has failed, who is taking the blame? We would have, and it would have been big news, Evil America fails the treaty, regardless of what other countries have done.

The other option was to put a straight jacket on our economy.

And what was all this worth? Hundredths of a degree difference over 50 years.