New Books Scientifically Disprove Man-Made Global Warming Theories

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

2006 will go down as the year that the media universally tried to sell America on the unproven theory that man-made global warming is destroying the planet, and will cause our imminent doom. Part of this hysteria includes fallacious assertions by all involved that there is a scientific consensus regarding these dire predictions.

Though they are likely to get little attention from an hysterical press, two books by prominent scientists have recently been released that scientifically disprove global warming theories, and supply a little sanity for those who like to proceed with caution before jumping on tenuous bandwagons.

As reported by the Center for Global Food Issues Tuesday (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.

Rather than using theories or unproven temperature models to predict the future, Singer and Avery looked at past historical climate activity:

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

Svensmark and Calder studied the issue from a more chemical approach:

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Hmmm. Imagine that: actually looking at climate trends over a 1500-year period to reach conclusions rather than extrapolating theories based upon weather changes in the last century.

By contrast, the global warmingists are predicting the outcome of a football game after only witnessing four minutes.

Which do you think represents better scientific analysis?

Regardless of the answer, don't expect the morning shows to be paying much attention to these books or these authors, or to ask global warmingism prophet Dr. Al Gore to comment about their findings.

What a disgrace.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Be interesting to see how muc

Be interesting to see how much exposure these books get from our un-biased media. As for me, I know all this golbal warming hype is a crock. The best evidence to date against global wamring is the people who hype it. Just look at those folks, and tell me its anything but a joke.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Al Gore

Al Gore would like to make a statement:

"I demand that Fred Singer, Dennis Avery, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder be tried by the World Court for their crimes against humanity.  I would also like to cast the first stone after they are found guilty."

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

Ellis,Believe me, there is no

Ellis,

Believe me, there is no shortage of people on the left that would love to see something like that happen.  Failing outright prosecution, they would at least demand that the authors of this book be packed off to a re-education camp of some sort for wayward scientists. Just ask that Heidi Cullen woman over at my former source for weather information.

No, the GW Nazis aren’t going to like this even in the slightest. I am guessing it will receive the same treatment as that taxpayer funded (AAAARRRGGGHHHH!) boondoggle of an acid rain study that came out a few years back and was buried pretty much overnight, as the results of said study ran counter to the “conventional wisdom" of the time.

Ellis - Lets not forget to st

Ellis - Lets not forget to strip these denier scientists of all credentials for even thinking such outlandish ideas.  The nerve! 

He tried it before. With Sing

He tried it before. With Singer no less. Resulting in court action.

http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I was walking my dog this m

I was walking my dog this morning, and as ice was accumulating on my nether regions as I leaned over to pick up her poop, I thought that me freezing picking up poop kinda sorta poo-poos the global warming theory at least in my selfish little existence.

Amazing that most of the pre-eminent climatologists denounce all the chicken littles and their theories. Hey is it true the weather nazi Heidi over at the weather channel has all of her undergrad and masters in something related to history and nothing to do with science? Sort of like Algore knows nothing about anything.

I am praying for a month of summer like weather, and the other eleven months winter like with a blizzard every two weeks or so just enough for the previous accumulations to melt away each year for the next ten years worldwide, because misery loves company, just to see how George and Darth Cheney can be blamed for it.

Alaska is having record snowfalls, and isn't that by the North Pole and Santa? I was looking up some record temps for the last one hundred years, and in 1916 on the same day last week the record temp in one northeastern city I think NYC was 69 degrees. I will have to find the weather link and remember to post it.

Along with this and the previous years' hurricane season in which Georgie and Darth Cheney "conjured" up one of the worst natural disasters in 30 years just goes to show that weather is cyclical and can be backed up by science not politics.

I am not saying that we as a society do not pollute, we do, but if people want the US to cut down then we need more nuclear power and other sources to power our economy that is far superior to any other throughout the world (Go USA!); China & India need to curb their pollution levels because they both pollute more into the atmosphere than the US combined.

However this won't happen because somewhere along the line the US made them pollute right?


"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby

Well, gosh Noel, geological time? Or even the seconds of mankin

Well, gosh Noel, geological time?  Or even the seconds of mankind?

Maybe the dinosaurs took up too many years of life giving climate on mother earth?

Um...

Was it warm for the dinosaurs 400 - 600 million years?

It's so hard.

What I'm really reminded of is when I was in attendence at a radioactive waste planning group (I'll let the time and place be quiet) and rational, intelligent and educated people were discussing waste disposal.

"Well, we need to worry about a 25,000 year time frame."

"Um, ... where is Alexander the Great buried?"

"What does that have to do with it?"

"Well, if we can't keep track of Alexander the Great, maybe we're gonna have a few problems talking about 25,000 years."

"I don't think you are helping here."

"Well, absurdity is a waste of time, wouldn't you think?"

:-)

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.

Surely the work of physicists

Surely the work of physicists can’t be seen as more legitimate than the esteemed Mr Gores slide show.

I’m going to need to hear Ms Courics opinion before I can consider this.

I’m sure she is carefully reviewing their work even as I type.

Until then, any credentials they may possess should be recinded. <sarc/>

Yes but

you failed to mention that those authors are funded by evil big oil, big coal and once met dick cheney at an economic summit and spoke to him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  you obviously can't trust them.   there is some strong indication that they have had some contacts with halliburton.  in fact they were seen carrying a hallibutron briefcase at one time!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the nerve of these men, jeez

the nerve of these men, they're scientists, what do they know about anything? 

please, let's remember, the true authorities on global warming are those who appear on television or make movies about it.  HELLO ... are we forgetting?  al gore invented the internet, matt damon played private ryan in "saving private ryan" and laurie david drives a prius ... need we look anywhere else for the "real" answers?  ;)

"at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising his/her rights" - me 

&quot;By contrast, the global

"By contrast, the global warmingists are predicting the outcome of a football game after only witnessing four minutes"

Noel, to be more accurate you should have said that it is like predicting the outcome of a football game after only seeing the kicker's foot make contact with the ball on the opening kickoff.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry

Or predicting the teams facin

Or predicting the teams facing each other and the final score of the superbowl 10 years from now after watching one minute of the pre-game show of the 1st 2007 per-season game while trying to eat a plate of nachos while standing on your head facing Northeast and rubbing your belly with your free hand. It's just absurd.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)

King

King,

I thoroughly agree. However, the four minute analogy was the global warmingist 100-year analysis versus this book's 1500-year approach.

Certainly, in the grand scheme of things, both analyses are looking at a virtual pimple on the body of history.   ns

Footbal kickoff and global warming

I think it's more like demanding that the upcoming kickoff in the game next year be avioded at all costs except one, because it represents a nearly unstoppable tragedy that will destroy us all. The trillion dollar taxpayer plan, therefore, must be to rebuild all football stadiums nationwide to the new organic and cooperative labor living wage standards so that the sound of the foot contacting the football doesn't shatter the stadium and create a worldwide destroying soundwave that covers the globe in ever louder reverberrations and exterminates mankind. Urban sound pollution will be the guiding blueprint, and the Bush administration will be publicly denounced and admonished because GWchimp has been covering up, and never thought about this problem and didn't implement when he had the chance to save the world in his Texas ripoff baseball team total profit taking adventure.

&quot;By contrast, the global

"By contrast, the global warmingists are predicting the outcome of a football game after only witnessing four minutes"

Noel, to be more accurate you should have said that it is like predicting the outcome of a football game after only seeing the kicker's foot make contact with the ball on the opening kickoff.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry

Sorry for the double post - c

Sorry for the double post - confounded interweb thingy!

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry

Hey Noel, keep this stuff com

Hey Noel, keep this stuff coming.  The teacher in Seattle who couldn't find balance to Al Gore's teachings is coming around.  Back when that story posted I sent her the link to Inhofe's Skeptics Guide to GW and added a few kind words saying I wanted to help.  She replied, thanked me and said the article was slanted took her comments to extremes. 

I sent her these 2 titles just now and suggested using them for class discussion.  I'll let you know if/how she responds.  She seems to be appreciating the disenting views.

&quot;...the article was slan

"...the article was slanted..."

Good point. We should remember to keep in mind, that whenever we refer to MSM reports, they could be out of context... in fact, we should assume it.

&quot;...the article was slan

double post

&quot;...the article was slan

triple post...

something funky's going on...

You can say that again! 

You can say that again! 

The National Weather service

The National Weather service forcast a freeze warning for a large part of Florida last night. Here in my neck of the woods it was supposed to go down to 21 and the freeze was to last about 8 hours, Temp. this morning in my yard was........wait for it........31.

The weather guru's predicted a major hurricane season last year,,,,whoops, wrong again.

And yet they can predict the weather 10-20 years down the road? Methinks they need a new computer model.

Rather than using theories or

Rather than using theories or unproven temperature models to predict the future,

That's one of the things that really bothers me. Those models are extremely powerful tools for research -learning more about how climate change works and what the variables are. But those models are still being refined and developed. They are not at the point where they can be used reliably for making future predictions. Every bit of data going into the model has its own level of reliability/variability that plays on the reliability/variability of the "result". Then there are all of the assumptions and simplifications required in order to make the model manageable.

I remember seeing the data from one research paper showing a 3 degree C increase in temperature per decade, but an equally valid set of assumptions/data reulted in a 2 degree/decade decrease in temperature. Which one is right? If the scientists can't distinquish between those possibilities, why are we making policy decisions based on these predictions? Lets just save the cost of doing science (which takes years) and call the psychic hot line for advice on setting national/world policy.

Noel, Such indignation!

Noel,

Such indignation!

"New Books Scientifically Disprove Man-Made Global Warming Theories"

Really? How does the presence of an alternate theory disprove another theory? What are your scientific credentials that you can conclude the theory of CO2 global warming--one supported by every scientific organization that studies the climate--has been disproven? And how can both of these books scientifically disprove global wamring--they can't both be right!

"Part of this hysteria includes fallacious assertions by all involved that there is a scientific consensus regarding these dire predictions."

There is a scientific consensus on the role of humans in causing global warming. Without specifying "dire consequences" I don't know what to think of this statement.

"By contrast, the global warmingists are predicting the outcome of a football game after only witnessing four minutes.

Which do you think represents better scientific analysis?"

What makes you think climate scientists don't study past climate?

Neither theory disproves the well known and proven greenhouse effect of CO2. Neither theory explains the wamring of the last 50 years because solar TSI trends have been flat and there is no trend either in GCRs or global cloud cover.

In short, NB eds and readers grasp onto a new unproven and suspect theory to fit their ideological agenda, while ignoring the reams of studies that support AGW.

"What a disgrace."

Here we go again.

Put the Kool Aid down for a minute, and read this. True, the article asks you to use some logic and common sense, but I bet you're not too far gone to do it.

"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I'd be more convinced if you'

I'd be more convinced if you'd found an article that didn't include a banner ad for Ann Coulter.

Right, because the author i

Right, because the author is responsible for the ads selected by the website that publishes his writing, and that ad with President Bush in a cartoon cowboy hat at the Kos site is completely different.

"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

It used to be the consensus

It used to be the consensus that the earth was flat, there were only 6 planets, etc, etc. That doesn't mean it was the truth. How is it that libtards can use this phrase to "prove" anything they want?

I'm still waiting to see this itemized list of every climatoligist on earth, their credidentials, and their results from each's double blind scientific study.

You can't look at 100 years or recorded history and say global warming is real. How arrogant. You're just trying to obtain grant money, and Alsnore is trying to sell books and dvds.

The only reason this myth is continual, is because of the left wing communist media and deceitful "research: sites like Wikipedia (which is run by Socialists) .

RightWired.

"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

It was also the scientific co

It was also the scientific consensus that the earth was the center of the solar system, that neither heat nor light could be created in a vacuum, that bloodletting was a cure for what ailed you, that there was no such thing as germs, so how could they make you sick.  There has been so much that was the "scientific consensus" that was 100% wrong that it isn't funny.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

So, Wobbler, you finally admi

So, Wobbler, you finally admit that AGW is just another theory, and that there ARE competitive theories with scientific backing.

Dire predictions?  Such as 20 foot increases in sea levels and mass extinctions?  You don't know what to make of these?  I suggest you watch Al Gore's propaganda movie.  That is what you do with dire predictions.  You wrap them in a disguise of scientific mumbo-jumbo and use them to scare the H*** out of a bunch of suckers so they will surrender a large part of their liberty to you that you might save them from these dire predictions! 

Proven greenhouse effects?  You don't even know how a greenhouse works, dumbstuff.  Hint:  CO2 dioes not a greenhouse make.

You comments about solar radiance are just as ignorant and are in direct contradiction to measurements made by the Max Planck Institute and others.  They are also in conflict with common counting of sunspots which can be done by most anybody with $25 worth of apparatus and reasonably clear skies.

In short, you remain, ill-informed, close-minded, and even downright dishonest.

"you finally admit that AGW i

"you finally admit that AGW is just another theory"

It's the only theory that explains 20th century warming. These alternate theories are not pubished in journals and have no standing in the scientific community.

"Hint: CO2 dioes not a greenhouse make."

Are you saying that CO2 does not contribute to the greenhouse effect on earth? Wow.

AGW DOES NOT explain 20th cen

AGW DOES NOT explain 20th century warming because it gets the interval from 1920-1970 WRONG.  This is one of the most powerful criticisms leveled against this theory:  It cannot account for the warming of the 20's and 30's and the slight cooling that occurred afterwards.  The present warming trend as measured by temperature did not begin until 1967 and has now ended in 2006.  During this entire interval, 1900-2006, measured CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have monotonically increased.  The CO2 based theory of AGW argues that it should not have cooled in the 1940's and 50's.  the contradiction disproves the theory.

Nice duck.  It is clear you have no clue as to how a greenhouse actually works and why referring to CO2 as a 'greenhouse effect' is totally misleading, nothing more than a public relations ploy to sell this garbage to an ususpecting public.

Go study heat transfer and then come back and explain to me how CO2 in the atmosphere works like a greenhouse.  You will get blown out of the water.

"The present warming trend as

"The present warming trend as measured by temperature did not begin until 1967 and has now ended in 2006."

? it ended?

"The CO2 based theory of AGW argues that it should not have cooled in the 1940's and 50's."

All things being equal, it should have warmed, but there was a buld-up of aerosol pollution. Once particulate pollution was regulated in the 70s, the CO2 wamring signal has taken over.

"It is clear you have no clue as to how a greenhouse actually works and why referring to CO2 as a 'greenhouse effect' is totally misleading, nothing more than a public relations ploy to sell this garbage to an ususpecting public."

? The greenhouse metaphor has been around for over a hundred years, so your public relations comment is quite absurd. But, yeah, I could see "greenhouse effect" as a sacre tactic, because greenhouses are so scary.

"Go study heat transfer and then come back and explain to me how CO2 in the atmosphere works like a greenhouse. You will get blown out of the water."

For God's sake, it is a metaphor, and a bad one, but it is the common terminology.

Green house metaphor

Could you give me a cite to the first use of the "greenhouse" metaphor used 100 years ago?

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

You still have no clue how a

You still have no clue how a green house works.

You are equally clueless about how the climatological system of this planet works, but this is no shame because nobody else actually knows how it works either.

Global warming, for whatever reasons, has plateaued for the moment.  See here.  The first chart, global temperature readings.  Notice the recent inflection point. 

Thanks throatwobbler, for proving my point in Spades.

Thanks throatwobbler, for proving my point in Spades.

"All things being equal, it should have warmed, but there was a buld-up of aerosol pollution. Once particulate pollution was regulated in the 70s, the CO2 wamring signal has taken over."

That darn unpredictible human behavior again.  Shucks.

Those hominoids ran around mindlessly creating aerosol pollution, which did what?  Reversed the so-called Global Warming Trend?  So, by your argument, the panic over aerosols was stupid.

Once again stupid Democrat and Liberal interference with the marketplace has threatened the entire world with unintended consquences.  Darn those do-gooders.

See, what I am trying to pound into your skull is that your precious systems and precious models are silly.

Get it?

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.

Math for the guilty - moderate if you dare!

guiltwobbler - Good thing I caught up with you.  I am right outside a major city that made its fortune off of oil, and the transport thereof.  I am enjoying some dark chocolate M&Ms - full of antioxidants, so they are the healthiest ones to eat, all told, of you can believe the dietiticians - and now I am left with two red ones and two green ones.

Putting aside the colors, if I put both of these pairs together, will they equal four?

Or, should I go around the room to see what the consensus says is there?  (Surely if I were taking a break from working in miniluv on Airstrip One, eating some Victory Dark Chocolate Pieces, doubtless the citizens there would come to the conclusion that 2+2=5, as long as Big Brother says so...)

Oh well, off to work on making my "carbon footprint: even BIGGER!  Damn I love capitalism!!!

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

No, Unsane, 2 + 2 = 5 for lar

No, Unsane, 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2. ;-)  If you don't have large values of 2, then that sum is 4.  Big brother doesn't enter into it. :-p

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

So you're comparing rigorousl

So you're comparing rigorously researched, peer reviewed, refereed academic science to Big Brother?  And why, exactly?  Because the counter-evidence against global warming appeals to you more?  Not every published article is on par with the Sokal Affair.  And contrary to the dirge of hysteria from social conservatives, not every academic is just dying to disseminate leftist perspectives.

  Your reference to a major city that made its fortune from oil (San Antonio?) demonstrates just how ideological this contentious debate is on both sides.  It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your major quarrel with those who believe GW exists does not pertain to the data or the ecological/climatological complexity (I love when people say "How can there be global warming?  It was like -10 degrees yesterday!" as if that means anything), but to the fact that if global warming does exist, the ramifications are a threat to unbridled Free Market growth.  And that would be a problem, no doubt about it.  But it doesn't make it non-existent.

Last week Sean Hannity, that financial/energy/environmental expert, laid out his "simple" plan for oil independence.  He concluded that he's all for alternative fuel sources "As long as it doesn't restrict the American lifestyle in any way." 

That's a problematic attitude.

Giving it up for GW

What have you given up for GW and what more are you willing to give up? What are you unwilling to give up?

Peer reviewed does not mean they are accurate or that it is good science. It only means that they got someone to read the article. There are lots of things in science that come to us without peer review. BTW, there are peer reviewed articles condemning or questioning GW if you really want to read them.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Sorry peer review does not me

Sorry peer review does not mean something is right.

There has been warming before. Without your theory.

Sorry. You have decided you are correct. Please live up to your conviction. Stop driving. Turn off your power. Turn off your computer. 

However when you decide that you can tell me how to live. You know where you can go. 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Once again, an NBer demonst

Once again, an NBer demonstrates his critical reading skills. I never said peer review makes it right, but it does give it a status of credibility. Unsane is implying that such articles are the equivalent of Big Brother. That's moronic in my opinion. They may not be iron-clad infallible, but they're not conspiratorial junk science either.

It's not my theory. I'm not even saying its right. I'm pointing out the way in which the GW debate, in popular discourse at least, has nothing to do with science (except for convenient little "facts" that both sides have memorized, like 'Mars is getting warm to, so there!') and everything to do with the ideology of what GW would mean for us culturally and eonomically.

I like your typical reply though;

"However when you decide that you can tell me how to live. You know where you can go. "

Yeah, because it's all about you. "Live free or Die! From my cold dead hands!" And so on. It's called delusions of persecution. Go eat a Big Mac, shoot a whale, drive a Hummer. See if I give a sh*t.

The arrogance of the NB is as

The arrogance of the NB is astounding. To think that the introduction of unnatural agents into a natural environment will have no effect on said environment is ludicrous.

Global warming aside, You merely have to look at environmental changes since the industrial revolution to see that man has negatively affected his environment.  Air pollution, water pollution....these are not theories, these are facts.  To see this environmental destruction and to then not believe that global warming could be a serious possibility and situation that we research and support demonstrates a supreme level of arrogance and self-interest.  They know this. The only reason they fight it is b/c they associate it with a liberal cause. They hate liberals, not global warming.

yeah that smog over L.A. is a natural trend.  It happens every 500 years or so I've heard...please.

I love the argument that if it hasn't been fully proven yet, it isn't true.  I.E. evolution (i mean, they've had 100 years to figure it out haven't they?  Jeez, hurry up already)...science is a process that takes time.  If we had always waited for all theories to be fully proven, we would have never accomplished anything, i.e. no A-bomb, no moon landing, no nuclear power, no pharamacology, etc etc etc...the list goes on and on.

P.S.  I love how they try to prove that the global warming theory is wrong b/c in the past other theories, like the flat earth have been wrong.  Talk about rational thinking.  But then again, the NB is the place to be if you want to attempt the futiel and rationalize the irrational.

Glad you LOVE all the argueme

Glad you LOVE all the arguements. You seem kinda arrogant yourself. Do you even acknowledge that maybe mankinds fault in this is small compared to the natural causes? Or are you one of those that knows its our fault? Little FACTS like other planets getting warmer is a problem for the man made GW crowd. So you just dismiss it. Why not actually reply to it? Are you afraid your not as smart as you think you are? Wow us with you intellect!

I don't know if global warmin

I don't know if global warming is real or not.  I've never argued one way or the other. 

However, I do believe that global warming is a real possibility.  Thus, I support any research into global warming, and in fact, encourage it since I still (hopefully :)  ) have many years upon this earth.  If it is real, I want to be prepared.  This is truly a case of better safe than sorry.

I'm sorry that you have put words in my mouth.  I merely asserted that mankind has affected the environment in highly visible ways, i.e. air, water, and ground pollution.  Based on these INDISPUTABLE FACTS, I am willing to support the possibility that man has indeed caused global warming.  Again, is the smog over L.A. natural?  Did rivers 30 years ago get pumped full of biocyte and other factory runoff naturally?  was all that just part of a larger natural cycle?

See I am not the arrogant one.  I agree that there is a chance natural causes are more responsible than man for global warming, but you on the other hand are unwilling to even entertain the possibility that global warming is real.  That is arrogance.  And hubris.

You are worng again. I NEVER

You are worng again. I NEVER said GW wasn't real. I just have doubts that we caused it all. Certainly the earth is in a warmer period. As it has been before.

I apologize for my assumption

I apologize for my assumption Florida. I did to you what I accused you of doing to me and I was wrong. It's good to see a conservative with a rational viewpoint on GW. So would I be right to assume that you support GW research, you're just witholding your final analysis until more of the facts are in?

B/c if so I think that's a great stance.  The only time I get angry about GW is when conservatives vehemently argue it isn't real and that we should do nothing about it.  I'm only 30, so I care about the possibility of it being real.  I would hate to do nothing about GW and then 30 years from now realize we were wrong and have to watch my children and all future generations suffer because of my generations ignorance.  I am not sure if GW is the resulf of man's activity, but I think it makes sense that we could be a major conributor.  As a result, I support any and all research to into this issue.  If we are a major cause, then we can do something about it.  Which would be nice.

But again sorry for putting words in your mouth.

Of course GW is real. I know

Of course GW is real. I know few conservative that would question that. If the planet is warmer this year than last it has warmed up. But it was warmer in 1936 than in 2006. I know many, myself included, that think the problem lies in the natural environment. I do support GW research. It will take some pretty strong, verifiable results that its is all our fault to convince me. There is much money to be made and power to be had from it being mans fault. If it is a natural coourance, research money dries up, Al Gore isn't so important.

Of course GW is real. I know

..

Syg,You know, I think its tim

Syg,

You know, I think its time you guys found another scam to try and destroy real freedom and the free enterprise system.  I just don't think this GW stuff is going to work for you guys.

For the guilt-ridden Syg

Syg - so RIDDLED with guilt!  How do you sleep at night with all that guilt?

I am the same age you are (roughly), and shrug my shoulders.  Why?  Because WE DON'T KNOW.  Besides, if this is some indisputable fact:

1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?

2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?

3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes this year?

4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?

5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.

6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?

7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?

8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.

9) Do you advocate we use cleaner sources of energy, such as nukes?  It works for France, and they don't even have a permanent disposal site for its nuclear waste!  Did I mention they get 78.5% of their energy from nukes? 

10) Twenty years ago, I first started hearing about this theory.  The effects of this were supposed to be getting felt...now.  Care to explain why I was still chipping away ice on my truck two weeks ago, SOUTH  of 30 degrees North latitude? 

I will be demanding a lot more evidence before I buy this theory one way or another.  So don't expect me to look to sacrificing the world's most advanced and powerful economy because of 1) a hunch and 2) your guilt (and that of others).

By the way: why is the Left screaming and crying for the locus of all the world's evil (to them, it would be the United States) to take the lead on this issue, when China will be the world's #1 emitter of greenhouse gases in 2015?  Can you HEAR the SILENCE from the Left whenever that inconvenient fact comes up?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Sure there are local man indu

Sure there are local man induced problems. No arguements from me. However the history books, archaeologic records and geologic records point to numerous periods of climate change. They seem to follow patterns. (Some notable exceptions.) There's far more evidence that supports the know natural causes a solar, oscillations than CO2.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Syg

Syg,the people here have decades of experience seeing the liberal enviro agendas exposed as the frauds that they are. They have done the research that you have not, and instead of blindly believing "in the possibility that this massive left wing enviro agenda" is "a possibility" after all the frauds they've seen exposed, they have gone about looking for evidence of liberal lies, and have found that evidence in MASSIVE abundance concerning GW.

 That's called "being open minded, becoming curious and involved, and progressing along a learning curve" and making a conclusion like normal ADULT human beings.

 I see that of course, you being the leftist doubter and lemminged idiot, have decided that you cannot asses truth or lies, have decided to ignore all exposure already that has occurred in your lifetime of the fraudulent movement of hyperactive environmentalism, and have gone with the wind of stupidity, and blind ignorance as the answer, which you have self servingly characterized as "an open mind" based on your idea of smog over LA.

 The problem is there are only so many times liars can be caught and exposed, and run off and run away, before their oppostion doesn't give them any credit for trying to be honest.

 Just use the search engine here and type about the topic,and you'll see hundreds of lies the GW crew of world extinction have perped up, that have been exposed, on these very pages, links included.

 What do you think about the banning of DDT, after America defended her population with it, and now along with left and the Euro weenies, have declared it forbidden on the African continent as 300 million poor starving blacks get infected with malaria, and tens of thousands die, when DDT could virtually eliminate the problem, like it has for us here ?

 Do you have any sense of the lives that have been destroyed in the name of "eagles eggs", by the insane leftists who could care less how many tens of thousands they assist in murdering based on their "feelings" for the "environment" ? It's OK, as long as the selfish whining FOOL called the liberal idiot, has their buttinksi protected from the mosquito or tsetse fly,even when they travel to Africa for a lovein with "nature" - as the thousands of uneccessary deaths that surround them there are "conveniently forgotten" as they shriek aloud their hatred for all things conservative, or Bush's 15 billion dollar save them from aids "corporate profit plan". If you were a poor infected black in Africa, you'd probably slice some fool like you in three pieces.

 I frankly wonder how you total jackasses sleep at night. Stupidity and excuses for your own insane movements must be awe inspiring to have swirling about the noggin. It must all be "rumor" to you, all a fake story the evil right wing has dreamed up so they can make millions producing chemicals... but the very moment you travel to the forbidden DDT land, you make sure you have every bit of bug spray jammed into your metrosexual bag and the shots to save your own butt, and every chance you've denied a whole continent moments before, because you said evil bushcorp wants a profit destroying the world.

 You people are so utterly filled with absolutely opposing notions and positions, that I cannot stand you anymore. It's like dealing with a child who knows nothing, but pretends to be a teenager with all the answers, yet are absolutely incapable of explaining or responding to anything. It's all smart aleck rhetoric and easily disproven foolish notions.

 Abortion is 4000 dead American babies per day, everyday, all year long, and you INSANE democrats say Bush is a murderer.

 I cannot stand you. You are lies incarnate to me. When will you people start acting like human beings again ?

SP - DDT is back. They are go

SP - DDT is back. They are going to use it in Africa again. I didn't the enviros in the press saying SORRY to all the dead africans. Did you?

Well, kinda a little bit florida_chad

Well, kinda a little bit florida_chad, but just inside, and not the massive populations of mosquitos outside that infect hundreds of millions. It appears the EU may ban exports from any nation there that uses it,even "just on some inside quarters".

LOL - It's amazing. If I was African I know exactly what I would be thinking. Here we have the do as I say not as I do stuff to an exact tee, and the result is 300 million infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, and it's "all ok", ( the same people who whine "Darfur genocide" and tear their clothes in I feel your pain antics, and the solution is "very restrictive spraying inside only on a monitored and controlled basis, of course with euroweenie export death threat and whom knows what other "consequences".

 So, it's not really back at all, unless everyone stays inside in Africa, where mud covered walls with no glass "windows" are common. It makes for good left wing propaganda though, so they can appease their racist murderous rampaging and make it appear they have come around. It's all for the Africans good. They've learned from their mistakes, when they all but eradicated the entire problem for themselves.

 It's just absolutely amazing. It actually passes as "valid" in the liberal mind. I'm stunned, and wonder if it's deep seated hatred like anti-semitism. Whatever it is,it's insane, no doubt about that. Just check the liberal bigshots bags for every form of "Off" known to man.

Sorry I was a bit low on the deaths:      > IDIOT article

[ Today, two dozen countries--including Mozambique and nine other African nations--permit the use of small amounts of DDT for controlling specific insect-borne diseases, including malaria. Malaria kills one million people, including 800,000 African children, every year.]

Here's the "plan" [ Dr. Arata Kochi, leader of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) global malaria program, strongly advocates using DDT to fight malaria, claiming that it poses little or no health risk when sprayed in small amounts on the inner walls of people’s homes. ]

I have to laugh, because it would be like the mosquito sprayers that traverse the cities of the USA would be outlawed, and only "spraying inside walls of homes would be allowed".

I guess the Americans aren't that lucky, since the first outcry would be that the mosquitos are outside, not inside. But for Africans, and for protecting the favorite fantasy land multiculturalism of the "naturist liberal" who goes on "observation only safaris", this is very, very important, since the Syg's of the west have banned everyone else from having the solution they chose that *destroyed the USA(sarc)*.

Yeah, it's wonderful, unless you are one of 300 million Africans every year, or the 800,000 children. LOL Then it's JUST ONE SICK SON OF A *****'IN IDEA.

300 MILLION, THE ENTIRE POP.OF THE USA.

roflmao - the liberals really, really care deeply.

Inside only. I know. But it i

Inside only. I know. But it is a start. It provides good debating points against the enviros. Hopefully the program will be expanded to outside.

I spent a bit of time this mo

I spent a bit of time this morning trying to track down the number of confirmed deaths by DDT induced cancer. With no luck. As people who worked with it didn't have a higher incident. I suspect the number is very low.

I for one wouldn't be supprised if known deaths due to oxygen toxity were greater.

In comparison to those dying of malaria?

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

SP - please point out the lie

SP - please point out the lies I have told (and I  mean ME, SYG, not every other liberal wacko you can google on the internet).  All I've said is that manmade global warming is a real possibility that should be looked into vigorously.

I'm not even sure which of my posts you are responding to. 

As for DDT, that wasn't stopped by 'liberal enviros' activism.  It was stopped b/c it was causing cancer and severe birth defects consistently.  What are you talking about?

What the hell does protecting eagles eggs or tstete flys have to do with anything?  Those are extreme leftist environmental wackos.  I'm sorry but they are entitled to their opinion and I disagree with them as much as you do.  I like how you compartmentalize the left to include everyone on the left.  I guess I should just assume that you support everything those on the extreme right do.  Are you serious? 

What does your post have to do with GW?  The 100s upon 100s of well respected and well-published scientists are the ones putting the GW evidence forward, backed by empirical data.  The wackos have nothing to do with this scientific research.  I mean, of course they support it, they are insane for the environment. 

Here's an important question for you...what exactly do people on the left have to gain from this "GW AGENDA"?  Let's say GW is not man-made at all, but the "liberals" successfully push that propaganda upon America.  What exactly are they gaining?  Is it possible that those that believe in GW being man-made are simply concerned for their world and would like to see future generations live in a world at least as good as their own?  What is the malicious goal of those that support GW?  What are these 1,000s of scientists that support GW aiming for?  Please i need to know what the malicious intent is that is driving this "LIBERAL AGENDA".

Do you have any evidence fo

Do you have any evidence for DDT causing even one human birth defect? (Go do some reading. For example, the first thing US troops did when freeing Jews from Nazi concentration camps -- people who were by-definition in a very weak condition -- was "delousing," consisting of a a hefty dose of 10% DDT-powder applied to the entire body! I grew up with these peoples' perfectly-normal kids & grandkids.)
JMR

SYG - you’re wrong. DDT was

SYG - you’re wrong. DDT was stopped because of the environmental movement. It was a BIG win for them. But the research was faulty. It is now being used again. I wonder how many Africans died as a result. Rachael Carson needs to apologize.

 

NOPE FLORIDA! You must be jok

NOPE FLORIDA! You must be joking. DDT was stopped b/c it persists in the food chain which causes significant risk for people that then eat the contaminated food (G-Damn Liberal Enviro-weenies..I want DDT in my food!!!!). If you call being concerned about human safety "the environmental movement", then I suppose you are correct. I call it Americans taking care of each other's health and safety when they realized it had been put in jeopardy. Please. This is a complete joke.

It was banned by the EPA b/c it showed signs of causing endocrine disruption especially during fetal development, most notably with regard to reproductive development.

As for you sarc, one example of a birth defect eh?  That's all you want.  Here's one, in studies of daughters born betwen 19 60 - 63 of mothers with high levels of DDT had more difficulty in becoming pregnant later in life.

Furthermore, in 2003, the CDC reported that there was a strong association between exposure to DDT and preterm birth.

Here's  a fun link Sarc!  Let's bring back DDT!  We'll show those psycho liberals!  haha.  You all must be joking. 

http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/0596.pdf

Syg - your wrong again. DDT i

Syg - your wrong again. DDT is being used TODAY. The older studies were faulty. Lets trade links. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html

WHO says DDT is OK

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

You still there Syg?? You do trust the WHO don't you??

I'm sure DDT isn't safe, bu

I'm sure DDT isn't safe, but I'm not in a tizzy about its effects on humans in a free marketplace, in part because of the FREE! DDT being given out at Miami International Airport at one time in the past. Remarkably, when it was given-out for free at taxpayer expense instead of being sold in the marketplace for money, people overused DDT rather than being frugal with it, and that (socialistic? I think so!) behavior caused by a distorted nonmarket structure had bad effects on the environment, thinning eagles' eggs and doing other nasty things which ultimately entirely-stopped use if it. You're able to point out in the link that DDT isn't safe, BTW, but you have yet to point out an actual individual human birth defect from DDT. Chances are good that's because you can't.
JMR

So do children born of mother

So do children born of mothers that were exposed to high levels of say, Ammonia-D (common ingredient of window cleaners) have birth defects too?

The reason I ask are two fold:

1. Pretty much anything in high doses will cause adverse effects in people or developing fetuses.

2. If there are a higher level of birth defects in babies whose mothers were exposed to Ammonia-D, then we should have a world-wide ban and completely outlaw it's manufacture and use even though it is an inexpensive and very effective window cleaner? Or should pregnant women avoid using window cleaners like most expecting women currently avoid alcohol?

Proper use of products is key to protecting ourselves. It is already illegal to use a product contrary to the directions and warnings on the package. So if someone misuses a product, go after the person responsible, don't put the pain on the entire world. Unintended consequences often result.

I did some calculations last semester and came up with a number somewhere between 150-600 million (the figures I had to work with came from several sources, hence the wide range) people have lost their lives due to malaria and other mosquito borne dieases world-wide (the overwhelming majority of them lived in third-world countries) since DDT was outlawed. The sad thing is that the environmentalists have no problem with that because they also believe the earth is way overpopulated. But believe me, if the earth was way overpopulated, the you, and I and everyone else on earth would be either starving or eating each other.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)