Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Ma

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
.
12 Sep 07 - 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.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

See entire article:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... 6495.shtml

[HURAKAN]

Matt, just admit it, you just don't want to believe that Global Warming is occurring.

Do you really believe that more than 6,000,000,000 of individuals devouring the resources of a planet, changing forests into cities, wetlands into cities, taking trillions of gallons of oil and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere, and many other things that we normally do, are not going to change planet Earth? That's asking way too much.

WE'RE CHANGING EARTH LIKE IT HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED BY ANY OTHER SPECIE IN ITS HISTORY.

[brunota2003]

Alright, let me ask you a question...beyond speculating that we are causing it, can you PROVE that it is entirely mankind's fault? Can you prove with facts, not speculation, that we are to blame? So I suppose someone was burning fossil fuels and things during those other warm-ups in nature's history too, right?

Am I saying that Global Warming doesnt exist, or are any of the scientists in the article? No. No one, that I know of, is running around screaming it does not exist...however, there are questions over whether it is entirely man-made or more natural than we care to think. I find it funny that most news agencies go with the "doom and gloom" side of global warming versus the more natural side. Guess it gets them more ratings...

[x-y-no]

Alright, let me ask you a question...beyond speculating that we are causing it, can you PROVE that it is entirely mankind's fault? Can you prove with facts, not speculation, that we are to blame? So I suppose someone was burning fossil fuels and things during those other warm-ups in nature's history too, right?

This is totally a straw-man argument. Absolutely nobody claims that there isn't some natural component to the observed warming. What is said is that the bulk of the warming in the last half century or a bit more is due to human activity (and some substantially smaller fraction of the warming in the half century before that) and that there will be even greater warming in the coming centuries as a result of human activity.

Furthermore, what is the standard of "proof" you are demanding here? The scientific consensus quite properly speaks of likelihoods ("likely" "very likely" "extremely likely") rather than absolute certainty. If you want absolute certainty, you aren't going to find it in this life. Not about anything at all (let alone such a complex issue as climate change).

Am I saying that Global Warming doesnt exist, or are any of the scientists in the article? No. No one, that I know of, is running around screaming it does not exist...however, there are questions over whether it is entirely man-made or more natural than we care to think.

I see plenty of people running around claiming it's all a fraud. But regardless, what standard of "proof" is required before we act? If you lived on the beach and the NHC told you there's a 90% probability that a category 5 hurricane would impact your home, would you sit there and say "can you prove to me with absolute certainty that it will?" or would you pack up and leave?