Wednesday, November 22, 2006


Yes, the world is getting warmer, but the Earth does this roughly every 1,500 years, and we cannot stop it. The good news is humans and most other species tend to do better during the warm periods.

There is a wonderful new book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” by distinguished climate physicist Fred Singer and award-winning environmental economist Dennis Avery. The conclusion of their book in a nutshell is that, yes, the world is getting a bit warmer, but this is just the natural cycle. They provide overwhelming evidence this warming would occur with or without mankind increasing CO2 emissions or doing anything else. The good news is that if we realize we cannot stop global warming, and concentrate on constructively dealing with the problems it causes – which are all manageable at reasonable cost – and then enjoy the benefits, mankind will do just fine.

We have already had two cycles in recorded history; the Roman warming (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.) which was a very prosperous period, and the medieval warming (900 to 1300) during which farms were created in Greenland and Iceland. The modern warming period began about 1850, well before mankind was producing massive amounts of CO2. ... The Singer-Avery book is meticulously researched and footnoted (unlike many of the presentations from the scaremongers), and, as they note: “The 1,500-year cycle is not an unproven theory like the model-based predictions for the Greenhouse Theory. The 1,500 year climate cycle is real, based on a wide variety of physical evidence from around the globe.” (It comes from ice cores, sediment layers, isotopes, etc.) ... Despite the general warming trend since 1850, we have had cooler periods, notably from 1940 to 1978, when many leading scientists were warning us we were rapidly heading for a new ice age.
Avery and Singer go further by providing an in depth expose of the fallacious research that alledgedly supports man made global warming. In particular the authors make an incisive investigation into the so called hockey stick hypothesis of unprecedented recent warming hoax widely enunciated by the UN's climate change panel. This hoax was first exposed by two skilled and courageous Canadian researchers - McIntyre and McKitrick.

Pseudoscientists and others with a vested interest in controlling the global economy by use of the global warming hoax will not like this work. However informed readers concerned with human welfare and human progress will find this book invaluable. This book should be read by all Amercians and really by everone else in the world.

UPDATE (Via ACE): Even MORE proof: the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, not melting.


Joe Yangtree said...

Since I don't have a copy of the book to debunk, I'll have to rely on others to show how wrong Avery is. Of course, if Avery and Singer were actually interested in climate science, they might try researching and writing actual peer-reviewed papers instead of reality denying tomes for the masses, but they've obviously made their choices. No doubt there are plenty of non-scientists that will scoop this book up to reinforce their crumbling belief system, so I can't fault Singer's and Avery's economic acumen.

Sorry to burst the bubble on the Antarctic, but the ice sheet thickening is exactly what the models and the International Panel on Climate Change predict, at least for the continental ice sheet:
"Even if Antarctica were to warm in the future, its mass balance is expected to become more positive: The rise in temperature would be insufficient to initiate melt but would increase snowfall (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.4). Little change in Antarctic ice sheets is expected over the next 50 years, although longer-term behavior-including that of West Antarctic ice-remains uncertain, and some instability is possible.

The most recent, Wingham, et. al. study looked just at "radar altimetry to measure the elevation change of 72% of the grounded ice sheet during the period 1992–2003" What happens when we look at the entire ice sheet? I'll leave that as an exercise to the link follower.

One final point. If the temperature at the South Pole is well below freezing all year it's going to take some significant warming to get any melting there. The outlying sheets (and other glaciers around the world where the temperatures are closer to the freezing point) is where we would currently expect to see melting. Unsurprisingly, we do. This article only speaks to those that know little about the theory of global warming and the expected effects.

Reliapundit said...

the definition of an irrational belief is one which is UNFALSIFIABLE.

this is exactly what your BELIEF in man-made global warming is, jo-jo.

or if it is FALSIFIABLE, then tell me jo-jo, what might lead you to agree with the skeptics!?

historical datat doesn't seem to. nor does any analysis which dispels the effects of man-made atmospheric CO2.

and why won't you support the mass harvesting of older trees, and the mass replanting of young trees in the world's raion forests (which contain more old trees now than at any time in history)!? this is surely the most NATURAL way to increassing sequestration. and the harvest wood could be used for paper, homes, and furniture - thus keeping the CO2 sequestered.

I think your BELIEF in man-made gloabl warming is part of a leftist complex which is entirely irrational. leftiost believe in global warming and thery believe in socialiized healthcare. despite evidence that the first is not man-made and the latter is failing everywhere is has ever been implemented. leftists also believe that you can end poverty by central/cpommand economies and redistribution of wealth. another irrational idea disproven by REALITY.

happy thanksgiving. give thanks you live in a free market economy with ample industry and ample energy which allows us to live well and long and free.

McCoy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reliapundit said...

bwahaha mccoy!

jojo made no compelling arguments.

jojo's faith in man made global warming is immune from argument; it is unfalsifiable,

i have asjked jojo for a year to name a few thinbsg which he mioght comnsider to be dispositive of man made global warming; he has offered NONE.

all he does is say this hypostheses asserts this or that. which is BS.

there are no countless facst which dispute if not disprove the man made glabal nuts: like the fact that this year saw a huge DECREASE in hurricanes.

last yuear the nuts like jojo and gore were spouting their insane hsyteria about how man made gloabl warming was casuing increases i the size and frequency of hurricanes.

so now!?!?!?!?! no comment.

last year it was that the ice sheet is melting. now - when scientists preove it is not: NO COMMENT, or some more nonsense about how some computer model based on some hypothesis PREDICTED this. BS. this reminds me of the fake clairvoyant who made a fake tape AFTER reagan was shot which she said was made BEFORE reagan was shot. when she was caught she said: "I KNEW THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN!"

i think you manmadeglobalwarming nuts should STFU!

like how about the fact that manmade CO2 has STEADILY increased since 1850
but warming has not!?!? splain that nutty boys...

and just a wait a few yeasr wehn gloabl tems DECREASE. then splain that.

or just STFU.

buh byeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Joe Yangtree said...

the definition of an irrational belief is one which is UNFALSIFIABLE.
Let's concentrate on this statement for the moment. You say, "have asjked jojo for a year to name a few thinbsg which he mioght comnsider to be dispositive of man made global warming; he has offered NONE."
This is an unbelievably huge lie, easily shown by reviewing previous comments. I answered this here. Can you point to a single instance where you have asked this and I haven’t answered.

On the other hand, I have asked that question of you many times. You are the one who never answers. Please do me the favor of answering here. As I’ve demonstrated above, my beliefs are open to re-evaluation based on actual evidence. That, by your own admission, makes my belief rational and yours irrational. One more time, what is the evidence/proof you would accept that anthropogenic global warming is real? And why haven’t you ever answered this before?

Reliapundit said...

anthropogenic global warming is a HYPOSTHESIS.
therefore YOU must convince skeptics it is true, and not the other way around.

i have offered counteless examples of dispositive EVIDENCE: global warming has been common throughout geological history; man-made gases have steadily increased, but warming has not; extra-terrestrial bodies have global warming and no humans; the hockey-stick is suspect; older forests are sequestering less CO2; many parts of the Earth are not warming, but cooling; many examples of wark9ing are explained by local weather/de-forestation/pollution factors.

yet NONE of these have aletyered your unshakeable FAITH in man-made global warming one iota - they merely lead you to seel out and quote evermore cumbersome, arcane, complicated and convoluted hypotheses.

i repeat: there is NO PROOF global warming is man-mdae - only evermore convoluted hypotheses.

some of what i lested is DISPOSITIVE of any mad made global warming - lioke the FACT that the eath cooled from 1948-1970 while man made greenhouse gases expanded.

so jo jo: STFU. or offer proof, or offer us some idea of what might OPEN YOUR EYES.

i fear that if the dispositive FACTS haven't opened your eyesd then NOTHING WILL.

g'uck! buhb byee.

Reliapundit said...

BTW: jojo: whatever happened to all those KILLER HURRICANES al gore and you econutsies promised us!?!?!?!?!?!?

you knw, you freakin nuts have been swearin that MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING was ramping up the energy in the atmposphere and causing more frequent ands worse hurricanes.

well... it didn't freakin happen.

so STFU.

Joe Yangtree said...

A good case for your denying of reality can be made with the last few posts. I provided a link to a post on this very blog where I answered your question. I’ll reply again here. I would accept any of the following future occurrences as evidence against global warming (absent some obvious climate changing event like a major volcano eruption):

1) A single year where the global average temperature is less than the global average temperature from 1900-2000.
2) Any two of the major scientific organizations withdrawing their support for the theory of global warming.
3) An average solar cycle temperature (11 years) that is less than the previous average (measured peak-to-peak).

Those are three, quantifiable verifiable conditions. Like anyone interested in science, I re-evaluate my positions based on the evidence presented. You're the one that desperately wants to deny the conclusion that all major scientific organizations (that have expressed an opinion) have reached. I ask again, what are similar quantifiable, verifiable conditions that you would accept as proof that the theory is correct and that we are experiencing anthropogenic global warming? You’re the one that never answers this question no matter how many times I ask. It is unfathomable that now you want to pretend that I have dodged this question in the face of absolute evidence to the contrary.

Naturally, last time, I also asked for even one instance where you have asked me to provide my standard of evidence and I have failed to do so. I’m still waiting. You just lie and lie and lie and hope that no one calls you on it. I’m calling you on it. I’m sure that we’ll once again see how you completely fail to respond.

Oh, and nice try with the hurricanes. As I've said before, I never supported that theory in the short term. You're welcome to try and find where I "promised" that. Just another lie from you in the long and continuous string.

McCoy said...

I wonder how long it'll take before reliapundit deletes your reply, Joe. That's usually the stage between him screaming in ALL CAPS / cussing via acronym and him employing the oh-so-intellectual "BUBYYYEEEEE!" routine. I've lost count of the number of comments of mine that he's deleted, yet responded to. I doubt he sees the irony in asking "so now?!!?!?!?!? no comment" when he's made a habit of deleting others' comments.

Lying, deleting replies, bluster... all the typical actions of someone who cannot compete in the intellectual arena and knows it.

Joe Yangtree said...

Thanks mccoy, you could say that I've seen that in action a few times.

Reliapundit said...

jojo: you wrote:

" A single year where the global average temperature is less than the global average temperature from 1900-2000."

this is bizarre.

if the earth has a "global average temp" which is average - after 1950, then the earth CANNOT be warming due to man made gases, since man made gases steadily increase.

don't you see how idiotic your point is!?!?!?

and whaddabout all the killer hurricanes you eco-nutsies promised us!?!?!?


Reliapundit said...

posted 11/18 - NO COMMENST YET JOJO:

READ THIS. Excerpt:

Last year after 28 storms formed in the Atlantic and two of them wreaked devastation on the Gulf states, experts crowed that the increased activity proved the global warming theories that have been floated over the last two decades. ... Experts and partisans insisted that we had turned a dangerous corner, and that we would see a continuing increase in violent weather from the Atlantic, a price for having ignored their warnings about greenhouse-gas emissions.

I guess the sky ain't falling. Bwahahahahaha! GEE: I wonder what bogeyman the Left will next stand up in order to argue for higher taxes and more taxes and more regulations on free markets!?

# posted by reliapundit @ 10:15 AM 0 Comments; Links to this post

Reliapundit said...

BTW jojo:

why does a single year from 2007-forward have to be COOLER than the average year from 1900-2000!?!?

i'm saying that global warming ain;t man-made, or casued by man made greenhouse gases; i am not syaing that gooablkwarming is nor real; i'm saying it is natural - as the geologival record PROVES.

REPEAT: the FACT that the earth has warmed and cooled many MANY times before mankind exiosted and beofre manind made greenhouse gases IS NOT A FREAKIN DEAKIN HYPOTHESIS. it is a fact. REALITY baby.

man made global warming is a HYPOTHESIS, one not proven, and one which many contemporary fact disprove: like cooling from 1948-1970, for example.

buh byeee jojo. and mccoy.

Joe Yangtree said...

I've answered all these arguments many times. You simply repeat the disproven arguments without responding to their flaws.

Let's go back to your claim:the definition of an irrational belief is one which is UNFALSIFIABLE."
I gave my standards of proof above. WHAT ARE YOURS? Obviously, you have none, and therefore, your doubt in anthorpogenic global warming is irrational by your definition.

By the way, I called you out as a liar above for claimig that you had asked me "for a year to name a few thinbsg which he mioght comnsider to be dispositive of man made global warming; he has offered NONE" and for claiming that I "promised you killer hurricanes". Since you offer no proof of your false claims, I assume that you accept the charge that you are indeed a liar, with pants constantly on fire.

Joe Yangtree said...

The silence in defense of your repeated lying and your standards for accepting the theory of global warming is deafening, 'pundit. I greatly appreciate your complete acceptance that your own beliefs are irrational.