Cooling The Warming Hysteria
The Science vs. The Politics
Benny Peiser's Cambridge Conference Network that I mentioned in an earlier posting carries some new items that continue to show the story reported by scientists as very different from that being told by political activists and the media.
Research Groups Expose Widening Cracks in Global Warming Foundation US News Wire, July 12, 2004
"A new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) exposes serious problems with the historical climate trends reconstruction published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the primary evidence used by policy makers and activists who espouse the theory that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming."
Has The 'Hockey Stick' Been Broken? National Center for Policy Analysis, July 12, 2004
"Missing from [the IPCC] timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850). Most proxy records from around the globe show these climatic events . . ."
Ice Core Records from Norway Show No Warming Trend Since 1930 CO2 Science Magazine, 14 July 2004
". . . there was no net warming over the last seven decades of the 20th century in the parts of Norway cited in this study. This simple fact is particularly damaging to the position of the world's climate alarmists . . . Clearly, as more and more data continue to accumulate, the climate alarmists' position grows ever weaker."
Britain's Leading Conservationist Attacks Global Warming 'Myth' Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not."
The Norwegian study cited above stresses that the measured warming during the last century took place before the increase in carbon dioxide that supposedly causes it, not afterward. This is in keeping with what has been found for earlier warming-cooling cycles too. And there's a good reason why this should be so. The Earth possesses enormous reservoirs of carbon that would find ready release in the event of a general temperature rise coming about for other reasons. These include the frozen soil and permafrost of the polar regions; peat, the great Irish fossil-fuel contribution that occurs in a huge belt passing from Greenland and Labrador, across Canada, Alaska, Siberia, and Scandinavia to the British Isles, and such deposits as methyl hydrates in tundra and Arctic ocean sediments. Raising the ocean temperature just a few degrees would cause the latter source alone to release the equivalent of 8 times all the fossil fuels burned from 1850 to 1950. (Some good information on this is in Charles Ginenthal's "The Extinction of the Mammoth," The Velikovskian, Vol.3, Nos. 2/3, pp. 153-202) On the other hand, the case for CO2 as a major contributor to warming is difficult to reconcile with the fact that about 99 percent of the greenhouse effect (without which the planet would be uninhabitable) is caused naturally by water vapor, not any of the villainous gases at all.