Originally Posted By Darkbeer Hudson Institute Press Release Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that 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. "We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted." "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C. The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line. Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun. Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The Hudson Institute is a right-leaning U.S. think tank, founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by the futurist Herman Kahn and other colleagues from the RAND Corporation. The Institute promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated values of a "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security.">>
Originally Posted By jonvn OK, well another exercise in stupidity then. At least now the stupidty has gone from "it isn't happening" to "it's natural." Meanwhile: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Fruitcake Subculture Conspiracy By Dorothy Sibole Somewhere in the recent past, society took a turn and a long-standing holiday tradition was transformed into a joke. So complete was this societal change that those daring to speak up for or defend fruitcake were virtually stoned by an angry mob. Fruitcake lovers were outcast, rejected and ridiculed by popular culture. So vitriolic was the anti-fruitcake feeling that those with differing views were forced to quietly seek out others who, like them, still appreciated the fruitcake. Soon, the outcasts began to find each other, and so, the fruitcake subculture was formed. It may surprise you how many people number themselves among the Fruitcake Underground. Just tell a fruitcake joke to a group of people and carefully watch the reactions. Oh yes, there will more than likely be one or more people in the group laughing nervously, trying to blend in without making a scene, wondering if anyone will ever come to the rescue of the defamed fruitcake. Other evidence is the amount of fruitcake out there in the world, and it is spreading. Right now, someone somewhere (maybe even someone you know) is enjoying a dense, moist piece of fruit-and-nut-laden, spirit-drenched cake behind closed doors, and probably feeling a little guilty about it. I can tell you, after extensive research, that the movement is about to come out of the basement. Fruitcake is about to become the next great thing in the world of special occasion food items. The movement has firm roots in many areas of food manufacturing and marketing, as well as suspected endorsements from many famous chefs and food critics. Thats right, fruitcake is on its way back in. Its almost conspiratorial the way everything is falling into place. Have you noticed the abundance of dried fruits available in your local markets these days? Not your nuclear green candied fruit substances, but real dried fruits. They are even putting them in the cereal to get you acclimated to them. And where did the dried cranberries come from? Its all part of the plan. The next step is to gain broad acceptance by changing the name. Lets face it. The term "fruitcake" has all kinds of negative associations. But what about Jack Daniels Bourbon Cake? Or Meyers Rum Cake? Yesterday, I saw the first of these commercially marketed fruitcakes in the holiday section of the gourmet grocery store in my town. What can you do to stop it? Its too late to try - its already gone too far. So just embrace it; give it a try. Who knows, you may actually like some of these cakes. The new cakes blend the best of the new world with the best of the old world. Gone are the crazy candied fruits, and in are the modern dry fruits. Dont hide this in your closet anymore. Dice it up into small squares and dip it into chocolate for some delicious treats. With the outstanding shelf life built in to a fruitcake, what do you have to lose? Basic Fruitcake 1/3 cup chopped dried cherries 2/3 cup dried cranberries 2/3 cup currants ½ cup plus 2 tablespoons light rum 2 cups all-purpose flour ½ teaspoon baking powder ¼ teaspoon salt ½ teaspoon ground cinnamon 8 tablespoons butter ¾ cup packed brown sugar 2 eggs 2 tablespoons milk ¼ cup un-sulfured molasses 2/3 cup chocolate chips or chopped pecans In a plastic container or zip-lock bag, soak the dried fruit in ¼ cup of the rum for at least a day, covered tightly and at room temperature. Then preheat the oven to 325 degrees F. Butter and line a 6-inch round pan or 4 x 8½ inch loaf pan with parchment paper. Whisk together the flour, baking powder, salt and cinnamon. Cream the butter and sugar until fluffy and add the eggs, one at a time. Add the flour in three batches, alternating with the milk and molasses. Stir in the fruit/rum mixture and chocolate and/or nuts. Pour into prepared pan and bake for 55 minutes to 1 hour. Let cake cool in the pan for 10 minutes, then sprinkle with 2 tablespoons of rum. Place a piece of parchment paper, large enough to wrap entire cake, on a flat surface. Moisten a piece of cheesecloth, large enough to wrap the cake, with 1-tablespoon rum. Place the cheesecloth on top of the parchment paper, and unmold the cake on top of it. Sprinkle the top and sides of the cake with the remaining rum. Wrap the cake, pressing the cheesecloth closely to the surface of the cake. Place the cake in an airtight tin (or plastic container, and let age for at least 4 weeks. If storing longer, douse with additional rum for every 4 weeks of storage.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Here's what I don't get - climate change deniers seem to see this as a left/right issue, or red/blue if you like. Except what's in it for them? The reason the GOP leadership wants to promote the viewpoint that global warming is either a myth or something unrelated to human activity is because doing so would impact corporations - i.e. cost them money. But for the rank and file republican, there's no benefit for toeing this party line. Same with environmental issues in general - corporations would rather not reduce their carbon emissions or take responsibility for their impact on the environment. Fine and good - I don't agree with it, but I understand their motivation - they don't want to spend the money. But that doesn't hold true with individual republicans - unless they place no priority on clean water and clean air. For them it's just placing party rhetoric and positions ahead of the interests of the human race and the planet we occupy - in effect they're shilling for corporate interests with no personal interests. And I don't get that.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 What proof can you offer that people who have doubts about the cause of global warming necessarily have ties to the republican party? I hold many views on topics that I have adopted after reading both sides of any given issue. That my ultimate stand on an issue may happen to agree with some views held by one party or another doesn't mean I took the stand because that party held those views.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But for the rank and file republican, there's no benefit for toeing this party line. << There is in that many subscribe to the old "If it's good for General Motors, it's good for America" line of reasoning. If one's focus is pure economics over most anything else, investments in large corporations though stocks and such, not to mention employment, then you'd want nothing to hinder the operation of large corporations. Hence, environmentalism is branded as a bunch of tree-hugging tripe. But interestingly, respect for the land used to be seen as more of a traditional family value. It only seems to be since around the time of the Reagan Revolution that environmentalism and conservation efforts have been painted as wacky. Remember James Watt? Yikes.
Originally Posted By DAR I'll just say this the Earth has been constantly changing since it was created. How we got to that point is the question.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But interestingly, respect for the land used to be seen as more of a traditional family value.<< Ooops, meant to expand on this a bit. Disney's True Life Adventures were ahead of their time in terms of expressing an appreciation for the natural world. Walt Disney could never be described as a liberal. Westerns featured characters that lived largely in harmony with the land (if not with native inhabitants) and this is celebrated in many books and movies. But somewhere along the way, someone took the conservative out of conservation. Pity. Many conservatives I know love camping and spending time in nature. Shame that they don't become more activist and make this a core GOP value.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It would be interesting to know if Darkbeer believes that man has no impact at all on the planet's climate. It would appear from his many links that he does not. He appears to go out of his way to share one side of talking points, but not make clear his own position on the issue. Come to think of it, he ought to run for president.
