Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited Get 10% cashback on thousands of musical instruments with your Store Credit Card Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Wonder Woman now available on Blu-ray, 3D, and 4K Shop Now PSFF17_gno

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 119 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 6, 2008, 3:22:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 6, 2008, 3:41:14 PM PST
In their book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," Dr. S. Fred Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and Dennis T. Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, report on and substantiate research which establishes unequivocally that the earth's climate exhibits a natural warming and cooling cycle with a period averaging about 1500 years; that we are now in the warming half of one of those cycles; and that human activity accounts for a very small amount of this warming compared to natural effects.

Their arguments are based on the original Greenland ice core analyses of Dansgaard, Oeschger and Lorius which won those scientists the Tyler Prize (the "environmental Nobel"); these claims are further supported by numerous studies, many of them published in refereed journals, which are referenced in the book.

The authors offer a devastating critique of the flawed methodologies of the IPCC, especially their computer modeling, and the unwarranted, unsupported, and often hysterical predictions regarding rising sea levels, the increasing incidence of extreme weather events, and the deleterious effects of rising temperatures and CO2 concentrations on humans and the rest of the biosphere.

In addition to dealing in a rational way with the science of climate change, they explain why the US Senate did the right thing in refusing to ratify the Kyoto treaty.

Singer and Avery are to be commended for this contribution to the dialogue on climate change.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2008, 1:33:02 PM PST
You are aware of what actual climate scientists who do actual climate studies say about Avery and Singer's book? The idea is magic pixie dust, oh it is just natural, no explanation as to why it happens, just magic. This is oppossed to thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries who do thousands of actual scientific studies by the actual scientific method who show why previous climate changed (the cause) and know show us why our climate is changing.
Singer's argument is this, because climate changed in the past it must be natural - huh, because my car wouldn't start two months ago because it had no gas the reason it won't start today is because it has no gas. This is a completly ridiculous argument. Actual science has long acknowledged there is natural climate change, they have shown us the culprits, the sun, the Milankovitch cycles, excessive volcanoes etc..., none of these reasons apply this time (it ain't that you ain't got no gas - the tank is full), we know CO2 causes warming, we know CO2 and warming are rising, we know man creates excessive CO2 (among other greenhouse gases) and we know it ain't any of the other reasons. Could it be magic pixie dust, of course it could be, but until the flat earthers come up with an actual cause that can be tested and studied, guess what the cause is. Gravity may not in fact exist, it could be magic pixie dust, all the science says gravity exists, and magic pixie dusts doesn't, but heck how can one ever really be sure.
Now we have thousands of actual climate scientists who do actual climate studies on one hand, and Mr. Singer on the other, why don't we look at Mr. Singer. 82 years old, electrical engineer (hmm is that related to climate research), never has done one study in this area, much like he never did one when he was saying cigs were good, in 2003 he said there was no warming - oops, he was wrong (maybe that is why actual scientists do actual studies) - his new kick is that it sunspots - oops all the actual studies say he is wrong (if it was the sun we would be cooling according to the actual climate scientists who do actual climate science by the actual scientific method). Mr Singer not to proud to take tobaco money to say smoking is good, not to proud to take exxon money to say climate change is magically natural
If you want to know what actual climate scientists say about avery and singer theories.

If you want to learn about global warming, read the IPCC report, thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries who did thousands of actual climate studies, read what every major National Academy of Science says, read what the AGU says, read what every research institute is saying, after you have spent a year doing that, pick up this book, and wonder why anyonbe would accept such propoganda.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2008, 2:39:55 PM PST
Please also see my comments on "The Real Inconvenient Truth" thread, and on my blog at

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2008, 5:54:09 PM PST
Wow what a thought out response. Mr. Wright, "do this do that", call him on his assertions and he fades away.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2008, 6:11:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2008, 6:12:57 PM PST
Joseph, being a slow study, you probably haven't noticed that if one wants to post to a thread after one's initial post, one has to post a reply to someone else's post. See?

And you're the only other party on this thread. See?

So, I'm not really posting a reply to you. I'm still ignoring you, see?

You really are as dumb as a post. But thanks for your well thought out response.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2008, 10:58:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 24, 2008, 10:04:18 AM PST
Mr Wright - wow you even lie over stupid things.
"So, I'm not really posting a reply to you. I'm still ignoring you, see?"
Uh no you aren't, you just replied to my pointing out your meaninglessness.
I again ask you to support any assertion you have ever made, just one, come on you can do it baseless rhetoric man, there must be something you have said that has some basis in reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2008, 4:44:40 PM PDT
I've read parts of the book, and I was surprised at how good it was. However, all it really proves is that we would be in a warm period right now under natural conditions. Unless they can link the climate change of the last few decades to some natural cause, they don't make a compelling case against AGW. "It happened naturally then, therefore it's happening naturally now," doesn't cut it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008, 1:36:39 PM PDT

Perhaps you should read some more.

Rick Wright

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008, 1:47:56 PM PDT
Mr Wright
Actually Gloria is right on the money - saying it is magic pixie dust is not science.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2008, 2:11:14 PM PDT
Gloria (and Joseph),

Neither does saying "it happened naturally then, but it's not happening naturally now," "cut it." Not without some sort of support for your statement.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2008, 3:46:49 AM PDT
IPCC 4 - thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries based on thousands of studies

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2008, 6:31:59 AM PDT
Where have I heard that before?


In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2008, 12:39:26 AM PDT
Yes I know facts and science are not your style Mr Wright. Baseless meaningless unsupported rhetoric is more your style.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2008, 4:30:55 PM PDT
A question for both sides. I am trying to learn about this subject. Thus far, I have read two books: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and Unstoppable Global Warming. It is obvious that Gore's book is not serious science; it is a coffee table book, with lots of pictures and no foot notes. Singer and Avery's book, on the other hand, is serious science. I am not saying that it is correct; I am just saying that it cites facts, which are footnoted to real scientific journals and so forth.

Here is my question. I would like to read both sides. What books on the Al Gore side present serious science, in a serious way? I am looking for some references here, and, yes, I will read them. But let them tell you something. If I hear any more crap about the "consensus" or get a response that is simply ridicule about how "ignorant" skeptics are, that will just prove to me that the skeptics are right. Science is not done with lots of pretty pictures ala Al Gore. It is also not done with heavy-handed, fact-free mockery. It is done with serious facts and serious argument. Somebody on the left has to have answered Singer and Avery in a serious way. Who?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 8:39:00 AM PDT
Mr Gibson
The IPCC 4 is the science. You can even get it free from their website
These are the people who for over a decade have been collecting what the studies are showing. These are studies done by the scientific method by scientists who work in the field.

You are right science is done with heavy handed fact free mockery - it is not done by authors of books looking to make a buck off the guilible. Real science is done by actual scientists who really don't have the time to right a book, they are much too busy doing scientific studies.
Singer and Avery's book is the magic pixie dust theory of science, because it happened for x or y reason in the past, that is why it is happening now, except they can't support that is why it is happening now. That is where the studies step in, and the IPCC does a very good job of collecting the thousands of studies supporting their conclusions.
BTW this isn't a left right issue - Newt Gingrich et all believe the science as put forth by the actual scientists, as oppossed to authors trying to make a buck.
Try and remember Avery is not a scientist - he is a PR guy - he is spinning what the science actually says - if you want the science go to the scientists themselves - not someone telling you what they say.
Singer - the only real study he did in this field he later had to admit he got it wrong - in fact it supported man made global warming much to his chagrin. He is activly paid by exxon (much as he was by Phillip Morris for his tobacco op eds) to do exactly what he is doing, create confusion in an area where there is little confusion according to the scientists who work in this field.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 10:07:40 AM PDT
Thank you for the link to IPCC. I will take a look at it, and I hope that it helps.

I have read Singer and Avery. They have a coherent, fact-based argument. They basically say the following. There are many natural cycles in the climate. The important one, for the current situation, is the 1,500 year cycle. They say that it has been observed for a very long time, and that it predictably causes warming and cooling. As examples of its past operation, they give the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. They say that this cycle is due to swing up, and it is swinging up. They say that the relatively modest warming we have seen thus far fits the past patterns. The cause of the pattern is changes in intensity of the sunlight, and the sunlight has been getting more intense recently.

Can you guys refute Avery and Singer? I do not know. I have not yet seen anyone try. Here is what I would like to know. It is pretty simple. First, how much warming has the Earth experienced in the last 150 years? I do not want isolated data points, like Al Gore gives us. I want information for the whole world. This is supposed to a global thing, so nothing less than global figures will really do. According to Avery and Singer, we have seen global upturns in temperature from 1840 to 1870 and then from 1920 to 1940. If that is not correct, or not the whole story, I would like to know. (That the warming does not coincide with massive CO2 pollution, of course, suggests strongly that this is not CO2 driven.)

Second, I would like to know, what direction was the climate moving before the Industrial Revolution? Obviously, the climate is always moving. The question, what was the natural pattern, before we started dumping lots of CO2 into the air? Are we outside of that pattern? Avery and Singer say "no." Al Gore does not address the question; he does not acknowledge that there is any natural variation.

I would like more facts. As I understand it now, the amount of global warming we have experienced is modest, and well within ordinary natural parameters.

And, please, do not use phrases like "pixie dust" or discuss the funding sources of studies. This does not add to the discussion. This should be a scientific discussion. It should be based upon facts. As an outsider I can tell you, I am now leaning toward the skeptical view, in large part because the skeptics present themselves as scientists -- and cite me to lots of facts -- whereas the Al Gore crowd present themselves very emotionally, try very hard to suppress dissent and never, ever, ever give facts.

One more thing. Telling me that "all the scientists agree" is profoundly unscientific. All of the scientists of his day agreed that Galileo was wrong. If you have facts, use them. Do not appeal to the authority of those who agree with you; appeal to facts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 11:35:36 AM PDT
Mr Gibson
The argument of Singer/Avery fails for a number of reasons
1. the medival warming period and the little ice age were regional phenomena according to the scientific studies in the are - read IPCC
You will notice all the cites to scientific studies, here is an additional one
2. the scientists have looked at the sun to see if it was the reason - according to the scientists if it was the sun we would be cooling right now.
Actual scientific study not a book published to make money.
3. The current warming is not normal we are the warmest in 12000 years and at current rate we will be the warmest in a million years in a mere 20 years.
You will also notice that the charts provided show what the warming was in the past including the time periods you are talking about.
4. The 1930's warming again was a regional phenomena it was North America generally, the US specifically not a global phenomena - the reason has been explained by science. Again all this can be found in the IPCC
Additional sources
5. Gore is not the one that gives you isolated data points - he is the one who gives you the global temp, it is Singer and Avery who give the the isolated data points (using regional phenomena to argue a global perspective)
6. Again u state that the scientists do not give facts - again I would refer u to the IPCC - it is the science - it is the facts.
7. Actually what scientists would you be referring to in regards to Galileo? There were people who were using the scientific method who were saying Galileo was wrong?
8. Saying there is a "pattern" is a magic pixie dust theory - warming and cooling has a cause - it doesn't just happen - science searches for the cause, it doesn't just say a "pattern" - that is why Singer and Avery are the magic pixie dust theory.

Again I would suggest reading the IPCC - read the actual scientific studies do not take the word of a PR person on what the studies say.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 11:54:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2008, 11:59:47 AM PDT
Thank you for the citations. I will read them.

It is quite possible that you are correct; I do not know. I can tell you, however, that you have a zealous tone, and a tendency to launch personal attacks on people, that undercuts your credibility. Science progresses by debate, between different points of view. If nothing else, Singer and Avery perform a service, by assembling a credible counter argument. If they are wrong, then the labor of proving them wrong advances science. Take a look at Darwin. He spends a great deal of his big book looking at alternative theories and considering them. Your whole tone is that of the Salem witch trial. You would have more credibility with educated people, if you took opponents more seriously and dealt with them more politely.

Again, Singer and Avery may be wrong, but they present a credible argument. Frankly, your responses to them makes me wonder if you have read them. They present a lengthy argument that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age were global, not regional. They present many data points, from around the world. Again, someone who knows all of the evidence might disagree with them -- scientists have been known to disagree! -- but you do not disprove them simply by asserting that their data is all regional. That assertion is factually wrong. As a matter of fact, they present global data.

And for this magic pixie dust thing of yours -- you do like that phrase, don't you -- it is also a product of not actually reading Singer and Avery. You say that they simply note a pattern but do not give a cause, and that is not science. First, science often notes patterns, before it can fully explain their cause. Observation precedes explanation. Second, Singer and Avery give an explanation of the pattern. They relate it to sun cycles. They say that the 1,500 year pattern is caused by the overlay of several cycles in the sun's activity. Again, they might be wrong, there might be contrary science, but when you mock them as not having an explanation you simply reveal yourself as someone who did not read their book, or did not read it very carefully.

Incidently, you seem to feel that the IPCC is the gold standard in science. OK, you are entitled to your opinion. I have to say, however, you seem to view the IPCC like a Catholic views the Pope, as speaking from a position of authority and as if everyone else was not legitimate. Not how science is done. If the IPCC is good, it is because it respects facts, not because it is the IPCC.

And this constant business of attacking the financial motives of others, (1) it is not relevant to the actual facts, and (2) you think that global warming has not been good for the finances of those who support Al Gore's theory? Gore himself has made massive amounts of money off of this. Those who agree with Al Gore have seen their careers advance greatly, and those who disagree have had their careers shattered. In other words, there is a great deal of money and power supporting your position. Does not mean that you are wrong, but stop acting like there is no money on your side.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 12:15:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2008, 12:20:42 PM PDT
Mr Gibson
1. I have never attacked anyone personally who has not attacked me first. Perhaps you are suffering under a misconception.
2. Singer and Avery perform no service - thier hypothesis's have been vetted long ago, science did the studies long before they wrote this book. They are merely here to create confusion. If they wanted to perform a service they would do what scientists do, put forth a hypothesis, perform expirements to confirm or deny that hypothesis, rerun those tests, reform the hypothesis based on the tests, put forth that to the scientific community to have it vetted etc... As oppossed to this they write a book. That is not science, that is propaganda (propaganda can be true or false)
3. Opponents? If u refer to singer/avery - science is there opponent not I - if u refer to Mr. Wright - again I have never attacked anyone who has not attacked me first.
4. Science says those periods were regional phenomena - numerous scientific studies say so - the fact that Singer/avery say otherwise is irrelevant until they are willing to have their hypothesis tested by the scientific method rather then write books.
5. The Sun? They are wrong according to the actual studies, again perhaps they would care to use the scientific method to show they r right?
6. I feel the IPCC is the gold standard? The IPCC is what the IPCC is, a collection of thousands of scientific studies laid out by scientists explaining what is happening. I think no more or no less of it then what it is. You are creating a strawman argument.
7. My side? - my side is to believe what the scientists say their scientific studies say - money, oh come on now - yep scientists are making a mint (read as barely a living wage) all that money they are making after years of higher education, freezing their butts off on some glacier, going back to a lab, running test after test after test, putting for their hypothesis to be tested by the scientific method etc... Yep they r making a mint.

This really is simple, I have provided scientific studies, as does the IPCC, ask a denier to provide a scientific study that says what the IPCC concludes is wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 12:37:58 PM PDT
1. You attack Singer and Avery in personal terms. You call them hacks and PR people.

2. Fact-based debate is always good for science. Singer and Avery bring sharply into focus a number of issues. For example, the question of whether the Medieval Warming Period was regional or global is an important one. They assemble a good deal of evidence suggesting that it was global. I suggest that you take a look at that particular issue. You seem to feel that there is no debate on it; you are incorrect.

3. To say that science is someone's oppponent is just rhetoric. You are saying that your side is "science" and that anyone who questions is against science. Don't you hear yourself? You are using the tone of established authority, of the Church throwing out heretics. Science does not use that tone. Science welcome questions and uses the tone of reason.

4. "Science" is not a single person. It does not speak with one voice. Forgive me, but you are debating without informing yourself first. Look at Singer and Avery's chapter on this point. They support their argument with a number of citations to the scientific literature. The fact that their summary argument is presented in book form in no way undercuts its validty; Darwin published in book form.

5. At this point in the discussion, it is clear to me that you have not actually read Singer and Avery. You keep saying that their work is contradicted by all of the "actual" studies. Read their book. Look at their footnotes. They support all of their statements with citations to the scientific literature. When you just wave your hand and dismiss them -- without reading them!! -- you show that you are not committed to science; you are committed to your opinion. A scientist is not entitled to disagree with something without reading it and considering the evidence it supplies.

6. Good. We agree. The IPCC is not the Vatican. Appeals to authority have no place in science. Science should be based upon facts and reason.

7. Sorry, but you are not being honest here. First, there is a lively scientific debate on these issues. You are advocating one side in that debate. For you to say that your side is just "science" is an appeal to authority, not reason. Second, you are the one who constantly attacks the funding sources of those you disagree with. You want to interject this issue into a scientific discussion. That is inappropriate from the start. But, then after raising the issue over and over, you do not even have the elemental honesty to admit that belief in Al Gore's theory is an orthodoxy in science, and it is supported by huge and powerful funding sources and power over careers. Sorry, you guys have the big guns on this one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 1:44:04 PM PDT
Mr Gibson
1. Mr Avery is a PR person that is his job - if he feels that is an attack perhaps he shouldn't have that job
Singer did have to apologize for making a mistake on his one major study - if he thinks that is an attack perhaps he shouldn't have made the mistake.
2. I do not "feel" anything about the medival warm period or the ice age - according to the science they were regional phenomena, if avery and singer have other proof they are welcome to use the scientific method to put forth their proof. Writing a book is not scientific proof.
3. Science is their opposition - science has a method for establishing scientific fact - when Singer/avery choose to use that method, science will not be their opponent. Until such time, they are oppossed by science since all they do is publish propaganda, and do not have their ideas vetted by the scientifc method.
4. I have read their book - the only support they provide is that climate has changed naturally in the past - again that does not answer why it is changing now - for that science provides the answer, much as science has never denied climate has changed in the past. If your car didn't start three years ago because of no gas, then it won't start today and you check the gas and it is full, would you assume the car didn't start because of lack of gas? That is their argument - magic pixie dust.
5. Yes and reason is found by scienctific study the entire basis of the IPCC.
6. If there is a lively scientiifc debate then please provide the scientific study, if it is lively there should be one, just one.
Perhaps you could give us one Academy of science that thinks there is a debate?
Perhaps you could share one scientific organization that thinks there is a debate.
maybe one research institution that thinks there is a debate

7. Perhaps you can show how these thousands of scientists are making soo much money from all of this (u see u keep using al gore - he is not relevant - the scientists say x - now show how they are making a mint) I can show u how avery and singer are and how this might provide a motive to not be upfront - now show how all those thousands of scientists upon whom the ipcc is based are, or any of the scientists who published any of the studies I gave u.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 2:12:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2008, 2:20:50 PM PDT
Mr. Van de Mark:

1. If what someone says is sound, who cares who they are? I am tired of your unending focus on attacking the person who makes an argument rather than the argument itself.

2. Singer and Avery cite a good deal of scientific evidence, from peer-reviewed journals, that the Medieval Warming Period was global, not regional. To refute that case, one would need to look at each of their citations, and to provide stronger counter-citations.

3. This is rhetoric. Singer and Avery's book summarizes a great deal of evidence. The scientific way to reply to it is to deal with the evidence, point by point. You are not doing that.

4. You are making false claims about the content of Singer & Avery's argument. They do simply not say that, because it happened before therefore it is happening now (although that is not such a bad argument.) Rather, they cite the ice-core evidence that a 1,500 year cycle exists. They discuss in detail the reasons for it, which are based upon cycles in solar output. They argue that the Modern Warming is: (a) another swing of the same cycle; and (b) based on observed changes in solar output.

Singer and Avery's argument is logically stated and supported by footnoted references to peer-reviewed journals. Your reply is to say that they are arguing in favor of "magic pixie dust." You can not refute a long, complex and factually supported argument just by calling it names.

5. This is just tedious.

6. Read Singer and Avery. Read their footnotes. Read the new book, The Deniers.

7. People's source of funding is not relevant to the truth or falsity of their conclusions.

You know what is really a bitch about all of this? Your side might be right. Just because the way that you argue for it -- and that Al Gore argues for it -- is risible, it is not necessarily true that you guys are wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2008, 6:16:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2008, 10:54:22 PM PDT
Mr Gibson
1. who cares who they r? - if they r paid to put forth x view, can u trust that view to be objective. I would point out that it is hardly my focus. Most of my focus has been to provide you with actual scientific studies, but to ignore that the people giving you the "facts" are paid to deny, not to do science, is to ignore reality at your own peril. Try and remember Singer has a long history of being a hired gun, not an actual scientist.
Also since I have shown that science says it ain't the sun, I have addressed the only argument u have put forth.

2. Singer and Avery cite no recent peer reviewed studies that say the medival warm period or the little ice age were global, some of the early research (all done in europe) thought it was - then it was realized (something singer has to realize) europe is not the world. - please again read the ipcc. I might also suggest the National Resource council who was commissioned by Congress through the NAS to explain these issues.
I again suggest the IPCC summary on this which sites to all the studies in this area, and explains why some thought it was global/
R u reading any of what I am providing?

3. Again because something happened in the past for a reason does not mean that is the reason it is happening now - that is the premise of avery/singer's argument - again that is faulty logic.

4. Ice cores study do not show a 1500 year cycle at all according to the scientists who do ice core studies, at least for the last 10000 years, before then there was a cycle that ranged around 1470 years. I would suggest going straight to Braun who wrote the paper that singer likes to use.
In Braun's paper he shows why up till 10000 years ago this cycle happened, and shows that none of those things are occuring today.
Still more research on when the cylce occured when it ended and why it doesn't apply today because the same factors do not exist.

5. I am sorry you find the science tedious.

6. Yes I would suggest you read Singer and Averys footnotes, read the studies - see what they actually say, and then ask yourself how does that show what is happening today, and is there any proof that is happening today. Avery and Singer have cherry picked phrases from studies, studies that do not support their conclusions.
7. People's source of funding is important - if they are paid to say x, and do no studies for themselves and summarize the studies for you, you would be very negligent to just believe what they say without checking.

My side? My side is what the IPCC says (along with every major academy of science, every research institute, every scientific organization) the earth is warming and man is most likely (greater then 90 percent chance) the cause. I have no side other then what the scientists who go out and do the studies say, until the day I am qualified to do my own studies I would not presume that they got the answer wrong (especially when it has been tested by the scientific method)

I again suggest reading the IPCC, and the actual studies presented.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2008, 9:42:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2008, 9:43:48 AM PDT
Mr. Van de Mark:

I have been doing a little reading. I am about 80 pages into Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media. The author is Patrick J. Micheals. He is a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He is the past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

You should read the book. It presents an interesting challenge to your point of view.

His basic take on the issue is that a modest amount of global warming has occurred due to human greenhouse gas emissions, but that the amount of warming has been, and will continue to be, slight. He gives a good introduction to the science involved, as well as a summary of the overall situation.

Among other things, he addresses a rather obvious point that I have long wondered about: does the greenhouse effect continue as CO2 builds up, or does more CO2 have more or less effect, over time? A rather obvious question, but not one that I have seen any one on your side address. He cites evidence that the effect of CO2 build up decreases over time. He also goes into some detail about how CO2 works in conjunction with water vapor, and how the greenhouse effect is strongest in dry climates. You get alot of interesting details like this, when you read an actual scientist trying to ascertain the truth, as opposed to an Al Gore interested in screaming "wolf."

Micheals' most basic challenge to your particular point of view relates to the IPCC. You regard the IPCC as the gold standard. To you, the IPCC is "science" incarnate.

Professor Micheals disagrees with you. As he describes, the IPCC is a large group. Among the scientists, most are not climatologists. But a large number of the members of the IPCC are not scientists at all, but are instead government bureaucrats. So, your entire argument that the IPCC accurately expresses the word of science is incorrect. It is a large committee, most of the members of which have no relevant technical expertise. Further, the IPCC expresses its predictions in a wide range. The popular press, and leaders such as Al Gore, always seize upon the upper end of the range. In truth, as Micheals sets out, even the IPCC data strongly supports the lower end of the range, and the IPCC data has a large number of exaggerations built into it.

Micheals goes through most of the marquee examples of global warming, from the melting snows of Kilamanjero to ice-free North Pole. As he shows in detail, virtually every one of these stories is greatly distorted for the purpose of building up the global warming story line.

A while ago, you were asking me to show you one study, by one reputable scientist, who challenged the IPCC dogma. OK, I have. It is Professor Micheals' book. It is not the only one, but it is one.

Your side keeps saying that the debate is over. I am just starting to get into the literature, but I can see that there is a robust debate. Another book, that I have read reports on, but no yet read is The Deniers, which apparently is a study of the dozens of world-renowned scientists who reject the IPCC dogma.

So, this mantra of yours that "nobody disagrees" and the "science" is in total agreement, is simply not true. There is plenty of debate. I have not entirely made up my mind, but I am leaning strongly toward the view that: (a) there has not been much warming; and (b) there is not likely to be much more warming. My impression is that the warming thus far has been both natural -- prior to 1950, there was warming and it had to be natural -- and, to some degree, caused by greenhouse gases. I am becoming more and more convinced that the alarmist view is incorrect. Among other issues, I am far more impressed with the professional knowledge and balance of writers such as Singer & Avery and Micheals, on the one hand, compared with writers such as Al Gore and Elizabeth Kolbert on the other hand.

I also have to confess to a bias. Whenever one side tries to shut down an argument, using unfair means, I tend to assume that they have something to hide. Your side is doing a pretty fair imitation of the Salem Witch Trials and Stalinist science. What I never see from your side -- and I have never seen from you, personally -- is any open-mindedness, any desire to engage with opposing viewpoints. I do not associate closed mindedness with good science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2008, 10:55:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2008, 11:03:47 AM PDT

Good luck with Van De Mark. If you want to know what you're in for, my exchanges with him (several hundred of them) are all over the global warming and related forums.

He says he has never attacked anyone who hadn't attacked him first. That is a lie, but I'm sure he believes it. His first "response" to one of my posts consisted of verbal assaults and ad hominem attacks, and he's been following me around snapping at my ankles ever since.

Reading your initial posts, I can see that your position on the global warming controversy is much like mine. It pretty well has to be, since we are both rational, reasonable human beings who work at trying to understand the issues.

Unfortunately, in Van De Mark you are not dealing with another rational, reasonable person.

Anyway, keep the faith-I'm pullin' for ya.

Best wishes,
Rick Wright

PS-I suggest that you also look at Roy Spencer's "Climate Confusion" and Svensmark and Calder's "The Chilling Stars."
A general review of Amazon's global warming titles is also recommended.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  5
Total posts:  119
Initial post:  Feb 6, 2008
Latest post:  Aug 10, 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers