More cracks in the “warming is humans’ fault” consensus

No comment. The text speaks for itself:

Global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon and its effects can even be beneficial, according to two leading researchers.

Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.

Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists.

They also say that temperature increase is actually a good thing as in the past sudden cool periods have killed twice as many people as warm spells.

Mr Avery, a senior research fellow at the Hudson Institute, an independent US think-tank, said: “Not all of these researchers who doubt man-made climate change would describe themselves as global warming sceptics but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.

“Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people.

“It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine, plagues and disease.”

In contrast, they say there is evidence that wildlife is flourishing in the current warming cycle with corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies adapting well.

In addition, sea-levels are not rising dramatically and storms and droughts have actually been less severe and frequent.

The authors claim that the change is not man-made because the most recent period of global warming took place between 1850 and 1940 when there were far less CO2 emissions than today.

They claim to show strong historical evidence of an entirely natural cycle based on data of floods on the Nile going back 5,000 years.

Evidence is citing showing records of Roman wine production in Britain in the first century AD.

Prof Singer, a specialist in atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia, said: “We have 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.

“The models only reflect the warming, not its cause.”

Incidentally, the fallout from the hysteria is suddenly beginning to fall fast. In my regular Stratfor letter, which comes from Strategic Forecasting, Inc., I learned that organizations are trying to slow the reliance on biofuels, because that reliance is itself causing trouble:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a scathing report Sept. 11 calling for a dramatic drawdown in the subsidies and preferential trade laws granted to biofuel producers in OECD countries. In Europe, Friends of the Earth hailed the report, saying it has focused attention on the negative issues surrounding biofuels, while libertarian groups on both sides of the Atlantic applauded its call for a reduction in subsidies.

The report is one of a number of efforts designed to deflate support for biofuels in the United States and Europe. Increasing numbers of groups, especially in Europe, are beginning to question the wisdom of the current move toward biofuels as a replacement, at least in part, for gasoline and diesel in vehicles. They argue that these fuels offer little benefit and have serious drawbacks. Specifically, they question the wisdom of burning food crops for fuel. They point to a “tortilla crisis” in Mexico caused by rising corn prices and a “bread crisis” in France caused by rising wheat prices. Inflation in China is now running above 6 percent, largely due to increases in the price of foodstuffs.

I’ll say again, as I’ve said a billion times before: I love the idea of finding an alternative to the fuel coming from totalitarian dictatorships aligned against the West. I hate funding my own destruction. However, much as I want to cut off the cash flow, reaching that goal in a panicked rush based on possibly bad, and definitely politically motivated science is almost as dangerous for, as Debra Saunders warns, the demands we are hysterically making on ourselves are tremendously destructive of our own culture — almost as destructive as continuing to fund the Saudis, Venezuelans, et al.


2 Responses

  1. Drilling in Alaska and off our own shores is such an obvious fix to the reliance on oil from dictatorships. When common sense trumps the political correct (and deadly) nonesense of the left we will not be in the position of funding our own destruction.

  2. I’d be a lot more impressed with Avery and Singer if these stories provided some sort of link to the “controversial study” they did.

    And that “study” had better have comprehensive references to the “work of more than 500 scientists” that they say undermines the Chicken Little global warming scenarios.

    Enough of the rhetoric — let’s have the actual data so we can read it, along with the conclusions drawn, and make some kind of independent judgment about which side sounds most rational.

    I admit to being a skeptic – based on an early “love affair” with Paul Ehrlich – but I hate being stuck with a “fatih position” on this kind of thing. I want to see the goods!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: