I know this is piling on, but

[j2k4]

I prefer the book discussed here:


Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle

New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles

NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be
controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the
Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a
solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that
natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known
climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery.
"Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield,
276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the
natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and
China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in
Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed
sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th
century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the
Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's
Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators
of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate
that today's warming is not unprecedented."
"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in
1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."
Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only
recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle
was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without
thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the
1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the
latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time,
more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.
In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle
was indeed global.
There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from
six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave
stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. The North American
Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's
trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years.
"The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for
at least a million years," says Avery.
Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.
Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with
atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2
changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes
sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the
air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.
Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global
warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.

* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because
90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant
Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only
1.5 percent, over centuries.

* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like -- longer
growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also
stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.

"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be
using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the
inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model
after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental'
legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to
overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."

Dennis Avery
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscr....aspx?ei=52881
Dr. S. Fred Singer
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscr....aspx?ei=52883


The coolest thing about the book is that it is filled with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, the kind that utterly refutes Man's culpability in whatever warming trend may actually exist.

[clocker]

If the green movement prevails, gasoline and other reliable sources of energy will increase in price, in an effort to get us to use less of the supposedly planet killing substance. If I have to spend more on energy, then there will be less money left over to spend on everything else. Thus, my standard of living will fall.

What planet have you been living on.
Gas prices have been rising for decades, "green movement" or no.
Oil is hardly a "reliable" source of energy- especially for the US- because we must import the bulk of what we consume and are now competing with India and China for the dwindling supplies that remain.

You will be spending more on energy whether you like it or not.

Like I said, I am more than willing to take my chances with global warming. I think there is a very good chance it won't be a big deal at all.

I'm for freedom of choice. If someone wants to be green and deprive themselves, I say that's fine with me. But don't try to take away my freedoms. Don't try to make me swallow the global warming dogma and lower my standard of living for some pie in the sky idealism.

I'd like to see where you are guaranteed the "freedom" of cheap gas and unfettered consumption.
Every day, these "freedoms" you're so fond of are routinely abridged by overarching societal concerns.
Your "freedom" to rape/murder is (presumably) subsumed by others right to live.
Your "freedom" to jaywalk is constrained so traffic may flow freely.

I think it's just grand that you're willing to take your chances with global warming.
What a brave person you must be.

As for Clocker... you love to get all angry and hurl insults at me, because you believe in the global warming religion and its dogma and you can't stand the fact that I'm not a believer. It's not good enough for you to just lower your own standard of living, you want to bring everyone else's standard of living down with you. You figure if you have to suffer, then so should everyone else.

Not angry...contemptuous.
You are a lazy thinker who has decided that "personal freedom" is a valid lens through which to view a scientific question.

Science should always be open to debate. Otherwise it is no better than religous superstition.

Science is not debatable.
Interpretation of data- yes, science itself, no.
There is an important nuance there that you fail to grasp.

Would you care to debate the validity of "2 + 2= 4"?
That's a scientific assertion, you can go ahead and debate the "False" side.

Here are a few books that I found interesting...

Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming By Bjørn Lomborg.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. By Lawrence Solomon.

I'm sure you did.

What is it you found so interesting?
Lomborg for instance, doesn't deny global warming- or mankind's effect on same- at all.
He argues against the proposed "fixes", which is fair enough...but you can't work on a problem if like you, you deny the problem even exists.

Solomon admits that the majority of scientists disagree with him but dismisses them as mediocre and scared of repercussions (repercussions from whom is never revealed), so he wants to concentrate only on eminent personages, "eminent" in this case equals "agrees with me".

He could use the exact same format to proclaim the earth is flat...all he needs is one person- albeit one fearless person unafraid of bucking "the conspiracy"- and voila! his point is "proved".
If you want to "take your chances on global warming" based on shoddy and manipulative journalism, feel free.

[999969999]

I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.

That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."

[999969999]

I prefer the book discussed here:


Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle

New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles

NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be
controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the
Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a
solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that
natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known
climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery.
"Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield,
276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the
natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and
China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in
Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed
sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th
century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the
Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's
Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators
of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate
that today's warming is not unprecedented."
"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in
1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos."
Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only
recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle
was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without
thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the
1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the
latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time,
more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.
In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle
was indeed global.
There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from
six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in
glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave
stalagmites from every continent including South Africa. The North American
Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's
trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years.
"The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for
at least a million years," says Avery.
Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.
Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with
atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2
changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes
sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the
air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.
Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global
warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.

* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because
90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant
Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only
1.5 percent, over centuries.

* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like -- longer
growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also
stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.

"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be
using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the
inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model
after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental'
legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to
overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."

Dennis Avery
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscr....aspx?ei=52881
Dr. S. Fred Singer
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscr....aspx?ei=52883


The coolest thing about the book is that it is filled with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, the kind that utterly refutes Man's culpability in whatever warming trend may actually exist.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

[clocker]

I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.

That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."

You clearly have a very feeble and tenuous grasp of energy policy.
"More expensive and less reliable" sources of green energy?
More expensive than what...oil?

Wake up pal, the only reason that oil is inexpensive is because we not only massively subsidize oil companies (how did the "free market" feel about the oil cartels posting record profits as price at the pump soared the past few years?) but we also protect and extend their interests with our military.
If the "free market" had anything to do with oil prices, we'd be paying costs like Europeans do...way higher than the US.

Furthermore, can you explain how it is that at a time when there is a worldwide glut of oil supplies and consumption has dropped, the barrel price has risen?
Wouldn't a real free market economy produce exactly the opposite result?

[999969999]

I wouldn't expect you to support freedom. You're like a modern day Communist. You think governments should be making the decision about whether or not we should use more expensive and less reliable green energy sources, instead of letting the free market decide it.

That is the most unscientific thing in the world to say-- "Science is not debatable."

You clearly have a very feeble and tenuous grasp of energy policy.
"More expensive and less reliable" sources of green energy?
More expensive than what...oil?

Wake up pal, the only reason that oil is inexpensive is because we not only massively subsidize oil companies (how did the "free market" feel about the oil cartels posting record profits as price at the pump soared the past few years?) but we also protect and extend their interests with our military.
If the "free market" had anything to do with oil prices, we'd be paying costs like Europeans do...way higher than the US.

Furthermore, can you explain how it is that at a time when there is a worldwide glut of oil supplies and consumption has dropped, the barrel price has risen?
Wouldn't a real free market economy produce exactly the opposite result?

If the damned government would get out of the way, and allow us to drill for oil everywhere in the United States, we could supply our own oil and gas at a much lower price. And if the government would allow us to build a lot more nuclear power plants all over the U.S. we could stop wasting oil on power generation, and use it on our cars instead.

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.

Around where I live, there are huge gaps in between towns, and hardly any cops around, and so can I take my 2009 Ford Mustang out on the highway and crank it up to 95 mph quite easily. Right now at $3 a gallon, it's no big deal. But if gas gets up to $8 a gallon like some people are predicting with cap and trade nonsense, then it's going to cut into my savings account a bit too much.

[clocker]

So, even with a giant oil slick threatening the Louisiana coast you think we should just allow unfettered drilling "everywhere in the United States", eh?
What if that means a pumping platform in your backyard?

Both rhetorical questions, BTW.

We could pump every known oil deposit in the continental US and it wouldn't make a dent in our consumption of imported oil...we use way more than we have (or have access to).

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.

Clearly, you don't know me at all.
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.

Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical).

Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense (who are "some people", by the way?) for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop?
By your logic, the answer would have to be yes.

Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe in "clean coal".

[devilsadvocate]

If the damned government would get out of the way, and allow us to drill for oil everywhere in the United States, we could supply our own oil and gas at a much lower price.

For someone that appears to be so cynical you show a lot of youthful naivety.

Do you really think it's in the oil companies interests to lower the price? Even if we were able to be self sufficient in oil do you really think we would get it cheaper than the world price without government interference?

I bought my first vehicle myself, my father offered to buy one for me, but I wanted to make my own way in the world

[j2k4]

So, even with a giant oil slick threatening the Louisiana coast you think we should just allow unfettered drilling "everywhere in the United States", eh?
What if that means a pumping platform in your backyard?

Both rhetorical questions, BTW.

We could pump every known oil deposit in the continental US and it wouldn't make a dent in our consumption of imported oil...we use way more than we have (or have access to).

I don't know about you, but I love to drive my new car that my parents bought me for my 16th birtday. It's fun, and I don't want gas to get so expensive that I can't afford to drive it anymore.

Clearly, you don't know me at all.
I sympathize, I really do.
When I was a kid I remember "gas wars"...gas stations used to compete on price (bet you've never seen that)...and I recall prices of 17¢/gallon.
And, they'd wash your windshield and check your air while filling up.

Boy, the "free market" approach has really worked out well there, hasn't it?
(This question is NOT rhetorical).

Ignore the "cap and trade" nonsense (who are "some people", by the way?) for a moment and ponder this...
What if the government "got out of the way" of Big Oil and revoked the tax subsidies they currently get and we withdrew all our military support currently safeguarding their overseas operations...prices would drop?
By your logic, the answer would have to be yes.

Big fan of nuclear power, are we?
What's your plan for the spent fuel rods?

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe in "clean coal".

Lots of problems, here.

I'd say we pursue an actual free market (haven't had one in, like, forever) and do the nukes, etc., too.

Yes indeed.

We can put the spent fuel rods up Hugo Chavez's ass.

We won't solve any problems with cap-and-trade...it's the theoretical equivalent of corn/ethanol, and look how well that worked.

All dumb-ass ideas that won't ever be undone.

[clocker]

Lots of problems, here.

Like what?

I'd say we pursue an actual free market (haven't had one in, like, forever) and do the nukes, etc., too.

Yes indeed.

What exactly is "an actual free market"?

We can put the spent fuel rods up Hugo Chavez's ass.

We already have thousands of tons of spent nuclear material sitting around in barrels and holding tanks...wonder why no one has thought of your "anal insertion" storage plan before?

Under your "real" free market- presumably blissfully free of government intervention- do the utility companies get to decide safety regs and waste disposal strategies?

How does the real free market deal with an event like the Gulf coast oil spill?
Or Somali pirates?

We won't solve any problems with cap-and-trade...it's the theoretical equivalent of corn/ethanol, and look how well that worked.

All dumb-ass ideas that won't ever be undone.

Once again you object to solutions while seeming to accept the reality of man-made global warming.
So, which is it?