FacebooktwittermailFacebooktwittermail

The fun part about writing for a Christian blog that’s specifically political in its emphasis is that these days everything is a partisan political issue. Only an American could make a political football out of an issue like the weather.

But this is what we have in the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Many people take the word of Al Gore on the issue as indisputable scientific fact. Why wouldn’t we? He created the internet, after all. He’s as smart as they come. He just uses a personal jet to get around the country and spread his message because of how urgent it is.

For those of us who want science from, say, scientists, Fred Singer’s and Dennis Avery’s book “Unstoppable Global Warming” is a God-send. According to the internet that Gore created, Dr. Singer is professor emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia; Dennis Avery studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and from 1980-1988, Dennis T. Avery served as agricultural analyst for the U.S. Department of State.

The book’s thesis is to demonstrate that global warming (GW), which the authors do admit occurs, can be accounted for based on a 1,500 solar cycle. Their critique of AGW is based a several lines of evidence.

First, there is good evidence that GW is a 1,500 year cycle. (p. 3-6) and plausible evidence that it is caused by the conjunction of two different solar cycles. (p. 25 and chapter 2)

Second, the Roman warming period and the Medieval warming period are both evidence of the cyclical nature of global warming (chapter 3). These warming periods, obviously, could not have been produced by humans using fossil fuels in the 20th century.

Third, most of the warming in the current cycle began prior to 1940, prior to much fossil fuel use by humans. Further, there is about an 800 year lag time from an increase of global warming to increase in CO2. In other words, GW is causing a rise in CO2, not vice versa. (p. 107)

Fourth, there were some backdoor political shenanigans going on within the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (p. 119-122)

Lastly, if AGW is true, there’s good evidence it would be beneficial to humans and humans living on earth. (p. 9-11)

There is plenty more in the book, including responses about the infamous “hockey stick” graph, sea levels, Al Gore’s claim that there is no scientific paper refuting AGW, and others.

But let’s say that they are wrong. The truth of a particular scientific theory is different than there being a scientific consensus on that theory. The existence of this book is proof that there is no consensus on the theory. The Dedication says, “This book is dedicated to those thousands of highly qualified research scientists who have documented physical evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle from over the entire globe. Hundreds of their studies endorse the reality of this cycle… The three scientists who led the discovery of the 1,500-year cycle— Willi Dansgaard of Denmark, Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, and Claude Lorius of France— were jointly awarded the Tyler Prize (the “Environmental Nobel”) in 1996.” And “Evidence that our warming is natural is found in more than 100 peer-reviewed papers published in professional journals, with literally hundreds of co-authors.” (xi)

Do these guys count as “scientists”? You can always manufacture a consensus by excluding those who disagree. So we don’t know if GW is true; even if it is, we don’t know if humans are causing it; and even if we did, we don’t know it’s a bad thing. What we can count on is more fear-mongering from liberals. Singer points out ironically that in 1975 Lowell Ponte published “The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It?”, asking wryly, “Any of this sound familiar?” (p. 117-8)

You can get your own copy of “Unstoppable Global Warming” at Amazon here.

images

Five questions I would like to ask AGW advocates
1. Suppose for a moment that AGW is a complete hoax, but there is a scientific consensus that is is not. Under what conditions would a layman be epistemically justified in saying, “AGW is false.”?
2. How do you account for the Roman and Medieval warming periods?
3. What proof is there that AGW, if true, is detrimental to humans?
4. Under what conditions should someone believe a scientific consensus has been reached?
5. Let’s say AGW is true. On what basis is government regulation justified?

FacebooktwittermailFacebooktwittermail

FacebooktwitterrssyoutubeFacebooktwitterrssyoutube