HUNDREDS of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fea

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
"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."
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml


Note these are peer-reviewed pieces of literature, that was if ib1 recalls a central point he threw out.

The sun's irradiance is shaping up to be the major factor in Earth's temperatures and their have been more than a dozen previous global warmings.
 
The most important thing Dano doesn't mention here is that peer reviewed literature makes conclusions. It's the conclusions that matter. The evidence that they have listed in their studies can be cited, but you can't twist it and say that peer reviewed studies are backing up anti-man-made global warming people when the conclusions do not say that at all.

Cypress and Lorax have a field day every time someone posts something like that - some quote from some scientist in a study somewhere saying something that appears to refute AGW, then a further look shows that the conclusion of the study and the scientist him or herself is saying quite the opposite.

What this "study" of peer reviewed studies did is misleading. They found studies that they say have "evidence" so they could pull out a big number like 500 and hope people are shocked by it and immediately stop reading, but they haven't provided one with a CONCLUSION that supports their viewpoint.

Of course, this is what you'd expect from the Hudson Institute, who wrote the article. Here's what Wiki says about the Hudson Institute:

"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. [...] It is the organization about which the phrase "think tank" was originally coined."

If there are 500, then please find us one with a conclusion that supports the idea that global warming is not primarily man-made.
 
I wondered why, if the evidence is so overwhelming, that of those 500 scientists or articles or whatever that number was supposed to represent, not a single citation was offered.

Also why do all credible climatological scientists openly conclude just the opposite?
 
It surprises me very little that a study like this would appeal to Dano.

A group with a clear ideological agenda, cherrypicking scant information in the most dishonest way possible, to reach an overblown, unsupportable conclusion.

Right up his alley...
 
Onceler said:
It surprises me very little that a study like this would appeal to Dano.

A group with a clear ideological agenda, cherrypicking scant information in the most dishonest way possible, to reach an overblown, unsupportable conclusion.

Right up his alley...
Click to expand...

It's not even a study. It's just editorial rhetoric. A paper reporting a study has at least a bibliography, preferably an extensive reference list and cites each of those papers. Those citations then can be checked, in detail, by anyone who reads the paper. They simply claimed that "peer reviewed" studies said ... blah, blah. Well, anyone can learn that term (and apparently they have) but this editorial, and that's all it is, has no credibility whatsoever because they've failed in even the most elementary sense to back anything up with data or references.
 
You've gotta google Dennis Avery & the Hudson Institute. This organization STARTED w/ the premise that we can win a thermonuclear war, and was primarily responsible for spreading the disinformation that pesticide-treated veggies are healthier than organic (a little favor for their primary source of funding).
 
Onceler said:
You've gotta google Dennis Avery & the Hudson Institute. This organization STARTED w/ the premise that we can win a thermonuclear war, and was primarily responsible for spreading the disinformation that pesticide-treated veggies are healthier than organic (a little favor for their primary source of funding).
Click to expand...

Oh so that must be where that moron on ABC news John Stossel gets his poopaganda.
 
uscitizen said:
Danodemento fits right in with that group. He thinks a little mercury will hurt no one.
Click to expand...

Oh, that is giving them credit they do not deserve.

Because I don't believe for one goddamned minute that John Stossel's kids are eating mercury, nor Danos.

The problem is, they don't give one crap what anyone else's kids are eating.
 
Darla said:
Oh, that is giving them credit they do not deserve.

Because I don't believe for one goddamned minute that John Stossel's kids are eating mercury, nor Danos.

The problem is, they don't give one crap what anyone else's kids are eating.
Click to expand...

Good point. And in that respect topper is the same way.

ME ME ME. I want MINE!


Whiney kids grow up to be .....
 
uscitizen said:
Good point. And in that respect topper is the same way.

ME ME ME. I want MINE!


Whiney kids grow up to be ..... Liberals
Click to expand...


Fixed it...and for the Mercury comment..that is correct a little never hurt anyone...if anyone eats seafood or for example Tuna sandwiches...if this were true... most if not all would be in serious trouble!;)
 
Battleborne said:
Fixed it...and for the Mercury comment..that is correct a little never hurt anyone...if anyone eats seafood or for example Tuna sandwiches...if this were true... most if not all would be in serious trouble!;)
Click to expand...


Are you sure a little does not hurt us. We did elect Bush after all.
A sure sign of insanity, esp in 2004.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The most important thing Dano doesn't mention here is that peer reviewed literature makes conclusions. It's the conclusions that matter. The evidence that they have listed in their studies can be cited, but you can't twist it and say that peer reviewed studies are backing up anti-man-made global warming people when the conclusions do not say that at all.

Cypress and Lorax have a field day every time someone posts something like that - some quote from some scientist in a study somewhere saying something that appears to refute AGW, then a further look shows that the conclusion of the study and the scientist him or herself is saying quite the opposite.

What this "study" of peer reviewed studies did is misleading. They found studies that they say have "evidence" so they could pull out a big number like 500 and hope people are shocked by it and immediately stop reading, but they haven't provided one with a CONCLUSION that supports their viewpoint.

Of course, this is what you'd expect from the Hudson Institute, who wrote the article. Here's what Wiki says about the Hudson Institute:

"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. [...] It is the organization about which the phrase "think tank" was originally coined."

If there are 500, then please find us one with a conclusion that supports the idea that global warming is not primarily man-made.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, but the article does state:
"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."

Not all of them are skeptics but some of them are, one would assume they became so via their conclusions on the subject and not play neutral based on questionable evidence.

The best way to find out is to read the book:
"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years", which has 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top