If the sun was a human, I would say it has a much better press agent than CO2, or that someone in the Sun’s family was paying hush money to cover up its role in global warming. Why else would the Church of Global Warming Moonbats ignore all the evidence that changes in the Sun that are creating the fluctuations in global temperatures here on earth.
- Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.
In keeping with scientific protocol, much of the presentation consisted of graphs, charts, and other data to make the case that much of climate change is the result of natural phenomenon rather than human activities and that any contribution by humans is miniscule.
The event on Capitol Hill was not without a political twist, with some global warming advocates speaking out during the question-and-answer period. One scientist from NASA claimed he was available after the discussion if anyone was interested in hearing the other side of the issue.
- Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,”
- U.S Army Chief Scientist Dr. Bruce West dissented from climate fears in 2008. Westfaulted the UN IPCC for having “concluded that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible.” West argued argues many global warming researchers have not adequate modeled the Sun’s impact, according to a June 3, 2008 article. West believes the UN and others have “significantly over-estimated” the “anthropogenic contribution to global warming.” West along with Nicola Scafetta of Duke University Physics Department published a March 2008 analysis showing the sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature.” (Source)
- Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) who specializes in geosciences and sedimentology, rejected global warming fears in 2008. “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone manmade CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this.When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” Smith asked in an August 16, 2008, essay. “I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself,” Smith explained. “There is no atmospheric hot-spot from ‘greenhouse CO2’ despite over 20 years of serious looking for it. Occam’s razor would point to the sun as the driver of climate change of significance. Human generated carbon dioxide is arguably around 3% of the total carbon dioxide budget, and in the light of the above, we are effectively irrelevant to the natural climate change continuum,” he added.
These are just a few of the hundreds scientists who blame climate fluctuations not on man but on the sun (the Senate has a list of them). With all of the evidence pointing toward the sun as the problem, why wont the moonbats so much as investigate the sun as a reason for warming?:
Why do global warming researchers ignore the sun, the ultimate source of earth’s heat? Especially as we know virtually all of our warming occurred before 1940 while 85 percent of the human-emitted CO2 came after 1940? Dennis Bray of Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research just polled an international group of climate researchers on what they believe and why. In light of the recent leaked documents from East Angelia University’s Climate Research Unit, the poll seems to provide important answers.
The researchers don’t seem to be trying to find holes in the current scientific “consensus” on climate change. They lean, instead, to “confirmation research,” explaining why their colleagues must be right.
They tend to have strong personal concerns about the environment where they live, and the weather they’ve lived through. Most have at least 15 years research experience, mainly tracking global warming, but not necessarily man-made warming. Most were probably invested in the warming ‘consensus’ when the current cooling came along.
They tend to consider themselves environmental activists, trying directly to “save the planet.” Researchers swimming against the current earn opposition from their colleagues and are being shut out of currently respected journals.
They seem to have a near-psychotic belief in computer models. As an economist, I was long ago forced to give up any belief in “macroeconomic” computer models. All economics is the sum of the microeconomics.
They admit the failure of their computer consensus to model clouds and cloud impacts on the environment. This point is crucial, because the counter-theory to man-made warming is the solar-cloud theory.
The solar-cloud theory holds that changes in the sun’s activity produce changes in the earth’s cloud cover. Remember, the sunspot index has a very strong 79 percent correlation with our thermometer record over the past 160 years. The CO2 correlation with our temperatures is a meager 22 percent.
Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute has demonstrated that when the sun’s magnetic field is weak, the earth is hit by more cosmic rays—and the planet gets more of the low, wet clouds that deflect heat back into space.
The UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change won’t listen. They say the sun’s total solar irradiance doesn’t change enough to account for the recent global warming surge. But the data show the clouds amplifying the changes in irradiance by roughly four-fold.
Only 25 percent of Bray’s respondents thought the models could adequately model cloud impacts. Yet 46 percent thought the models could accurately predict global temperatures over the next 10 years.
History supports the cloud impact. Analyzing Thousands of old museum paintings, the summer skies in the Medieval Warming tended to be sunny; the summer skies of the Little Ice Age paintings were cloudy, and the skies of the Modern Warming canvases have been sunny again.
Why do scientists resist the obvious likelihood that the sun would be involved in a planet-wide warming? First, it wouldn’t be exciting. Second, it wouldn’t bring in government grants for research.
Two-thirds of Bray’s scientists agreed evidence from paleoclimatology (ice cores, pollen, etc.) is important to solving the puzzle—but they’re ignoring hundreds of studies showing a moderate, solar-linked 1,500-year cycle that goes back a million years.
I hate to imply that these highly trained academics are merely human, but the evidence seems to speak for itself.
Dennis Bray, 2008, A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change, Institute for Coastal Research, Geestacht, Germany.
Solar magnetic wind theory: Henrik Svensmark, “While the Sun Sleeps,” Jyllands-Posten (Denmark’s leading newspaper), 9 Sept., 2009.
Hans Neuberger, 1970, “Climate in Art,” Weather, Vol. 25, pp. 46-56.