HolyCoast: Dueling Warming Theories
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Dueling Warming Theories

On Groundhog Day the UN will release its new global warming scare report which basically dooms us all to a toasty future. Yawn. Meanwhile, Drudge reports that two new books document that global warming is occurring as part of a natural solar cycle and not because of man's efforts:

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects. ...

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.


Both books can be ordered at the HolyCoast.com online store (The Chilling Stars will be available in March).

Meanwhile, another group of stars tells us we have only 10 years to save the planet. Let's see, should I believe scientists or pop stars? That's a tough one.

No comments: