Some Earth Day Ammo

If you're looking for some helpful information to use in discussions about Earth Day, take a look at Climate Change 101: Key Global Warming Facts over at Capitalism Magazine. This article details some very interesting facts that contradict many common claims made by global warming alarmists:
The Earth’s warming since 1850 totals about 0.7 degrees C. Most of this occurred before 1940. ... If the climate models’ original greenhouse predictions had been valid, the Earth’s temperatures would have risen several degrees more by now than they have. The Earth’s net warming since 1940 is a barely noticeable 0.2 degrees C, over 70 years.


There is a 95 percent correlation between Earth’s temperatures and sunspots since 1860. There is virtually no correlation between our temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sunspot number has recently dropped to zero. In the past, when sunspot numbers and our temperatures have diverged, the sunspots have been the leading indicator. The temperatures have soon shifted to follow. Does this mean that Earth’s temperatures will soon decline? History says yes.


Arctic ice area has hit a modern low in recent months, but this cannot be due to global warming because the Antarctic simultaneously has the most ice in modern times. The polar regions have their own climate cycles, which operate within the longer 1,500-year cycle. [bold added]
This article presents just a small but potent taste of the strong body evidence that is available to anyone willing to question the accepted wisdom that anthropogenic global warming is a looming disaster that requires drastic measures to combat it. If you happen to discuss Earth Day any time soon with a reasonable and intellectually honest person, the facts presented in the CapMag article may be useful.

Though I must admit to some pessimism when I see that the mainstream media is filled with things like this. Will it take another Little Ice Age to shut these people up? The "Climate Change 101" article asks whether the alarmists will be able to maintain the public hysteria if temperatures don't keep rising, and says "This will be a key factor in the short-term future of climate warming legislation." I'm afraid I don't see any sign that the alarmists will have trouble whipping up public fear, barring some sudden climate shift that makes things obvious to absolutely anyone. The trouble, in this case, is that the climate doesn't move that fast.

On top of that, I have a hard time wishing for "global cooling" simply to stem the tide of environutjobbery, when "our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings" and "human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills far more people than heat." Are we left to hope for climate conditions that are less optimal for human life in order to combat human ideas that are even worse?

The easy and somewhat tempting answer is "yes." But it's not the right answer. History shows that ideas and philosophy shape our world for better or worse. Humans can flourish in nearly any physical environment, but the most potent destroyer of human life is bad philosophy. That means that the best course of action is to promote good philosophy.


Burgess Laughlin said...

Avery: "There is a 95 percent correlation between Earth’s temperatures and sunspots since 1860."

Let's take this as an example assertion by Avery. One of the first questions that arises for me is: Where is the proof?

Another question is: Given the correlation, what is the causal connection? (Correlation is not causation.) As an aside, if Avery is sure of his science, then shouldn't he offer a definite prediction based on that science? What does he think will happen to biosphere temperatures in the next year, next five years, or next ten years?

A third big question is: What is the time lag between a change in sun-spot activity and climate (i.e., average of weather over 30 years)?

I am as doubtful of Avery's unsupported statements as I am of Al Gore's.

An objective claim is one drawn logically from the facts of reality. I need to see Avery's facts and the logical argument he presents moving from his facts to his conclusion.

Does his book prove his case? He doesn't say so. I am left intrigued but unconvinced.

C. August said...

My understanding is that the book by Avery and Singer does just what you ask. I haven't read the book, but have read a number of reviews of it, and they lead me to believe that the assertions in the brief "Climate Change 101" post on CapMag are fleshed out in the larger work.

Thus, my interpretation of the CapMag piece was that it was a distillation, and as such, footnotes or extensive listing of supporting evidence wouldn't be necessary or appropriate. Assuming that Avery was writing for an audience likely to share his view (based on the website he wrote for) this is a reasonable approach.

However, I did wish for at least a small amount of additional data and proof in the article. After reading it, I thought he had distilled just a bit too much, and his arguments would have been stronger with just a few more sentences supporting his assertions.

So in the end, I too am intrigued and will likely pick up the book sooner than I would have otherwise. I remember looking at it in the store, and instead purchasing "Shattered Consensus" by Patrick Michaels instead.