Yes, I am a global warming skeptic, and I always have been. It did not require hacked e-mails from CRU to make me believe it was all horse-hockey. If anthropological global warming is a fact, then how can scientists explain the recent decline of the Martian ice caps? (They ignore it.) How can they explain the various temperature spikes in the 20th century, which were followed by cool periods (these are written out of the data).Book of Hours, early 15th century, showing farmers sowing crops in October outside Paris
Even more importantly, how can they explain the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300)? Well, they literally re-wrote the scientific literature to say that it was a localized event that only occurred in Northern Europe, and that the temperatures never got nearly as warm as they are today.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete, bald-faced lie. As pointed out elsewhere, the same kinds of data that are used to support the claims of recent warming also show that the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, and that the temperatures then were higher than now. (There is a reason that Greenland is called "Greenland"--the ice cap was much smaller in the Viking era than it is now, and Greenland had thousands of small farms on it.) Further, the atmospheric CO2 level was lower then than now, which means that CO2 was not the culprit. While there are a lot of reasons to doubt global warming, the existence of the Medieval Warm Period is the most damning.
The truth is, global temperatures have not risen 1998, and the Sun recently experienced a new minimum (a minimum is where there is an absence or near absence of sunspots). Prior to the recent global warming craze, the general scientific consensus was that the temperature of the Earth was in direct correlation to the intensity of the Sun's heat (a logical deduction, I might add). When the Sun is active and putting out more heat, it creates more sunspots--and indeed, there were slightly more sunspots than usual in the 1990s. When the Sun is less active and cooler, the number of sunspots declines. The last three minimums, deep and lasting enough to bear names, all occurred during what is now called the Little Ice Age (the Spörer Minimum, 1450-1550; the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715; and, the Dalton Minimum, 1790-1830).
Yes, I am a global warming skeptic, and I always have been. It did not require hacked e-mails from CRU to make me believe it was all horse-hockey. If anthropological global warming is a fact, then how can scientists explain the recent decline of the Martian ice caps? (They ignore it.) How can they explain the various temperature spikes in the 20th century, which were followed by cool periods (these are written out of the data).Book of Hours, early 15th century, showing farmers sowing crops in October outside Paris
Even more importantly, how can they explain the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300)? Well, they literally re-wrote the scientific literature to say that it was a localized event that only occurred in Northern Europe, and that the temperatures never got nearly as warm as they are today.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete, bald-faced lie. As pointed out elsewhere, the same kinds of data that are used to support the claims of recent warming also show that the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, and that the temperatures then were higher than now. (There is a reason that Greenland is called "Greenland"--the ice cap was much smaller in the Viking era than it is now, and Greenland had thousands of small farms on it.) Further, the atmospheric CO2 level was lower then than now, which means that CO2 was not the culprit. While there are a lot of reasons to doubt global warming, the existence of the Medieval Warm Period is the most damning.
Even more importantly, how can they explain the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300)? Well, they literally re-wrote the scientific literature to say that it was a localized event that only occurred in Northern Europe, and that the temperatures never got nearly as warm as they are today.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete, bald-faced lie. As pointed out elsewhere, the same kinds of data that are used to support the claims of recent warming also show that the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, and that the temperatures then were higher than now. (There is a reason that Greenland is called "Greenland"--the ice cap was much smaller in the Viking era than it is now, and Greenland had thousands of small farms on it.) Further, the atmospheric CO2 level was lower then than now, which means that CO2 was not the culprit. While there are a lot of reasons to doubt global warming, the existence of the Medieval Warm Period is the most damning.
The truth is, global temperatures have not risen 1998, and the Sun recently experienced a new minimum (a minimum is where there is an absence or near absence of sunspots). Prior to the recent global warming craze, the general scientific consensus was that the temperature of the Earth was in direct correlation to the intensity of the Sun's heat (a logical deduction, I might add). When the Sun is active and putting out more heat, it creates more sunspots--and indeed, there were slightly more sunspots than usual in the 1990s. When the Sun is less active and cooler, the number of sunspots declines. The last three minimums, deep and lasting enough to bear names, all occurred during what is now called the Little Ice Age (the Spörer Minimum, 1450-1550; the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715; and, the Dalton Minimum, 1790-1830).
Yes, I am a global warming skeptic, and I always have been. It did not require hacked e-mails from CRU to make me believe it was all horse-hockey. If anthropological global warming is a fact, then how can scientists explain the recent decline of the Martian ice caps? (They ignore it.) How can they explain the various temperature spikes in the 20th century, which were followed by cool periods (these are written out of the data).Book of Hours, early 15th century, showing farmers sowing crops in October outside Paris
Even more importantly, how can they explain the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300)? Well, they literally re-wrote the scientific literature to say that it was a localized event that only occurred in Northern Europe, and that the temperatures never got nearly as warm as they are today.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete, bald-faced lie. As pointed out elsewhere, the same kinds of data that are used to support the claims of recent warming also show that the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, and that the temperatures then were higher than now. (There is a reason that Greenland is called "Greenland"--the ice cap was much smaller in the Viking era than it is now, and Greenland had thousands of small farms on it.) Further, the atmospheric CO2 level was lower then than now, which means that CO2 was not the culprit. While there are a lot of reasons to doubt global warming, the existence of the Medieval Warm Period is the most damning.
The truth is, global temperatures have not risen 1998, and the Sun recently experienced a new minimum (a minimum is where there is an absence or near absence of sunspots). Prior to the recent global warming craze, the general scientific consensus was that the temperature of the Earth was in direct correlation to the intensity of the Sun's heat (a logical deduction, I might add). When the Sun is active and putting out more heat, it creates more sunspots--and indeed, there were slightly more sunspots than usual in the 1990s. When the Sun is less active and cooler, the number of sunspots declines. The last three minimums, deep and lasting enough to bear names, all occurred during what is now called the Little Ice Age (the Spörer Minimum, 1450-1550; the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715; and, the Dalton Minimum, 1790-1830).
