The Odd Case of Preon Stars
"Firestarter" Discovery: 1st Technology Began 70,000 years Ago

Contrarian Expert Asks: "Does Unstoppable Global Warming Occur Every 1500 Years?"

Kilimanjaro1233005352 Last year, a week after the Harvard Crimson published a shocking editorial chiding Nobel Laureate Al Gore, Stanford University held a luncheon entitled "Is Global Warming a Myth?"

(To erase any doubts about our position on global warming, The Daily Galaxy believes that common sense dictates that human technological civilization has impacted natural climatic cycles -image of vanishing snowfields of Mount Kilimanjaro).

The Stanford guest speaker was the world-renowned global warming skeptic S. Frederick Singer, a former space scientist and government scientific administrator.

Singer, who holds PhD in Physics from Princeton University, was a Special adviser to President Eisenhower on space developments, a professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and co-author of  Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

In this New York Times bestseller, authors Singer and co-author Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, they argue that the 1,500 year natural sunspot magnetic waves cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend. Man created carbon dioxide has very little effect on the earth's climate.

Since the 1,500 year cycle was discovered in the early 1980's it's general characteristics have been confirmed by measurements in: tree rings (living, preserved and fossilized), pollen, coral, glaciers, boreholes, stalagmites, tree lines, and sea sediments. The most recent cycles have been recorded in human history with forced migrations, starvation, and disease during the cold portion of the cycle and greater population, expanded farm land, greater crop variety, and extra building during the warm portion.

The causes of the 1,500 year cycle are not well understood although 600 of them have been identified in the last million years. This permits the authors to be relatively confident that we have been moving into the warm phase of the cycle for the last 150 years. It also suggests that we may have one or two degrees more warming if we are to get to the typical high of the warm phase.

Although the warm phase of the cycle has been typically more regular than the cold phase, it does not move steadily to a peak and then fall off, but rather moves abruptly higher at the start of the warm phase followed by highly irregular (but modestly higher) temperatures for hundreds of years.

Singer explained that the recent warming the Earth has experienced is not dangerous and is not something humans could alter. Global warming activists such as Al Gore, Singer believes, are hyping the problem. He said that such activists have not come close to demonstrating that human-generated greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming.

If politicians truly wanted to make a change to affect energy use, Singer told the Stanford audience, they would have to increase taxes on gasoline, which would decrease use of vehicles. He believes that such taxes would hit people of low income the hardest.

Singer claimed that many businesses, such as the wind farm industry, are making money off the global warming hype. Singer said that it is essential to convince the proponents of global warming that what they are doing is counterproductive and will not make any difference to the climate.

Let's get Singer and Al Gore to an Oxford Union debate...We suspect it would be a "Ross Perot moment" all over again.

Posted by Casey Kazan.

Related Galaxy posts:

Creator of the Gaia Theory: Status of "Spaceship Earth"
The Great Debate: How Fast Will Sea Levels Rise?
The Andes Vanishing Glaciers
The Day the Seas Died: What Can the Greatest of All Extinction Events Teach Us About Climate Change?
The Timeline For 21st Century “Climate Change Events

Coming of Age in the Holocene
"Snowball Earth" Challenged
Bigger Threat than Global Warming -Mass Species Extinction
A "Flat World" Solution to Climate Change
Monitoring Climate Change -Experts Say We Need Lunar Observatories
Unraveling the Mysteries of -Clues to Climate Change on Earth?
Arctic Discovery –Ancient Connections & the Global Climate
Stephen Hawking: Climate Change Greatest Threat Facing Planet

Arctic’s Legendary Northwest Passage is Ice-Free for the First Time in Recorded History
Coming War for the Arctic?

Story Link:

Stanford Uni serves global warming myth


Thank you for your good humor and for allowing yourself to be convinced that this was the right show for you to work on. Please come visit my site Anaheim Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

Oh Pat, you’ve got friends! Don’t give me that. Your blog looks great and has good info. You can be friends with me. Please come visit my site Local Business Directory Of Bakersfield U.S.A. when you got time. Thanks.

Would it be fallacious of me to ignore anything typed by your liar hands? Well, I'm going to after that MIT article you molested. I take it the head of this site follows your mental path on this.

I'm glad the author chose to highlight in the second paragraph that this article was in no way written impartially.

I fully agree with Casey that clarifies the position of THIS review :
"The Daily Galaxy believes that common sense dictates that human technological civilization has impacted natural climatic cycles".

The stupid guy (who made him a 'professor' ??????, some other group of stupid or 'paid' guys) does NOT know that actually there are 'NO sunspots' and we may enter a so called 'Maunden minimum' that created miniglaciations in 16th and 17th centuries ???
NO the guy sems to be well paid by Exxon or Cevron or others to publish similar bull shit.

Hoever how and how much we dirty humans are impacting on the overall glaciar retreat and temperature dramatic increase at polar caps and the overall global warming we honestly do not know.

1 Thing is for sure : 'only of oil' we have consumed (burned)in 2008 (EIA data) 74 Million barrel/day...and I do not mention the methane and others as cool, wood...etc...ENORMOUS burnings.

How many CO2 kilograms are produced for each litre of burned oil I leavee to the experts...but the quantity send to our ATM each day is HUGE.

Regards to Casey and to the actual minimum of solar sunspots without which we had suffered a tremendous middle latitudes.

Surely we "common sense" humans are more powerful than our Sun! :-)

Our HUGE CO2 kilograms in burned oil is changing the Earths climate and not our awful Sun.

That's qualified irony. Please educate yourself and don't let your ignorance control you. Google about how the Sun Affects Climate and the Solar and Milankovitch Cycles.

Mother Earth doesn't care about us selfpity humans. If we let our ignorance control us, we shouldn't have any future.

Mother Earth helps only them who help themselves.

Mr. James Lovelock has pointed out that the Earths biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly, Humans put 30 gigatonnes of carbon into the biosphere, I think the 'natural' biosphere has a lot of explaining to it is, CO2 is LESS THAN %1 OF THE TOTAL atmosphere.

Well, actually we don't have to produce that much CO2 to impact our environment. We just have to produce more than the total load that is converted to sugars by our photosynthetic biomass. It is known that, since the beginning of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled. Even though the concentration is still well below 1%, a simple equilibrium calculation should show that the pH of the ocean is decreased by 0.2 units every time the CO2 levels are doubled. While I do not believe that CO2 is causative in global warming, I do believe that it is a threat to marine life and particularly the coral reefs, which sustain a large proportion of the oceanic biosphere.

As in any issue, there are people on both poles. Lets say that there are warming cycles every 1500 years. Now what if we are in one, and we are also increasing the temperature with the release of CO2? That means both camps are right and we are double screwed.

And to say that renewable energy is just out to make money on this hype? Go visit an open pit coal mine or the tar sand ponds and tell me that's what you want your earth to be. I'll take a wind farm and a solar array any day.

There is one good thing I can say about this book: it shows the non-scientist how temperatures can be constructed from historic times before thermometers were present to do so. These proxy data include oxygen and carbon isotopes, tree rings, pollen, ocean sediments, boreholes, and others. Unfortunately, the authors' two main arguments are seriously flawed. These two arguments include: 1) there is a 1500 year climate cycle that is driving global warming and 2) there is a vast international conspiracy to blame greenhouse gases

The authors state that there is a vast conspiracy among thousands of international scientists to promote anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) in order to secure degrees and funding. Common sense should tell you how ridiculous this is. Any reasonable person who carefully considers all the evidence must conclude that there is no conspiracy nor any real incentive to delude billions of people about climate change. To the contrary, there is a large financial incentive for the fossil fuel industry to promote the massive conspiracy argument because to combat climate change humans must reduce the use of fossil fuels which comes at a high cost to that industry. More information about the unfounded notion that there is a global warming hoax can be found at Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Wiki at

Cory S. Powell, Editor-in-Chief of Discover magazine, interviewed four top climate scientists in an article titled The Big Heat (2009). One of these scientists is Ken Caldeira who is a professor at Stanford and a staff member of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Caldeira has studied issues such as ocean acidification, intentional intervention in climate systems, mass-extinction events, and the scale of change needed to address the current carbon-driven climate problems. Ken Caldeira summarizes the culture of true scientists with the following statement:

There was a climate change contrarian who testified before the Senate last week. He made the claim that climate scientists were some kind of club and they all made money by somehow supporting each other's findings. The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all of the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.

The main premise behind the book is that there is a naturally occurring 1500 year cycle causing rapid COOLING that is the main driver of climate change and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are inconsequential. One such cycle during glacial times is known as the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) event but has no bearing on modern climate because we simply do not have the massive amounts of ice that, if melted, could cause the rapid cooling described by this cycle. During inter-glacial times a much smaller version of the D-O cycle is described by Bond et al. (1997) and is known as the Bond cycle. Both cycles are reported to be a result of changes in solar activity (Holger et al., 2005 and Bond et al., 2001). The Bond cycles are NOT forcing mechanisms for global warming - just global cooling. Here is an example of the fallacy of the argument: Imagine a kitchen with a thermometer on the wall to measure temperature changes. Somebody leaves the freezer door open and, of course, the kitchen begins to get colder and colder at a fairly fast rate (analogous to D-O and Bond cycles). Once the door is shut, the kitchen temperature slowly warms back up. Now imagine that after the door is shut, somebody turns on the oven (AGW). Of course the kitchen will warm up at a much more rapid rate. A question is asked: "Why is the kitchen warming?" A poor answer is "Because the freezer door was open and now it is shut." The much better answer is "Because the oven is on." Even Gerard C. Bond does not claim that the 1500 year cycle has anything to do with causing today's global warming!

Increased CO2 emissions will result in a warmer lower atmosphere and a cooler stratosphere which is precisely what has been observed, especially in the last few decades (IPCC, 2007). Climate models cannot accurately predict the climate change observed in the past century by excluding greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities. When including these greenhouse gas emissions along with natural forcing, the models do predict today's climate extremely well - a technique to verify the models known as hindcasting. Therefore, today's climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases. (See: There are hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that support this evidence and that is why the IPCC WGI 4th Assessment Report (2007) concludes that there is little doubt that the present climate is experiencing an unprecedented global warming rate which is primarily due to human activities.

In fact, the latest information from the 2009 University of Copenhagen Climate Congress Synthesis Report: Climate Change: Global Risk, Challenges, and Decisions ( concludes that various aspects of climate change are accelerating more than was expected by the IPCC - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. "The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report.

The authors consistently claim that there was greater global warming in the early 1900s than the past few decades but there is an overwhelming amount of data, including surface and satellite data, that shows the rate of warming has been accelerating since the mid -1970s. (See:

There are many other parts of this book that are either scientifically inaccurate or presented in a very misleading manner. All of these have been addressed by real climate scientists who are active in this field. If you are a climate change denialist there is nothing I can show you to make you change your mind. If you are an objective skeptic and wish to hear what the overwhelming majority of scientists are stating please visit the following sites: - Global Warming: Man or Myth - the Science of Climate Change - Climate science from climate scientists - How to talk to a climate skeptic - Open Mind, a blog about climate change by a world-class mathematician

Here is what the science tells us about the modern day global climate change and neither D-O nor Bond cycles can explain the rapid rate of warming observed today:

* The concentration of CO2 has reached a record high relative to more than the past 500,000 years and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.
* Most of the warming in the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.
* CO2 concentrations are known accurately for the past 650,000 years. During that time, they varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. As of March 2009 CO2 is 385 ppm which took about 100 years to increase. For comparison, it took over 5,000 years for an 80 ppm rise after the last ice age.
* Higher values than today have only occurred over many millions of years.
* Although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that they took place at a faster rate than the present warming.
* There is no evidence that this rate is matched to a comparable global temperature increase over the last 50 million years!


IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press

Bond, G., Showers, W., Cheseby, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, M., deMenocal, P. et al. (1997). A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in north atlantic holocene and glacial climates". Science. 278 (5341): 1257-1266.

Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, J., Evans, M., Showers, W. et al. (2001). Persistent solar influence on north atlantic climate during the holocene". Science. 294 (5549): 2130-2136.

Holger, B., Christl M., Rahmstorf, S., Ganopolski, A., Mangini, A., Kubatzki, C. et al. (2005). Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model. Nature. 438, 208-211

IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press

Powell, Corey S. (2009, June). The big heat. Discover, [38-43].

A new danish documentary about climate, "The Cloud Mystery" and How the Milky Way, the Sun, and the clouds rule climate on Earth.

"A fascinating story that spins a whole new tale in regards to the climate debate."

Scarcely audible above the noise about global warming, Svensmark has reported a new kind of aerial chemistry triggered by events in our Galaxy that shower our planet with atomic particles – the cosmic rays.

This celestial mechanism determines cloudiness and temperatures on Earth. It is so powerful that we now have to re-evaluate the causes of global warming.

Watch it at Youtube:

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)