Earth Day, Forty Years On: Seven Hundred Peer Reviewed Papers That Ummm... Disagree With AlGore

Lubos Moti is yet another informative blogger who is not a middle-aged guy living in Mom's basement. He offers us The Reference Frame, a most entertaining and informative read.

Today, in honor of Earth Day, he reminds us that it coincides with (drumroll, please), the birthday of one V. I. Lenin. In fact, the first Earth Day was celebrated on Lenin's 100th birthday.

Why, isn't that sweet!

In honor of the day, Moti offers a list of seven hundred publicly available, peer-reviewed articles that express serious doubts about human-sourced global warming. They are found listed on the Popular Technology site.

Hmmm, ya'll remember how we all get beaten up with the mantra: 'Global Warming is the consensus of the entire scientific community, and you are a polar-bear-murdering ingrate if you dare disagree!' Well, like almost all the drivel served up to us by the Left, it's not true.

Just to be fair, OS scrolled down the list, and picked one article at random, from The Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology.

The abstract concludes:

[begin quote]

The atmosphere may warm due to human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC do not suggest that catastrophic change is occurring. They suggest that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly a major threat. A more likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions, we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health.

[end quote]

The pdf of the complete paper is available at the cited link.

Well, just to be fair, maybe he's wrong. Or biased. And his peer reviewers and editors are biased. Only six-hundred-ninety-nine other articles to choose from that draw much the same conclusion, across a wide range of journals.

It has to be a conspiracy to discredit AlGore, the Winner of The Nobel Prize.


Or just maybe, he's blowing smoke...