Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Papers challenging geocentrism

In the 21st century, geocentrism became popular once again. Many people became so excited with this theory - and especially with its possible applications to the global economy - that they claim that the debate is over and it is time to burn the heretics again.

Or at least, it is time to fire state meteorologists in Oregon. Note that the geocentrists in Oregon want to make it clear that their bill against the heretics is about new witch hunts. That's why the bill will be introduced in Salem. :-)

According to a congressional global warming poll, 95% of Democrats (down from 98% in 2006) and 13% of Republicans (down from 23% in 2006) say "Yes" to the AGW theory, showing that the theory has clearly nothing to do with politics. ;-) Does everyone in the scientific community agree that the causes of all observations such as the changing climate are located within our blue planet? Are there papers that disagree?


You bet. Such papers are being published almost every week. An interdisciplinary team of 14 researchers, including Shaviv and Veizer, offers you a pretty comprehensive 140-page-long review about the influence of astronomical, solar, and cosmic effects on the Earth:

Note that these 14 authors - university researchers who question that the climate is explained by terrestrial forcings only and who publish in peer-reviewed journals - shouldn't exist according to the mainstream media and according to very soft scientists such as Naomi Oreskes. ;-)

Their review covers the known effects at all possible time scales, presents a logarithmic graph of these effects, and dedicates many pages to the cosmic rays - cloud link. Some quantitative arguments are given to support the thesis that every child knows - namely that it is the amount of clouds that primarily decides about the weather conditions at a given point which is why we should be very careful in identifying the factors that decide about the cloudiness.

Another article

A Russian-Polish-American team argues that

in Dendrochronologia, volume 24, to be released later this week. Their tree ring data seem to lead to a curious observation. The sunspots oscillate with a 11-year periodicity. The periodicity of the magnetic oscillations in the Sun is actually 22 years but all known mechanisms only depend on the square (or absolute value) of such a magnetic field - or the number of sunspots - so they should have a 11-year-long periodicity. How could the climate depend on the sign of the magnetic field - a sign that seems to be a pure convention? Nevertheless, the tree rings show a very distinctive universal signal with periodicity around 20 years, possibly 22 years. How is that possible? They argue that it could be a variation of star dust flux in the Solar System.

Vaquero's review

J.M. Vaquero wrote a review to be published in Adv Space Res

about the historical sunspot observations. CCNet also mentioned Solomon's article about Nir Shaviv that we mentioned previously, as well as

for modesty, integrity, and balance by Prof Hendrik Tennekes, a retired former boss of Dutch weathermen. He explains that he is angry at various alarmists. Tennekes argues that the climate models are contrived and largely ignore the most important factors for the global food production - the amount of rain. He says that the climate models are sensitivity experiments, not tools for policymakers, and people should lose their obsession with climate forecasting and the greenhouse effect.

Via Benny Peiser. To subscribe to his CCNet, send an e-mail to listserver at (with the line "subscribe cambridge-conference" without quotation marks in the subject and in the body).

Some previous related articles:

1 comment:

  1. Didn't you hear? A bunch of scientists got together and negotiated a statement that declared AGW to be a fact. How much more scientific do you want?