So, it appears that finally we have this enormous number of scientists stepping up to tell us what we secretly knew all along: that global warming is nothing more than a liberal scam designed to cripple the West, just when we need our strength the most. The opening paragraph of the linked article:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Granted it’s not actually a petition, a report, or even proceedings from a recent get-together of sceptical minds. It’s an independent analysis of [probably] published literature. Still, it does sound very damning, and may make one think twice about getting sucked in by the Chicken Littles of the world (who, let’s face it, have a racket to protect).

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Ok, ok, so at this point I’m kind of wincing like I have a headache coming on… but at least the major points are numbered, making for easy reference. So please tell me, am I being especially unreasonable when I note the following:

1. Although I am unaware of such evidence, for the sake of argument let’s assume there have been several distinct periods of warming since the last ice age. Clearly the fact that we even have ice ages means that there are and always have been larger climate cycles in play, I doubt anyone would seriously argue otherwise (except perhaps for New Earth Creationists) How does this refute the theory of anthropogenic warming? ie no one has ever argued that without human intervention the climate would be static— the problem is it changing much faster than it should.
2. Since the sun provides the energy which drives the weather, I would not be surprised if this were true. But again, how does the existence of such an influence discount our own?
3. I suspect that residents of the island nation Tuvalu might disagree there. Especially notable is the word "importantly"… why not use the word "significantly"? Perhaps because the rises are significant, but not regarded by the authors as important in the context of whatever their fields of expertise is (the articles lists: tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics)
4. So the bizarro weather patterns which are already scaring the shit out of everyone are not yet as bad as they may have been at times in the distant past.
5. The fact that it won’t necessarily kill us all doesn’t mean it is not partially our fault or entirely our problem. Also I strongly doubt the simplistic conclusion that fewer people will die, if only because of the likely increase of tropical diseases like malaria as the temperature rises.
6. The fact that animals can adapt is a great demonstration of evolution, but again says nothing of the human role in climate change. Also worth noting (since this fatuous point is raised) that humans are so directly responsible for the extinction of thousands of species that it will probably be very difficult to establish which are killed by climate change and which are destroyed by displacement or invasion.

So please go read the original article, and maybe even Have your Say at the end. Jesus Christ I hate it when online articles use that line for comments. So empowering!

BTW, I don’t want to be a link whore, but it would be nice to get a del.icio.us link out there of my own, since so many people seem to be so ready to swallow the first thing that questions the "establishment"— link to this post on del.icio.us