Liberals love to claim that conservatives are anti-science, but on manmade global warming, who has been pointing for years to scientific evidence that global warming is a farce while the left has been taken in by silly propaganda flicks about polar bears going extinct because too many people are driving SUVs?

In fact, I suspect that the only thing keeping most scientists around the world from admitting that manmade global warming isn't real is their fear of a hysterical reaction from deranged liberals who attack scientists who dare to disagree with them with the same sort of zeal they normally reserve for Sarah Palin, black Republicans, and Christians who actually take the Bible seriously.

Yet and still, more and more stories like this one from the Prof. Don J. Easterbrook seem to be creeping out,

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century.

...However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

...Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier 'natural' climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

...The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The correlation between the PDO and global climate is well established. The announcement by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.

...CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming--it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

Here we have a professor explaining the reasons he thinks global warming is done and he's actually explaining them as opposed to simply (and incorrectly) yelling, "There's a scientific consensus! There's a scientific consensus!"

If what Easterbrook is saying here is wrong, then why is it wrong? If you say you're basing your belief in manmade global warming on science, as opposed to propaganda, then shouldn't there be a logical, rational explanation why what he's saying is wrong that goes beyond a false claim of "scientific consensus?"

Easterbrook just made a more convincing case than I've heard from anyone peddling manmade global warming and the fact that there has been no global warming in a decade strongly suggests that he's right when he's says the planet is no longer getting hotter.