Posts Tagged ‘hockey stick model’

Meet Thomas Schelling, Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Demagogue

July 25, 2009

We can go back and look at Al Gore, a documented fraud, a presenter of entirely false scientific claims, and the winner of a Nobel Prize for science.  A British High Court judge found nine “glaring” scientific errors in the Inconvenient Truth “documentary” that garnered Gore his scientific credibility.  But the only “inconvenient truth” was that the film was an example of “alarmism” and “exaggeration” and was not fit for viewing by British school children.

“Science” has officially and for the record made itself a propaganda tool to advance radical redistributionist social policies.

And now we have another Nobel prize winner doing the same thing to his own field of economics.

An Interview With Thomas Schelling, Part Two

CLARKE: I wanted to go back to the international climate-change negotiation process. So assuming we had a perfect U.S. bill — written by you or by 15 experts working on this full time — how would the international negotiation process work? It’s not obvious that averting global climate change is in the rational self-interest of anyone that is alive today. The serious consequences probably won’t occur until 2080 or 2100 or thereafter. That’s one problem. Another problem is that those consequences are going to be distributed in a radically uneven way. The northwest of the United States might actually benefit. So how does a negotiation process work? How does a generation today negotiate on behalf of future generations? And how do we negotiate when the costs are distributed so unevenly?

SCHELLING: Well I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren’t yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don’t know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

SCHELLING: It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious. I think there’s a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale — even though methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long — it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release, which will warm things up more, which will release more. And that will create a huge multiplier effect, and it could become very serious.

CLARKE: And you mean serious for everyone, including the United States?

SCHELLING: Yes, for almost anybody.

CLARKE: And when you say, “exaggerate the costs” do you mean, American politicians should exaggerate the costs to the American public, to get American support for a bill that will overwhelmingly benefit the developing world?

SCHELLING: [Laughs] It’s very hard to get honest people.

SCHELLING: Well, part of me sympathizes with the case for disingenuousness! I mean, it seems to me that there is a strong moral case for helping unborn Bangladeshi citizens. But I don’t know how you sell that. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest, at least in the US, to legislate on that basis.

Well, let me at least agree with Thomas Schelling to this extent: yes, it is indeed hard to find honest people.  Especially from our “experts” whom we count upon to inform us of the facts, rather than leading us by the hand to conclusions based on false premises becauses they are arrogant elitists who think only they are smart enough to handle the truth.

The article goes on – read it here – with a seriously leftist-tilted back-and-forth about climate change and the degree to which America is morally obligated to commit economic hari kari in order to atone for its sins to the developing world.

Then we get to the moral nitty gritty to end the article:

CLARKE: I wanted to ask one more question, to go back to the moral issue here. It does seem to me that the strongest case for mitigating the effects of global climate change is a moral one. It is based not on our own interest but on the interests of people in the developing world who don’t yet exist. But it also seems to me that — while I don’t know much about game theory — collective bargaining theories generally assume the participants are rational and self-interested. So how does one go about making sense of an arrangement where we must set our self-interest aside? How does one make the moral case in a situation like this? Or is my description of collective bargaining just totally idiotic?

SCHELLING: Well, I think you have to realize that most people have very strong moral feelings. I think in a lot of cases they’re misdirected. I wish moral feelings about a two-month old fetus were attached to hungry children in Africa. But I think people have very strong moral feelings. In fact, I’m always amazed by the number of people who at least pretend they’re worried about the polar bears. […]

SCHELLING: And I think the churches don’t realize that they could have a potent effect in not letting so much of god’s legacy — in terms of flora and fauna — be destroyed by climate change.

SCHELLING: But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Now, Thomas Schelling one the one hand tells us that we should feel intensely morally obligated to “beneficiaries [who] not yet born” – as long as they’re not “a two month old fetus” who is presumably about to be aborted – in which case we apparently have absolutely no obligation at all.  But stop and think: the moral logic of abortion means the future generation doesn’t matter unless we subjectively want them to matter.  No one who advocates abortion has any right to lecture others that they should not only care about but sacrifice for “beneficiaries not yet born.” Then Schelling proceeds to presume from his own massive personal arrogance that the American people’s moral intuitions are faulty, but that his are functioning perfectly.  Which of course justifies him in lying to us to steer us toward the conclusion dictated by his own superior moral reasoning.

And then this man who presumes himself to be so morally superior to everyone “beneath” him, who is entitled to “exaggerate the threat” of global warming because Americans are not responsible to make sound moral decisions if they know the truth, says he hopes “horrid things” happen to we the poor, the huddling, the ignorant and unwashed masses.

This economist seems to live more by the law involving the telling of a lie often enough that it is believed far more than by the law of supply and demand.

It’s funny that Schelling mentions polar bears, as an admitted global warming exaggerator now proceeds to run into the pseudo-science of another global warming exaggerator.  And you have – unlike Al Gore or Thomas Schelling, who have credibility in the scientific community without having any ethical integrity – a genuine scientist being persecuted because he cares about the truth:

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

And we have the same types of people as Thomas Schelling suppresing the conclusions of science that show the opposite of what they want science to show.  Consider the White House’s suppression of a scientific report by the EPA.

Or you can go back to the “hockey stick model” to see just how far “respected” scientists are willing to go in order to pass off a bogus theory for mass consumption — and just how willing other scientists are to unquestioningly accept whatever “evidence” supports their preconceived ideological notions.

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein apparently lacks Thomas Schelling’s godlike view, and thus doesn’t seem to think he possesses the divine right to distort the truth in order to lead Americans to the conclusions he ordains as “moral.”

Feldstein simply looks at the economics – which, who knows, may be a strange thing for an economist to do these days – and concludes:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

Aside from the fact that building scientific evidence indicates that global warming is a gigantic load of malarkey (just consider how the fact that the planet ISN’T warming has now led the alarmist movement to instead begin using the term “climate change”), global warming-turned climate change alarmists have an even bigger problem to worry about: the fact that the developing world has no interests in committing their own versions of hari kari for the sake of a theory.  China and India are poised to become “global warming polluters” on such a scale that any reductions in American and European greenhouse gasses would be utterly insignificant.  So why should we dramatically undermine our lives?

Chinese and Indians know what it’s like to live in a mud hut, which is the inevitable result of dramatically hamstringing our economic output to conform to the demands of the global warming alarmists.  The western radicals either don’t know what such deplorable conditions are like, or they believe that they – being the true arrogant elitists they are – will continue to live in their glass houses or ivory towers.

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

June 16, 2008

Contrary to the typical straw-man presentation provided by the media, the vast majority of so-called “global-warming skeptics” actually accept that there is indeed evidence of warming in our climate. In fact, they see a persistant global warming cycle that has dominated earth’s atmosphere for the past 10,000 years and which extends into the distant past through a million years of periods of ice ages and warm intergalacials. What they doubt is that man has had any significant impact upon the warming that we see today.

These skeptics of anthropogenic – or man-caused – global warming would also argue that there are excellent reasons to doubt that the warming seen today is as significant as is routinely claimed by global warming alarmists in both the media and the scientific community.

The following provides a survey of the first few chapters of the book, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

NASA was recently forced to acknowledge that it had [accidentally?] inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. The revised data now shows 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, and 1953. This is significant because 4 of the top 10 years on record occur before World war II, before human emissions could have been responsible, whereas only 3 of the top 10 years are from the past decade.

Furthermore, new data are also emerging rasing substantial doubts about the veracity of the surface temperature records kept both in the US and globally. Meteorologist Anthony Watts launched an effort to photograph 1,221 surface temperature recording stations in the US to see if land use changes might be contaminating the record. Images of the stations he’s photographed so far ( show many cases where stations seem to be reporting warming caused by parking lots, nearby buildings, and heat-generating activities such as air conditioners which have been built around the stations since they originally began taking measurments decades ago.

For example, the temperature station in Orland, California, has been in the same location for more than 100 years and shows no evidence of being affected by nearby development. It shows a declining temperature trend from 1880 to 2007. But the temperature station in nearby Marysville, California has been surrounded by development in the form of an asphalt driveway, the base of a large cell tower, and air condiditoning units in nearby buildings. That station shows a warming trend.

Many of these stations were located at airfields which originally were little more than dirt strips with a couple of small buildings.

As Watts’ team finds more and more stations such as the one in Marysville, it is becoming clear the US temperature records shows more warming than has actually occurred. One is therefore left wondering how much of the measured warming trend is real and how much is the result of contaminated data.

Furthermore, the IPCC, in dismissing this claim, cited one paper as its primary justification for concluding that UHIs (Urban Heat Islands) did not affect the global temperature record. But the paper that they cited is now recognized to have been a fraud, with formal charges filed against its author, Wei-Chyung Wang. A British mathematician named Doug Keenan stumbled across Wang’s paper and noticed obvious red flags. Wang utilized Chinese data from the 1950s, and Keenan asked himself how a country in such disarray that it couldn’t even estimate its population within 100,000,000 people, could have so diligantly and accurately monitored so many temperature stations. A Freedom of Information Act request yielded information proving that the paper was a complete fraud. The question is, why would the IPCC have made this paper their centerpiece? Are they that incompetent, or are they rather so biased that they are not after truth, but only footnotes to substantiate their ideology?

Anyone who refuses to take such evidence into account is not practicing science, but rather propagandizing ideology.

Eric the Red’s settlement of Greenland near the end of the 10th century dramatically demonstrate the Earth’s long, moderate climate cycle.

Sailing west from Iceland in 985 AD, the Vikings were pleased to discover a huge uninhabited island surrounded by ice-free waters and shores were covered with abundant green grass. They could grow vegetables and grace their animals. The colony thrived, and grew to 3,000 people by 1100, with 12 churches and its own bishop.

What the Vikings could not have known was that they were benefitting from the Medieval Warming, a major climate shift that lasted approximately 400 years which made Northern Europe abot 2 degrees centigrade warmer than previously. Nor could they have realized that after this warming period ended, their grassy domain was doomed to a 500-year period of icy temperatures called the Little Ice Age. As the Little Ice Age progressed and pack ice moved closer to Greenland, the colonists were increasingly hard-pressed to survive. Less and less hay could be harvested in the shorter and cooler summers. The storms got worse. The abundant codfish followed warm waters south, away from the colonies. By 1410, glaciers had so crushed Greenland that the supply ships could no longer make the journey.

Inuit hunters pushed south by the encroaching ice began to compete with the Norsemen. Skeletons found in the settlement’s graveyard showed the people were growing shorter and suffering poor nutrition; and a measurement of their tooth enamel indicates a nearly 1.5 degree C drop in average temperatures from 1100 and 1400. The last colonists were forced to eat the last of their milk cows, evidencing their desperation.

Denmark would not be able to recolonize Greenland until 1721, when the Little Ice Age began to lose its grip on the huge island. Today, 150 years into the Modern Warming, Greenland is the home of 50,000 people and 20,000 sheep. But the ice cores and seabed sediments that tell us of 600 natural 1,500 year climate cycles over the past 1 million years contain the proof that the cycle will eventually shift yet again to descend Greenland into centuries of ice and hardship. Only superior modern technology such as improved ice-breaking ships will allow the modern Greenlanders to surive this next coming ice age.

2 million years ago: Cycles in Earth’s relation to the sun produce alternating Ice Ages (lasting 90,000 to 100,000 years) and “intergalacials” (lasting 10,000 to 20,000 years). The onset of the glacial period is often slow but ends abruptly at the transition to the warm period. The average global temperature changes 5-7 degrees C during this transition but may rise as much as 10-15 degrees C over a time span of less than 75 years at higher latitudes.

Let us take a look at the climate of the past:

  • 130,000 to 110,000 years ago: Eemian intergalacial, warm.
  • 110,000 years ago: Fairly sudden shift to glacial conditions, over perhaps 400 years or less. Northern forests retreat south, ice sheets begin to take over much of the Northern hemisphere. Trees give way to grass, and then to deserts, as more water is frozen in ice sheets instead of falling as rain on vegetation.
  • 60,000 to 55,000 years ago: In-between phase, partial melting of glaciers.
  • 21,000 to 17,000 years ago: Last Ice Age reaches its coldest point. Deserts and semi-deserts take over much of the global land area. Sea levels are 400′ lower than today.
  • 14,000 years ago: sudden warming, raising Earth temperatures to roughly present levels. Forests began to spread and the ice sheets to retreat. Sea levels begin to rise.
  • 12,500 years ago: The Younger Dryas. After only 1,500 years of recovery from the Ice Age, the Earth suddenly shifts back into a new, short-lived ice age. The dramatic cooling seems to have occurred within 100 years or less. Another 1,000 years or so of ice age follow before another sudden shift back to climate warming.
  • 11,500 years ago: The present intergalacial period known as the Holocene. The planet warms from ice age to nearly present world temperatures in less than 100 years. Half of the warming may have occurred in 15 years. Ice sheets melt, sea levels rise again, and forests expand. Trees replace grasslands and grass replace deserts.
  • 9,000 to 5,000 years ago: Climate Optimum, warmer and wetter than the Earth’s present climate. The Saharan and Arabian deserts become wetter, supporting hunting, herding, and agriculture. The climate may have been “punctuated” by a cold, dry phase 8,200 years ago, with Africa drier than before.
  • 2,600 years ago: Cooling event with relatively wet conditions in many parts of the world.
  • 600 to 200 BC: Unnamed cold period preceding the Roman Warming.
  • 200 BC to 600 AD: Roman Warming. Grape growing advances northward in both Italy and Britain.
  • 600 to 900 AD: “Dark Ages” cold period.
  • 900 to 1300 AD: Medieval Warming or Little Climate Optimum, recorded by histories in both Europe and Asia.
  • 1300 to 1850 AD: Little Ice Age.
  • 1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940.
  • 1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.
  • 1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt.
  • 1979 to present: A moderate warming trend, very slight according to satellites and weather balloons, somewhat stronger according to surface thermometers.

Note: the figures provided for the last 1,000 years are clearly confirmed by means of Tree Rings and Ice cores in addition to human records.

In 1984, Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland published their analysis of the oxygen isotopes in the first ice cores extracted from Greenland, which provided a record of 250,000 years of Earth’s climate history. The scientists compared the ratio of heavier oxygen-18 isotopes with lighter oxygen-16 isotopes, which indicated the temperatures at the time snow had fallen in each layer. They expected to find evidence of the mega ice ages and briefer mild intergalacials, and they did. But they did not expect to find anything in between. To their suprise, they found a clear cycle – moderate, but abrupt – occurring about every 2.550 years running persistantly through history as they analyzed the core layer by layer [subsequent research would soon reassess this cycle at 1,500 years, plus or minus 500 years]. At the time of their work, no such long-term climate history had ever before been available.

Dansgaard and Oeschger concluded, “the abrupt temperature rise in the 1920s may thus be the latest member of a very long series of similar events that occurs once every ca. 2,550 years to an extent that is modulated by the degree of glaciation and dependent on the latitude.”
(see W. Dansgaard et al., “North Atlantic Climate Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, ed. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1984), Geophysical Monograph #29, 288-98).

With the famous work of Dansgaard and Oeschger, the importance of the discovery of climate cycles increased dramatically a year or so later when evidence of 1,500 year cycles was also found at the other end of the world – in an ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier – by a French and Russian research team.

Gerard Bond of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory analyzed ice-rafted debris in sediments on the floor of the southern North Atlantic ocean. he found that – roughly every 1,500 years – there was a surge in the amount of rocky bits picked up by the glaciers as they ground their way across eastern Canada and Greenland and then floated out to sea. This more abundant ice-rafted debris was also floated much farther south before it dropped to the sea floor as the icebergs melted. Both the increase in the volume of debris and its floating much farther south indicate severe cold periods.

Bond’s team analyzed two deep-seabed cores, from opposite sides of the North Atlantic, which took them back 30,000 years into prehistory, and into the Ice Age itself. They used high-resolution mass spectrometers to carbon-date the plankton fossils (and thus the layers) in the sediments. The proxies definitely indicated a series of ice intrusions big enough to deliver increased iceberg sediments to two southerly sites more than 1,000 km apart.

Bond summarized his findings in 1997 in the journal Science:

“Evidence from North Atlantic deep-see cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene [intergalacial] climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. … Together, they make up a series of climatic shifts with a cyclicity close to 1,470 years (plus or minus 500 years). The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independently of the glacial-intergalacial climate state.” (G. Bond, “A Pervasive Millennial Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates,” Science 278 (1997): 1257-266).

Bond’s climatic cycles in the North Atlantic matched those found in the the cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet, very much strengthening the confidence that the cycles are real and significant. A subsequent study by Bond, also published in Science, which demonstrated the linkage between the Earth’s warming-cooling cyle and the sun, using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 as proxies for solar activity warming/cooling. Bond then did a follow-up study, published in 2001, counting ratios of carbon and beryllium isotopes in the sediments and found these solar proxies correlated very closely with the climatic cycles found in the iceberg debris. He found 9 of these cycles in the last 12,000 years (an average of every 1,333 years).
(G. Bond, “Persistant Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene,” Science 294 (2001): 2130-136).

Ulrich Neff of the Heidleberg Academy of Sciences found Bond’s Atlantic seabed cycles replicated in a cave stalagmite on the distant Arabian Peninsula, taking the documented reality far beyond Europe and the North Atlantic.
(see U. Neff et al., “Strong Coherence between Solar Avialbility and the Monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr Ago,” Nature 411 (2001): 290-93).

In 1996, Lloyd Keigwin reported finding the 1,500-year cycle in the sea surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea, reconstructed from the oxygen isotopes in the tiny one-cell organisms of a seabed sediment core.
(see L. Keigwin, “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea,” in Science 274 (1996): 1503-508).

In addition to confirming the 1,500-year climate cycle, Keigwin wrote of the solar cycle – climate cycle connection, “The solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years that it seems almost certain that the well-documented connections between the Maunder Solar Minimum and cold decades of the Little Ice Age could not have been a coincidence.”

During the past decade, numerous researchers have found the 1,500-year cycle in many long-term temperature proxies, particularly from isotopes of oxygen, carbon, beryllium, and argon trapped in glacier ice, from fossil pollen records, and from algae cyst assemblages in lake and seabed sediments.

The pollen fossils in the North American Pollen Data Base records show a major reorganization of the vegetation across North America 9 times in the past 14,000 years “with a periodicity of 1,650 years plus or minus 500 years.” Question: How close is that to an erratic 1,500-year cycle? Judging by the article summarizing their findings, pretty close indeed. The pollen analysis was carried out by a team led by Andre E. Viau of the University of Ottawa. Additionally, Viau’s team also found evidence of solar connection. They wrote, “We suggest that North Atlantic millennial scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate.”
(see A.E. Viau et al., “Widespread Evidence of 1,500-yr Climate Variability in North America During the Past 14,000 Years,” Geology 30 (2002):455-58).

Peter deMonocal led a team studying plankton fossils and airborne dust in a deep-sea core from the Atlantic coast of Africa at Cap Blanc, Mauritania. DeMonocal’s results confirmed the same set of cycles identified by Bond’s iceberg debris in the North Atlantic, this time thousands of kilometers closer to the equator where ice never forms. Changes in plankton numbers and species gave the deMonocal team ocean temperature readings from the past, and the amounts of dust blown from Africa were an indicator of drought. His team documented a history of major changes in sea surface temperatures off West Africa, which are linked to the same pattern of climate change Bond found in the North Atlantic.

DeMonocal and Bond demonstrate a dynamic climate system in which temperature and rainfall constantly change. Moreover, the cycle they have found long predates human industrial activity, and is linked to the variability of the sun’s activity. The two proxies strongly confirm each other and accord with the long-term stable data of the ice cores. This virtually destroys the old idea that our climate changes little and slowly between the ice ages.

In the Sulu Sea near the Philippines, the productivity of the phytoplankton is closely related to the strength of the winter monsoon. The production of phytoplankton was larger during glacial periods than during intergalacial periods, but researchers found that “the 1,500-year cycle … seems to be a pervasive feature of the monsoon climate system.”
(see T. De Garidel-Thoron and L. Beaufort, “High-Frequency Dynamics of the Monsoon in the Sulu Sea during the Last 200,000 Years,” a paper presented at the EGS General Assembly, Nice, France, April 2000).

Do I need to go on presenting evidence for the 1,500-year climate cycle, also commonly known as the “Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle”? I certainly can. Maureen Raymo of Boston College says that the Earth was undergoing Dansgaard-Oeschger cyles more than a million years ago based on research on the very long sediment core her team retrieved from the deep-sea bottom south of Iceland. The sediments show the same pattern of periodic surges in ice-rafted debris found by Gerard Bond, but coming from a period much farther back in time.

And in the Arabian Sea, west of Karachi, Pakistan, two seabed sediment cores date back nearly 5,000 years, and show “the 1470-year cycle previously reported from the glacial-age Greenland ice record.”
(see W.H. Berger and U. von Rad, “Decadal to Millennial Cyclicity in Varves and Turbidites from the Arabian Sea: Hypothesis of Tidal Origin,” in Global and Planetary Change 34 (2002): 313-25).

The fingerprints of this 1,500 year cycle are found all over the world. Ice-cores and seabed sediments that provide long-record data; peat bogs with organic residues; fossil pollens from around the world; long-buried trees and tree rings; stalagmites in caves where varying amounts of moisture and minerals dripped century by century; coral reefs whose tiny creators left behind clues to sea temperatures; ancient iron dust that reveal huge cycle-related droughts in ancient Africa and Patagonia; it doesn’t matter: all reveal mutually confirming evidence of cycles that stretch back into the planet’s history at least half a million years, through previous Ice Ages and warm intergalacials.

The fact of the matter is this: we have seen repeated, documented warming periods which dramatically pre-date the industrial revolution or any other man-caused carbon dioxide-creating scenarios as causative factors. While the authors of “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” also present a significant body of evidence linking the phenomena called “global warming” to solar activity, the fact of the matter is that human beings are 1) not the cause of warming; 2) unable to prevent warming; and 3) should not want to prevent warming. Warming has heralded dramatic improvements in human civilization every time it has occurred. It is ice ages that we should fear, not warming.

Furthermore, the planet appears to have a mechanism to vent away the carbon dioxide that humans are creating. Research published in the August 2007 American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters online edition by Roy Spencer confirmed the existence of a tropical climatic heat vent. This “natural thermostat,” which global climate models do not take into account, could single-handedly render much of the alarm over global warming moot. (also see “Natural ‘Heat Vent’ in Pacific Cloud Cover Could Diminish Greenhouse Warming,” Press Release, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 28 Feb 2001).

There is simply increasing evidence that there is no significant link between CO2 and global warming.

At the same time, we do have evidence that warming is occurring on other planets. One blogger has links to credible sources reporting “global warming” on Jupiter, Saturn, and other planets in our solar system. If anthropogenic CO2 is indeed responsible for global warming, then please do something about getting those darned SUVs off the gas giants! Or maybe the Martians are as reprehensible on the environment as China has been.

In direct contradiction of the anthropogenic scenario, scientists have found abundant evidence of 1,500-year climate cycles all over the world using numerous scientific methods and proxies:

We can examine ice cores from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier brought up in 1987 – on the other end of the world from the core brought up in 1984 from Greenland. Both showed the same 1,500 year climate cycle throughout 400,000 years of history. We can corroborate those ice-core findings with the known advances and retreats in the glaciers of the Arctic, Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic.

We can find the 1,500-year cycle revealed in seabed sediment cores brought up from the floors of such far-flung waters as the North Atlantic Ocean and the Arabian Sea, the Western Pacific and the Sargasso Sea.

We can find it in cave stalagmites from Ireland and Germany in the Northern Hemisphere to South Africa and New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere. All show evidence of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warming, and the unnamed period before the Roman Warming.

We can find it in fossilized pollen from across North America that show 9 complete reorganizations of our trees and plants in the last 14,000 years – or once every 1,650 years.

There is overwhelming evidence for a 1,500-year climate cycle, plus or minus 500 years, available from one study after another, using one proxy after another, in one part of the world after another. We are currently 150 years into the Modern Warming, and our climate is just as the history and the science of these climatic cycles predict it ought to be.

So why doesn’t anyone who hasn’t read know about the climate cycle? Why hasn’t the media reported on it? Why hasn’t the media reported more on the tropical climatic heat vent and other natural mechanisms that facilitate the disposal of so-called “global warming gasses”? Why aren’t scientists and pseudo-scientists such as Al Gore considering any of this information in their panicky scenarios?

Why do we instead get bombarded on every side by a presentation that computer greenhouse gas models alleging terrifying cataclysmic patterns must be regarded as gospel truth when the theoretical fingerprints of these models have so often failed to match the observed data? Why doesn’t the established fact that we have cyclical climate patterns of warming and cooling and that we are currently in the warming trend of the cycle not merit prima facia status? Why should we trust a theoretical model that predicts a cataclysmic trend over a million years of actual documented history when science demonstrates a constant, continual trend?

Should computer forecasting models be considered more reliable than ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years?

Let me take you back a few years when news of the “hockey stick model” first began to emerge that revealed what a debacle this model truly was.

Michael Mann’s hockey stick model got its nickname from the shape of the historical temperature data it claimed to demonstrate. Rather than climate conditions cycling from warm to cool, it purported that the data had been flat until the last century, when temperatures began to spike ever upward. Hence the “hockey stick.”

This is no straw man. Michael Mann’s model was a mainstay of the Kyoto-pushing United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mann’s hockey stick figure appeared five times in just their summary volume alone. It was cited again and again by the media and by scientific papers as evidence of anthropogenic global warming until it was absolutely blown apart by a few determined researchers.

The most chilling thing of all, however, wasn’t so much the general acceptance this terrible science received in so much of the scientific community and in the media, but rather the outright persecution that arose when scientists began to refute the model. As it turned out, independent scientists soon realized that they could not replicate the temperature curve of the hockey stick model even when using Mann’s own data. But even aside from that, Mann’s conclusions were completely falsified by literally hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that had documented Medieval Warming. Yet scientists who attempted to reveal the truth were attacked within their own communities. Why? Because Michal Mann’s paper ostensibly provided the “smoking gun” proving anthropogenic global warming, and the fact that it was based on disgraceful science was apparently immaterial.

Six editors had to resign from the journal Climate Research because they displayed integrity and courage in the face of a manufactured “scientific consensus” and Stalinistic tactics. Their crime? They published the article “Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years,” by W. Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which began to reveal that the emperor truly had no clothes.

The scientific community immediately excoriated Climate Research for allegedly failing to vet the Soon and Baliunas paper correctly. But all-too-soon it came out that it was really a case of the scientific community failing to vet the Mann paper correctly. S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed critique of Mann’s work. Their paper bluntly demonstrated that Mann’s papers contained “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.”

Richard Muller wrote an article about the fiasco with a subtitle warning of the “peril of letting politics shape the scientific debate,” which contains the above quote. David Deming and Richard Lindzen have also written about this disturbing trend which is transforming science into an instrument designed to crush the truth.

Global warming is not about science, and it hasn’t been for some time. It is about politics, ideology, and power.

At some point you simply must realize that the scientists claiming evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are not practicing science, but ideology. They are not objective researchers who carefully investigate the data and cautiously report their findings; rather they are the kind of people who would give Al Gore – a radical environmentalist and a documented perpetuator of scientific fraud – a Nobel Prize simply because his agenda is the same as their own. By claiming that the planet is in crisis, these leftist ideologues are able to garner enormous political clout not only through increasingly large academic, private think-tank, and governmental research grants, but by having direct control over vast swaths of the global economy and trillions of dollars in assets.

Vaclav Klaus, the extremely popular President of the Czech Republic, recently said: “It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

Centralized planners with “megalomaniac ambitions” are now working to restrain democratic development and economic activity under the guise of environmentalism, said Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. He spoke Tuesday morning at conference in New York City.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the ‘climate alarmism’ perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

‘Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,’ he said.

‘In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat – this time, in the name of the planet,’ he added.

Is it going too far to compare global warming alarmist scientists and bureaucrats and their policies? to the Stalinists of the communist era? Not when they use the kind of tactics they are using to destroy their opponents and prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard and evaluated. And not when they seem so terrified by free thought.

See also my article, “What You Never Hear About Global Warming.”