Posts Tagged ‘skeptics’

Emails: Global Warming ‘Science’ Exposed As The Lie It Has Been All Along

November 20, 2009

Blatant scientific fraud and global warming alarmism have been best buddies for quite some time.

But hundreds of emails pilfered from a major British university climate change center are stunning even to those who know what a whopping load of crap global warming is.

The emails are available in an easy-to-digest format HERE.  There are somewhere in the vicinity of a thousand-plus, along with some 72 documents.

A UK Telegraph article slams the whole industry as bogus.  And we learn that some of the “scientists” who took part in these emails were huge names in the bogus industry they created:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

You can’t even begin to imagine what a pure scientific fraud all this global warming crap is.

Let’s take a moment to contemplate the “science” of chief global warming propagandist Al Gore when he appeared on Conan O’Brien’s program [youtube available here]:

CONAN O’BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy…

AL GORE: Yeah, yeah.

O’BRIEN: create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: Yeah.

O’BRIEN: …and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ‘cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

The problem is that even the earth’s core is only around 2,000-7,000 degrees Celsius (we can’t get to it to measure it precisely).  The whole “several million degree” thing is the blathering idiocy of a blathering idiot.

A blathering idiot who received a Nobel Prize for Science.

This is on top of the fact that Al Gore’s new book pimping global warming relied on photoshopping to artificially “show” the effects of global warming.

And THAT’S on top of the fact that the propaganda film that Al Gore won his Nobel Prize for science in the first place was based on documented exaggerations and lies.

From the Times Online Business section:

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

There were at least nine significant bogus claims contradicted by science in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

But that didn’t stop him from receiving a Nobel Prize for it.

The Nobel Prize for Leftwing Propaganda.

When you include the Nobel Prize for Accomplishing Nothing that Barack Obama “won,” you begin to see what an empty suit our chief institutions of leftwing credibility truly are.

But it’s worse than making the Nobel committee or the Nobel Peace Prize a mockery.  What has happened with global warming has made science itself a mockery.

I wrote a couple of articles that expose a lot of these frauds and present the actual legitimate science some time back:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

There are a few truly good scientists out there.  But there are way too many partisan ideologues who are willing to go to any lengths to pass of ideology as science.  And the new “Galileos” are those who stand in the way of liberal secular humanists academics for whom ideological political power and science are one.

The “scientists” who support global warming theory are not scientists, regardless of their degrees or positions.  They are propagandists.  They are political ideologues who seek to exploit their positions to impose economic redistributionism on people who can scarcely afford to make ends meet as it is.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times these pseudo-scientific fascist frauds are caught lying, fabricating data, making bogus claims, or generally defecating on the principles, methodologies, and ethics of science.  They just keep rolling merrily along as an equally dishonest, ideological, and propagandistic media covers up for them.

And if I may make one more comment: the people who are trying to impose ObamaCare on us are the same sort of people who are using the same sort of deceit.

[Update, November 22] From “IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud,” by Rebecca Terrell and Ed Hiserodt:

[In reference to a] New York Times article [which] opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed “our [inadequate] observing system.”  Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the “Climategate” bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical “trick” he used to “hide” data. Or perhaps they mean Mann’s reference to climate change skeptics as “idiots.”


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.”

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

June 10, 2008

Most people are only being allowed to hear part of the story when it comes to global warming.

Global warming skeptics have been compared with holocaust deniers, and media reports routinely present the issue as “settled.” Those opposed to the global warming agenda are being openly mocked and attacked – but they are being mocked and attacked based on a straw-man misrepresentation of their position.

Most global warming skeptics readily acknoweldge that the planet is warming. What they deny is that man is causing that warming (anthropogenic global warming), or that man can do anything that would have more than a trivial impact on the warming that is occuring. And they question whether the warming that is occuring is even bad for the planet or for humanity.

There is clear evidence of a persistant natural global warming cycle that has dominated Earth’s temperatures for the past 10,000 years and extends back through several ice ages and warm interglacials for at least 1 million years. The evidence shows this cycle is responsible for most of Earth’s warming since 1850. The scientific evidence is found in more than 200 peer-reviewed papers published in professional journals representing the conclusions of more than 500 scientific experts. But that information is simply ignored by a frankly biased and leftist media, compressed into sounbites and buried in the back pages of newspapers, or spun by being “put into context.”

For example, it was front-page news when the 2007 UN Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change (IPCC) report proclaimed near-certainty that the cause of global warming was human; but how much coverage did the 2006 US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report get that presented clear evidence to the contrary?

Similarly, the statement in the IPCC Climate Change 1995 report claiming that scientists had found a “human fingerprint” in the current global warming received a great deal of attention. But the fact that that statement had been inserted into the report for political, not scientific, reasons, and that the accompanying “science volume” had been edited to remove five different statements by the scientific panel specifically saying that no such human fingerprint had been found, received very little attention. The author of that IPCC science chapter – a US government employee – had to publicly admit that he had inserted the scientifically indefensible language because of “back room” pressure from top US government officials (see Frederick Seitz, former president, National Academy of Sciences, “A Major Deception on Global Warming” in the 12 June 1996 Wall Street Journal; see also S. Fred Singer, Climate Policy from Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000 and Beyond (Palo Alto: Hoover Institution, Standford University 2000, p.19).

The truth of the matter is that scientists from around the world are having to gather to discuss academic misconduct – the falsification or misrepresentation of research data – which is described as an “open sore” in scientific research. But the media does not seem to be interested in anything that would undermine their narrative of a crisis caused by global warming.

History professor Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper purporting to show “a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming” garnered a great deal of media exposure. However, Dr. Benny Peiser’s devastating refutation [update, August 21, 2011 – that link is now access-restricted; please see here] of that paper by revealing its terrible methodology was largely shunned. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte provided another refutation of Oreskes’ work. No matter: Oreskes paper is accepted as gospel by global warming advocates and by the media. Thus a history professor with an obviously biased and flawed methodology declares a scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and that view has become the gospel-truth with the media which disregards the truth in favor of a footnote that supports their agenda.

Dr. Benny Peiser went on to present an 18 April 2007 paper titled EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION at the conference “Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses” before the European Parliament. He said:

Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world’s leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: “The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It’s time to take political action.”

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, has decried the myth of “scientific consensus,” and pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists. He has also pointed out that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. But he has largely been ignored by the media. Other scientists, such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have similarly come out to declare their scientific skepticism of global warming alarmism. “I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change.”

Such views are not only dismissed, but are all-too often being ferociously attacked by every means possible with tactics that could legitimately be called Stalinist.

Dr. Lindzen – the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the leading scientific university in the world – wrote an article titled, “Climate of Fear” detailing the Orwellian tactics routinely used by the global warming alarmism industry to stifle or outright destroy skeptical scientists. He says, “there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

In one troubling case, a revered hurricane expert and global warming skeptic is being released from Colorado State University. Dr. William Gray, whose dean has publicly acknowledged that “He’s a great faculty member,” is being forced out of his position – not due to any allegations of incompetency or misconduct – but simply because “handling media inquiries for Dr. Gray’s work requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote the work of other professors.” Question: are scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming being fired because of media inquirees regarding their position? Universities generally like it when their faculty receive media exposure because it translates in increased student applications. Dr Gray rightly says, “This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to be a cover for the department’s capitulation to the desires of some who want to rein in my global warming and global warming-hurricane predictions.”

And if anything, the real “dirty secret” is that the “industry stooges” are actually working on the side of the global warming alarmist industry, such as the Pew Foundation, according to an article by climatologist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.

A blatant example of this is Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ Dr. James Hansen. Hansen wrote his first alarmist climate model – which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling – in 1971. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent the catastrophe of global cooling. Now his models just as stridently hype global warming catastrophe. He has appeared on numerous friendly media formats decrying “the politicization of science,” when he himself has politicized science more than anyone. He has received millions of dollars in funding from liberal activist sources such as George Soros and the Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. He also served as a paid consultant to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and has personally promoted the film.

I personally never had any axe to grind on “global warming” until a one-sided version of it was repeatedly imposed upon me. If there truly was a problem, I would have wanted to take steps toward a solution (I drive the speed limit to reduce my fuel consumption, carefully watch my water consumption, avidly recycle, and routinely pick up other people’s trash). But I became very suspicious way back in 1995 when UN officials began to call for draconian steps on the part of wealthy Western European economies, yet imposed nothing upon Russia, China, India, and the devoloping world. We were either facing a genuine global crisis – in which case coal burning developing countries needed to stop their coal burning and developing along with everyone else – or it was not. I began to suspect that the effort to combat global warming was far more a radical socialist redistribution campaign rather than a legitimate effort to truly combat an actual global crisis. And I have never seen anything that has ever revealed this view to be incorrect since.

I see the overwhelming evidence for constant warming and cooling climate cycles throughout the planet’s history simply dismissed as though it is utterly irrelevant to the question of current global warming, even as the global warming establishment categorically states that global warming is anthropocentric based on the flimsiest of evidence largely based on theoretical computer climate models.

I see the “experts” arbitrarily deciding to fixate on the 3.2 percent of carbon dioxide that is caused by humans and ignoring the 96.8% that is completely natural and out of human control. I see the claim that the United States must totally alter its entire way of life to reduce anthropogenic CO2 when anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

I see Al Gore receiving a Nobel Prize for science when his work is filled with one alarmist and exaggerated claim after another. Giving such an award to a man whose tactics represent those of Joeseph Goebbels more than those of objective science demonstrates what an ideological mockery the scientific project is increasingly becoming.

I see the theoretical future threat to polar bears as grounds for sweeping powers being granted to the Environmental Protection Agency despite the fact that the bear population has clearly doubled in the past thirty years. If global warming is truly having such a terrible impact on our environment, then advocates ought to have the ability to provide species whose population is truly being impacted.

I see the media hyping the melting northern ice caps and simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Antarctic ice levels have hit record highs.

I see the best available observations showing a global warming pattern (in latitude and altitude) that differ dramatically from the pattern calculated by computer greenhouse models being ignored. It doesn’t seem to matter that the observed and theoretical fingerprints simply do not match.

I see global warming alarmists continuing to point at severe weather as being caused by global warming when the science says otherwise. One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming causes hurricane activity to intensify has recently reversed his position, with little fanfare. Hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT now says that hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise over the next two centuries.

I see (and laugh!) one global warming conference hyping catastrophe after another having to be canceled every single year due to cold weather. I see (and laugh at!) the hypocrisy of UN “global warming experts” flying to Bali to have a conference saying the very thing they’re doing is destroying the planet!!! I see Al Gore’s home creating a carbon footprint that is 20 times larger than anyone else’s while he’s out telling people to ride their bikes everywhere to save the planet.

I see liberals advocating “carbon credits” the way the Catholic church at its worst sold indulgences to bribe God to ignore their sins. Apparently, if a pedophile molests a kid but gives money to an anti-child-molesting organization, his net molestation is zero. Carbon credits give wealthy global warming alarmists the ability to pay their way out of being forced to live the way they want to force everyone else to live.

I see liberals and environmental activists routinely using every means to block any effort to resolve our energy crisis by exploiting our abundant domestic oil resources, even as they constantly demagogue those who have been proposing how to increase the energy supply and reduce the increasingly shockingly-high price tag of energy that is essential to our economy. If your car will run on wind, then by all means let’s build more windmills. But otherwise, by all means, please let us increase our oil supply.

I see all this and more, and am therefore very skeptical as to why I need to support the most massive socialist redistribution program in world history and the complete undermining of the American economy in order to fight a theoretical threat – when all human history has shown that global warming is actually good for humans and it is ice ages that are bad. Civilizations such as the Roman and Mayan empires thrived during warming that is hotter than it is today; and it was during the cooling that occurred during the so-called Dark Ages that human civilization struggled to survive.

Also see my article, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming.”