Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proof exists (that greenhouse does not), but believers would rather denounce than debate
http://www.eco.freedom.org ^ | Friday,November 28,2003 | By Lorne Gunter

Posted on 11/28/2003 7:00:24 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK

Proof exists (that greenhouse does not), but believers would rather denounce than debate

By Lorne Gunter

Too many scientists have based their research, their reputations, and their incomes on the greenhouse theory to let it go now.

So, rather than debate the growing evidence that the greenhouse theory is fundamentally flawed, many greenhouse-believing scientists have begun viciously attacking those who question its conclusions and denouncing any agnostic as a heretic - especially ones presenting uncomfortably challenging proof.

Witness Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Both are noted solar physicists. Earlier this year, they published an exhaustive study of the climate of the past 1,000 years or so in the journal Climate Research. They examined more studies on historic climate trends - 240 in all - than any previous researchers, and concluded the 20th century was not unusually warm. In the past millennium there had been at least one other period when, worldwide, temperatures were as much as 2 - 3 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1990s.

This was not a particularly startling conclusion. There have been literally thousands of papers written by geologists identifying a Medieval Warm Period running from about 800 to 1300 AD, and a Little Ice Age spanning 1300 to about 1850. Soon and Baliunas merely confirmed that these thousands of earlier studies were right.

But Soon and Baliunas were both vehemently attacked. Myths were spread that they had cooked their findings (as good scientists do, they acknowledged in their article the very limitations in their results that have been used to try to discredit them). Three junior editors at the journal that published their study resigned, claiming embarrassment that their employer published shoddy research. Then, the controversy sucked down the editor-in-chief.

However, when an independent review was conducted of the Soon/Baliunas article, no misrepresentation was found, nor any shortcomings with Climate Research's peer-review process. (These latter facts are often left out of news stories on the controversy, though.)

(Excerpt) Read more at eco.freedom.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarminghoax; greenhouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 11/28/2003 7:00:25 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
ping
2 posted on 11/28/2003 7:02:42 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
bttt
3 posted on 11/28/2003 7:18:27 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. - Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Global warming = greatest myth ever perpetrated on mankind...
4 posted on 11/28/2003 7:24:33 PM PST by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary? Me Neither!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES

Game, set, match.

5 posted on 11/28/2003 7:26:21 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Thanks for the article. I firmly believe that since the sun provides 99+% of earth's heat, and since there is exactly zero accurate measurements of that heat sources' actual output, all of the greenhouse scientists are nothing more then very poor weathermen.
6 posted on 11/28/2003 7:27:09 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
Global warming = greatest myth ever perpetrated on mankind...

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

7 posted on 11/28/2003 7:28:42 PM PST by jimfree ("Never did no wanderin' after all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
So, rather than debate the growing evidence that the greenhouse theory is fundamentally flawed, many greenhouse-believing scientists have begun viciously attacking those who question its conclusions and denouncing any agnostic as a heretic - especially ones presenting uncomfortably challenging proof.

The "greenhouse theory" is factual and there can and have been global warming episodes caused by massive increases in some atmospheric components.

What is taken as an article of faith by the Greenies is that the endeavors of present day mankind (notably America) are causing the reversal of natural climatic cycles. The zealots of the "Watermelon Left" supports this religious ideal with a fervor that would warm the hearts of Cotton Mather and Torquemada.

8 posted on 11/28/2003 7:31:15 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Proud member - Neoconservative Power Vortex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Interesting.
9 posted on 11/28/2003 7:31:22 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html


Global Climate Change and Solar Variability Graph of solar activity versus climate. From Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.

10 posted on 11/28/2003 8:12:19 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
...since the sun provides 99+% of earth's heat, and since there is exactly zero accurate measurements of that heat sources' actual output...

And that's not to mention another heat source... The molten core of our planet itself! Some scientists recognize that source of heat as a modulating factor.

A problem not "scientifically" considered, concerning both the effects of our nearby star, Sol, and the lesser of our own molten "selves", is that in most all the climate study models, these two are "plugged in" as it were, to the "math", as being constants---unchanging. Error alert, error alert! We've gone and made an assumption!

Assumptions can be necassary, can even be properly employed in the basis of a theory, but first, one needs to rigourously test the assumption. Otherwise, one risks inserting an erroneous number into the calculations.

Peer review is supposed to help bring potential errors to light... But with this one, since an ox has been gored, the owners of the ox go and start grinding their axes! They've got folks so brainwashed (from near infancy!) that just the sight of an ox being gored (rightly or not) makes the watchers on the sidelines pick up axes, too.

Ah, if these enviro ninnys could only exist in "Plank time" or something, hehehehe... Now you see 'em, now you don't!

11 posted on 11/28/2003 8:28:35 PM PST by 7MMmag (igottaproblemwiththiswholeconcept-aintnobeginningnoend?eachtimeithinki'vearrived awholenewtripbegins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
How about global cooling ...... hockey anyone????
12 posted on 11/28/2003 9:04:45 PM PST by CurlyBill (Voter fraud is one of the primary campaign strategies of the Democrats!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Why the excerpting?
13 posted on 11/28/2003 9:19:31 PM PST by sauropod (I believe Tawana! Sharpton for Prez!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill
My Geology Professor said that these idiots need to worry about the next Ice Age, instead of Global Warming. As he put it the Earth goes in cycles of heating and cooling. We are about to top out heat wise and then slide back into the next Ice Age. He also said that the Earth produces the so-called Greenhouse Gases a lot more by a big margin then us humans. I think if everybody would take a Geology course in college, it would open their eyes and brains to this farce of Global Warming.
14 posted on 11/28/2003 9:29:23 PM PST by neb52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
One day, future generations will be reading about environmentalism in the same context that we now read about attempts to turn lead into gold.

15 posted on 11/28/2003 9:35:24 PM PST by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS! http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
Great graphic on this thread: Global temp and solar activity over many decades.
16 posted on 11/28/2003 9:41:33 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
The reason for the hissy fit over Soon/Baliunas is simple though. The pair do not shy from drawing obvious conclusions from their research: if the warming of the 20th century is not unusual, then it is likely natural, meaning the Kyoto accord is an exercise in futility. And, even if the warming is not natural, it is not extreme, and thus nothing to worry about.

This is a threat to the greenhouse religion. Therefore, the pair must be burned at the stake.

The same fate is likely to befall Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have just destroyed the "hockey stick" theory on recent global warming for the British journal Energy & Environment.. (Questioned the theory, or called it into doubt might be less-charged wording, but I'll stick with destroyed.)

The "hockey stick" has been among the holiest of holies in the greenhouse priests' liturgy. It purports to show relatively stable climate for the 900 years from 1000 to 1900, then a sharp spike upward from 1900 to today. Its implications for the greenhouse theory are so central that it formed an integral part of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's vaunted 2001 report, the one that claimed to confirm disastrous man-made greenhouse warming.

We have known for a long time that the hockey stick compared apples and oranges - reconstructed temperatures from 1000 to 1900 (temperatures deduced from studying tree-ring growth and ice cores, et cetera) and measured temperatures from 1900 onward. When the 20th century's temperatures are "reconstructed" they don't show the warming the hockey stick theory shows.

But what McIntyre/McKitrick also reveal is the data used to craft the hockey stick are based on "collation errors, unjustifiable truncation, or extrapolation ... obsolete data, geographical local errors, incorrect calculation ... and other quality control defects." The wrong places, the wrong dates, and the wrong numbers were jumbled together to produce the results the authors desired - proof that industrial societies are threatening the planet, and only global regulation by the U.N. can save it.

For instance, the data used for calculating Central Europe's climate history stops at 1730, but the source data available goes back to 1659. Coincidentally, (or not) those 70 missing years were the coldest of the Little Ice Age. If your goal was to show flat temperatures for 900 years, followed by a steep rise during the Industrial Age, leaving out those seven decades would help do the trick.

Three such "unjustified truncations" were uncovered by McIntyre/McKitrick. Of 112 temperature records used to create the hockey stick, 13 were incorrectly copied down, 18 mismatched the year and temperatures, 19 made unjustifiable extrapolations to cover missing data, 24 contained obsolete data, and all 28 that used tree-ring data miscalculated the information obtained by reading the rings. That's a total of 105 records with errors, although some contained multiple errors, so there were more than seven data sets that were error-free, but not many more.

Also, Ian Castles, Australia's former head statistician, and David Henderson, the former chief economist for the OECD, have discovered that the IPCC exaggerated future pollution levels, (and thus future temperature rises) both by underestimating current pollution from the developing world, and overestimating those same countries' future industrial growth. For instance, the IPCC estimates Haiti and Rwanda will be as rich and as polluting as the U.S., 100 years from now.

Emperor Kyoto has no clothes. It's time we called him on it.
17 posted on 11/28/2003 10:13:31 PM PST by SubMareener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jimfree
Oh darn, I hate when that happens.....
18 posted on 11/29/2003 3:54:42 AM PST by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary? Me Neither!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
OK I read that whole PDF file. Page 18 was really interesting, nice chart there showing that true temps., and the erroneous ones on same chart. Great article.
19 posted on 11/29/2003 4:00:34 AM PST by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary? Me Neither!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neb52
That has been my theory since I first heard of globull warming. We have natural rises and falls in our temps. I call it CLIMATE.
20 posted on 11/29/2003 4:02:11 AM PST by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary? Me Neither!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson