NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI

National Post ^ | June 08, 2007 | Lawrence Solomon

[Delacon]

As you may know, for the past week, I have been posting The Deniers series by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. Well, I happened to drop by "Planet Gore" over at National Review Online today. Its their blog on all things related to climate change. I highly recommend periodic visits to this blog for anyone concerned about climate change. Anyway, low and behold, I discovered that yesterday the 27th, Sterling Burnett mentions the The Deniers series (is it that Burnett follows the happenings here on Free Republic?) and says the Lawrence Solomon has written a book based on The Deniers series. I am grateful to Mr. Solomon for the series and am happily plugging his book by posting Mr. Burnett's blog post (contains a link to the book on Amazon) in the rest of my posts on the series:

 

Must-Read Global-Warming Book   [Sterling Burnett]

About a year ago, Canadian environmentalist and journalist Lawrence Solomon began a series of articles in the National Post examining the credentials of and arguments made by scientists and economists labeled “deniers” by various environmentalists, a number of mainstream environmental reporters, and some politicians. Solomon, true to the finest tenets of his profession, sought the truth concerning whether there was in fact a consensus on the headline-grabbing issue of global warming, or whether in fact any “real” scientists actually dissented from the Al Gore/UN line that global warming is happening, is largely caused by humans, and threatens all manner of catastrophies.

As many people — policy wonks and fellow travelers — on this blog are well aware, dissenting scientists are not in fact rare: There are serious scholars whose views should, but too often do not, inform the debate. Solomon’s columns were important because they brought this message to a wider audience. As Solomon’s knowledge grew, he found that the genre limits of newspaper writing precluded an adequately in-depth exploration of these skeptical scientists’ important observations. Accordingly, selecting some of the scientists discussed in his columns, Solomon has written a book: The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**and those who are too fearful to do so. As a jacket blurb puts it, “What he found shocked him. Solomon discovered that on every “headline” global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were by far the more accomplished and eminent scientists.”

This book does not attempt to settle the science, or show that humans are or are not responsible for the present warming trend, or settle what we can expect the future harms/benefits of continued warming (or cooling) might be. Rather, the genius of the book is that it shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the “consensus” view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible (and often more compelling) than the IPCC/Gore camps.



The Deniers, examines what should be the active debates concerning the plausibility of the argument that human CO2 emissions (or CO2 per se) is a driver for climate change, what role the sun may play in warming, what role the present warming trend (and human activities) play in hurricane and tropical/parasitic disease patterns, and the reliability of the climate models, among other issues. In addition, Solomon notes the harsh treatment that many scientists have endured simply because they followed the scientific method, the evidence from their research, and their own consciences, all of which led them to the conclusion that this or that facet of the global-warming consensus view was woefully incomplete or flat-out wrong. This treatment has had the effect intended by global warming scaremongers — to shut down promising areas of research and to silence credible critics. As I put it in an earlier column:

The term skeptic has historically been a badge of honor proudly worn by scientists as indicating their commitment to the idea that in the pursuit of truth, nothing is beyond question, every bit of knowledge is open to improvement and/or refutation as new evidence or better theories emerge. However, in the topsy-turvy field of climate science, “skeptic” is a term of opprobrium and to be labeled a skeptic is to be dismissed as a hack. Being a skeptic concerning global warming today is akin to being a heretic in the Middle Ages — you may not be literally burned at the stake, but your reputation will be put to flames.

In response, many scientists whose research calls into question one or more of the fundamental tenets of global warming orthodoxy, have learned to couch their conclusions carefully. They argue, for instance, that while their research does not match up with this or that point in global warming theory, or would seem to undermine this or that conclusion, they are not denying that humans are causing global warming and they cannot account for the discrepancy between their work and the theory’s predictions. These scientists have learned the hard lesson that when reality and the theory conflict, for professional reasons, they’d better cling to the theory: shades of Galileo recanting his theory that the earth revolves around the sun under pressure from the Inquisition.

Though there are many good books on global warming, The Deniers is among the most effective in showing how science is being fundamentally undermined in the current politicized atmosphere of climate research. In addition, like no other book or paper I know, it provides a concise but thorough overview of the myriad weaknesses of the consensus view, the quality and substance of the criticisms of that view, and the stellar qualifications of those scientists labeled derisively as “deniers.”

This book should be read by anyone who seriously wants to understand where and why substantive debate remains concerning climate change and why there is so much vitriol surrounding what until recently was a relatively quiet, unheralded, or unnoticed (except by its practitioners) field of science. If a person could read only one book this year on climate change, this is the one I’d pick.

03/27 03:30 PM

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjJmZDYxZThlMzNmNzYzZmIzMGExNWY0Mzg1MGRiZTY=

Climate change: The Deniers

National Post  Published: Friday, February 09, 2007

The Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? - Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

[Delacon]

ping

[MCCRon58]

Oh the hazards of being an apostate in the Church of Global Warming. (grin)

[kenavi]

"He earned his doctorate at the Michael Griffin University of Maryland."

Why didn't they name the state after him too?

[ElkGroveDan]

[Wiseghy]

“First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I’m, I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

This is a perfectly rational position. We are entering a new period of scientific history, where science must once again bow to political authority.

[Laserman]

I worked with Dr. Griffin in the late 80’s in the SDIO. He was a practical and ver intelligent man! I am glad to see he has common sense about the hoax of man-made global warming.

[RightWhale]

millions of years of history have shown

Algore's history goes back to Tiros I. The Ozone Hole was already there when first noticed and became a crisis immediately and is still there same as ever even with chlorofluorocarbons and freons made illegal. The GW history also ends about 1995, the warmest year in modern memory (since Tiros I).

[Diogenesis]

---

---

---

[saganite]

“It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

It indicates no such thing. The “implications of climate change” is an entirely different subject than what was being discussed, which is whether man is the cause of global warming and whether we can affect climate change by our actions. To argue that it indicates an ignorance of the “implications” of climate change supposes you’ve accepted the man made global warming theory.

[dsc]

Any chance of getting the whole thing compiled into one file for a single download?

[Raycpa]

If we can vote on the proper temperature for earth, please put Connecticut down for 72% year round.

[Emperor Palpatine]

I love how they call those who dispute global warming as deniers. That's the same term they use for those who don't believe the Holocaust happened.

They're putting this junk science on the same plane as the mass-murder of over 6,000,000 people.

Am I the only one who notices the Global Warming Hoax crowd's interesting choice of phraseology here?

[NormsRevenge]

Our tax dollars at work.. against common sense..

What a waste of funds and a scam to boot..

[The Great RJ]

The global warming Inquisition forced him to recant his heresy.

[Don W]

bflr

[shove_it]

Some think Gore will be drafted at the Dim convention in August because of the unsavory deadlock between their two current candidates for POTUS. Gore will turn it down. He’s bucking for a higher position ~ GOD.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[UCANSEE2]

Yes.

The hole(s) in the ozone open and close in reaction to the solar energy input at the poles.

The energy’s reaction with the atmosphere produces ozone.
The more energy, the more ozone.
The more ozone, the less energy gets through.
Then, the ozone will dissipate through natural losses, allowing more energy in again.

It is a self-correcting rheostat to keep the energy input as close to constant as possible.

It is necessary because the sun’s output varies.

Not only that, but it occurs only around the poles, where there is little life that would be damaged from the radiation that gets through from the ‘opening’.

Almost like someone planned it that way.

[blasater1960]

Here is one...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-1/