Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII

National Post ^ | June 15, 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 and this is the final article in the series.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Proving one again, if you want to know the correct side of any issue or subject, just look at what the left wingers are doing and do the exact opposite.

Global cooling, now that's an environmental catastrophe I can support.

Who wants to go skiing?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I’ve lived in the Arctic. I fear an ice age far more than I do global warming.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

We better get our Global Warming solutions in place quickly, because it looks like another disaster is right on the horizon.

[capt. norm]

Based on what we've learned this decade, says George Kukla,

I liked Fran and Ollie much better.

..but on a Sunday afternoon in January, in Iowa and in the 1950's that was big entertainment for a 10-year old.

[aft_lizard]

Me too. A vast amount of the worlds food productions occurs in areas that would be devestated by another ice age.

[Shirerwasright]

I spent time in Moscow at 43 below zero, I’ll take the heat anytime.

[Bubba_Leroy]

This is why the environmentalist whackos on the left have stopped using the term "Global Warming" and are using the term "Global Climate Change" instead. Global Climate Change is much more flexible than Global Warming or Global Cooling.

Is it warmer today than average? It is because of Global Climate Change.

Is it cooler today than average? It is because of Global Climate Change.

Wetter? Dryer? Cloudier? Less cloudy? Windier? Less windy? It doesn't matter.

Whenever there is bad weather anywhere in the world it is because of Global Climate Change - caused by Bush and those damned SUVs.

The only solution is to turn over more and more control of the world's economy to the left.

[Farmer Dean]

Sounds like Al Gore will just have to get by somehow on the 100 million he scammed out of the global warming hoax.

[MattinNJ]

ping-thanks

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

I’m offering 10 to one odds that carbon credits are the solution to global cooling. Any takers?

[LaurenD]

I just don’t get it. Why are all the carbon emissions that cause global warming, making it warmer during the winters? Why would they only cause warmer weather during the summer?

[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.

---

[LaurenD]

Correction.

Why are all the carbon emission NOT making it warmer during the winter?

[M203M4]

They recently tied increased earthquake activity to “global climate change” as well. Same goes for diseases.

It is not hyperbole or an attempt at humor - what was once viewed as the wrath of God in response to human moral sin is now viewed as the wrath of Gaea in response to human material/wealth abundance (inequality, waste, whatever). The witch doctor has now replaced the priest. Most individuals do not seem capable of harboring a personal teleological chasm - something apparently will fill the void left in our minds for an element of ‘cosmic justice’.

[naturalized]

In a cyclical energy system don’t the laws of thermodynamics dictate that the long term trend will always be the lower energy state?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Why are all the carbon emissions that cause global warming, making it warmer during the winters?

Carbon as CO2 is a negligible contributor to "global warming", it is a greenhouse gas, yes, but a much more powerful and prevalent "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.

The whole killer carbon scam is based on hype and nothing more.

There's a great deal of controversy concerning the planet warming, many of the sensors for detecting daily temperatures are located in heat islands surrounded by blacktop. Causing a false high as compared the actual temperatures just a few hundred yards away from the sensors.

There's lots of info if you want to look for it concerning temperature sensor locations and the contribution to the global warming scam.

[mamelukesabre]

That’s true of the whole, but not necessarily true of parts.

[phatus maximus]

I thought you’d be offering more 2-3 odds...you’d be paying out a ton at 10-1 since there is a 100% chance they will be the solution...or at least that’s what we’ll be told...