[dalereed]

Old news here on FR but it's good to see it laid out in plain language in a major publication. Most papers refuse to acknowledge it or print it.

[DoughtyOne]

Good catch Dale. Thanks. I've bookmarked this for future reference.

[capt. norm]

"Yet, the scientists who produced the center's study went to great lengths to assure that their findings did not undermine prevailing notions about global warming. "

Gore was in office then and they didn't want to lose their grant money. There is NO grant money for global non-warming!

[PoorMuttly]

'don't recall flowers and trees blooming in January in New York when I was a child....but hey, what's one man's report, compared to fifty guys in a lab ?

I certainly hope there is no global warming, but have been concerned about changing weather patterns locally....like no winter. Silly me.

[dead]

Kyoto, we hardly knew ye...

When scientists try to minimize the importance of the results of their own studies, there's alot more than science going on.

The global warming theory is slipping slowly, like an icesheet, into the sea.

[Phantom Lord]

Maybe the coming Ice Age predicted by the envirowackos throughout the 70's is finally getting started.

[editor-surveyor]

As the planet freezes, we pray for global warming...

[T. P. Pole]

"It could be this part of the ice sheet is not necessarily sensitive to global warming," he said.

There we go! That's the spirit. Localized insensitivity to global warming!

[staytrue]

I think the earth is undeniably warming. You can look at all the glaciers all over the globe and everywhere, they are retreating. This is an absolute, no doubt about it fact.

However, there is no evidence that warming is due to man made co2. Futhermore, there is no evidence that warming is a bad thing.

[KarlInOhio]

So how do the climatory Cassandras on the environmental left

Pet peeve rant: Cassandra was cursed with the ability to foretell the future but no one would believe her. These people have no idea what lies in the future, but just about everyone believes them.

I know Cassandra, and sirs you are not Cassandras.

There, I feel better.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks, Dale.

I'm sure that the lying Enviral Nazis will find some way to discredit these new findings which show global cooling.

Or they will just spike these studies with their Goerbel buddies who control the daily fish wraps, the weekly non news mags, and of course CNNCBSABCNBC.

However, with the internet, the world now gets out!

Truth and the broadcasting of truth is the antibiotic of choice to destroy the vile enviralists's infection of America.

[jimkress]

For rational, non-political, non-agenda driven scientists, experimental data always trumps theory. Especially when the theory is known to be incomplete, inexact, and untested - like the models driving the global 'warming' debate.

It is absurd for the 'scientists' quoted to question their results just because they appear to be at odds with an essentially unvalidated theory like that of global 'warming'.

[liberallarry]

There is a curious thing going on in the scientific community. Scientists who produce research that does not comport with accepted wisdom on global warming – like Doran and Joughin – feel compelled to disavow their findings.

But they do publish it. That's why its called science and not b******t.

[FourtySeven]

Thanks!

[FairWitness]

Then there was the study by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.
They took Antarctic ice core samples from the last three glacial cycles (the transitional periods between ice age and planetary warming) to ascertain the relation between rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and increases in planetary temperature.
Based on global warming theory, there should first have been a rise in carbon dioxide levels followed by a rise in temperature levels. But, in fact the opposite actually occurred.
Yet, the Scripps scientists insisted that their results were not inconsistent with global warming theory.

I saw that data presented on the Discovery Channel (hope I remember that right) last night. The show was primarily about how the oceans act as a "global air conditioner", cooling the tropics and warming the high latitudes. There was a chart showing how there have been repeated, significant temperature swings over the last (at least) hundreds of thousands of years. Only the last few thousand have seemed to be "stable". The message we were supposed to take home was that we should hold our breath, tiptoe around and do as little as possible (except cut back on CO2) to disturb the balance. If we don't behave as dictated by the global warming crowd, we supposedly will be responsible for disrupting the ocean heating/cooling currents and we will have a disaster. My conclusion from the data would be that we humans have very little if anything to do with climate changes, and what we should be spending our "energy" on is developing coping strategies for the next ice age.

[VOA]

Yet, the Scripps scientists insisted that their results were not inconsistent with global warming theory.

I hope I'm alive on the day when the real "knife to the heart" study comes out
and the researchers (who are "global warming" zealots) announce their finding.
And promptly go into a siezure screaming "DOES NOT COMPUTE! DATA MUST BE
WRONG BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS MUST BE TRUE! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE,
WILL ROBINSON!!!"
(Yeah, just like the robot on that old series "Lost In Space".)

[hsszionist]

The eco-commies just want to control a little bit more of our lives.

[LantzALot]

It seems clear that much of the scientific community is in denial about global warming.

Indeed, the scientific community never agreed that what they thought they perceived as global warming was in fact true, and especially if true that it was caused by human activity. The report that some 2,400 scientist reviewed and signed off on said that there was no evidence of such. However, after they all signed off, the report was changed to the current " "truth." " (Double quotes, to indicate how remote the word is from the reality.) This was acknowledged by the past head of the international scientific organization involved. (I won't sound too convincing, because I can not now remember the name of the organization or its former president.)

IMHO, the current scientific bias is all money-driven. Almost all research into such subjects is funded by governments, and the political reality is that governments have a decided interest in promoting the idea that "something must be done," and that it is government's job to do it. The economic reality is that no scientist wants to report findings which might cause his (her) funding to dry up.

[Stand Watch Listen]

bttt

Related Articles

Senate Betrayal Creates “Son of CARA” Monster (re: Conservation and Reinvestment Act )
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002:
Author:Tom DeWeese

Naked Greens
Source: FrontPageMag.com Published: January 23, 2002;
Author:Lowell Ponte

The US Does Not Need a “National Climate Service”
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 16, 2002
Author: Alan Caruba

Environmental Corruption: A Cascade of Lies
Source:Commentary from the National Anxiety Center
Published: | January 07, 2002; Author:
Author: Alan Caruba

Feds help fund green activists
Source:The Elko Daily Free Press; Published: 8 January, 2002 |
Author:JEFFRY MULLINS

"Findings" vs. "Facts" In Washington (re: Global Climate Change Act of 2001/2)
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 12, 2001
Author: Patrick J. Michaels

The Heart of Amazonia
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001
Author: Marc Morano

Timber Industry Warns of 'Eco-Dictatorship'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 27, 2001
Author: Marc Morano

Collectivist Greens Must Use Coercion Enforced By The Central State
Source: Author: Vin Suprynowicz

Don't forget to attack domestic terrorism, too
Source: The Oregonian; Published: 11/19/01
Author: Nick Nichols

Environmental Terrorists Also Oppose Civilization
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: November 13, 2001
Author: Mary Mostert

The Something Undermining Our Nation
Source: WorldNetDaily; Published: March 19, 1999
Author: Holly Swanson

The Last Word : “environmentalist”; saboteurs
Source: insight mag; Published: November 9, 2001
Author: Ralph de Toledano

Have the Muslim Terrorists Merged with Environmental Terrorists?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: November 9, 2001
Author: Mary Mostert

Radical Environmentalists Eyed After Discovery Of Bombs On Michigan Campus...
Source: DrudgeReport;
Author: PAUL PETERSON

Environmental Radicals Not Slowed
Source: AP via The New York Times; Published: November 6, 2001

Environmental Terrorists Deserve No Special Treatment
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 26, 2001
Author: Christopher C. Horner

The EcoTerrorist Anthrax Connection
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 23, 2001;
Tom DeWeese

New Breed of Environmental Activists has Research Officials Bracing for Vandalism
Source: Pesticide Education Program at Penn State; Published: July 16, 2000
Author: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The Reality of 'Global Warming'
Source: NewsMax.com; Published: June 13, 2001
Author: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

[dalereed]

Todays letter to the editor in the Union Tribune.

It appears to me that these "scientists" refute their own theory when they claim that the cause of warming and receding of the ice ages and rise of carbon dioxide is caused by the wobble of the earths axis. In the letter they admit that it's not human caused without even knowing that they did it!

Scripps scientists rebut global warming column

In "Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming" (Opinion, Jan. 25), Joseph Perkins distorts the facts about climate change and accuses scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of dishonesty.

In regard to the Scripps work on Antarctic ice core samples, Perkins claims that "based on global warming theory, there should first have been a rise in carbon dioxide levels followed by a rise in temperature levels." This is false.

Global warming theory makes no claim that the demise of ice ages should begin with carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been known for more than 30 years that the wobble of the Earth's axis sets the timing of the ice ages.

The warming out of the ice ages typically takes about 10,000 years. The rise in carbon dioxide begins a mere 600 years after the beginning of the warming. Therefore 95 percent of the warming happens during a time of rising carbon dioxide. In short, the ice core data clearly do not rule out a warming role for carbon dioxide nor do they "run counter to the theory of global warming."

JEFF SEVERINGHAUS MARTIN WAHLEN RICHARD SOMERVILLE WALTER MUNK Professors, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

[jpl]

There is a curious thing going on in the scientific community. Scientists who produce research that does not comport with accepted wisdom on global warming – like Doran and Joughin – feel compelled to disavow their findings. Or, at least, to suggest that their results are aberrational.

A lot of these guys that call themselves scientists today are not really true scientists. A true scientist always forms and modifies his hypothesis based upon the best set of existing available data. Many of these modern "scientists" contort and modify the data in order to fit their original hypothesis. What they are doing is actually the antithesis of true science. For many of these guys, anthropogenic global warming has become an article of faith, and they will not modify their theory no matter what the actual evidence says. They are "true believers".