What??? or in Gary Coleman voice: “What’chu talkin’ ’bout, Christine?”
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
Please read the previous quotation one more time.
After countless hours of research, no single quote I’ve found exemplifies the stark reality of the modern environmentalist movement better than that. Again, I reiterate, the planet’s ecosystem is a wondrous machine worth safeguarding in every way possible, but not at the expense of human rights, national sovereignty and intellectual veracity.
Follow the money.
The ice-core man
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, May 04, 2007
“…Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.”
Funding Global Warming Hysteria
By Noel Sheppard | October 27, 2007
As media regularly accuse every scientist skeptical of man’s role in global warming as being on the payroll of Big Oil, you almost never see a news report addressing the funding of those responsible for spreading climate alarmism.
This all changed Thursday when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published an op-ed by the John Locke Foundation’s Paul Chesser detailing how one environmental advocate receives funds from largely liberal donors to encourage state governments to impose strict regulations on all things speculated to be causing global warming.
Imagine you are an advocacy group and want to sway a government’s policy development, but really want to keep your activism a secret. You could learn a lot by observing and then avoiding the practices of the Center for Climate Strategies, a group of global warming worrywarts.
CCS in recent years has approached many states, including Washington, with an inexpensive, tantalizing offer: to establish and manage a process for climate change policy development. The results are a study legitimized by government that promotes onerous regulations, property rights infringement through smart growth initiatives, and new taxes and fees on fuels and utilities.
CCS operates in Washington in nearly the same way it’s worked in every other state where it’s been hired. First a governor (such as Gov. Chris Gregoire) issues an executive order declaring global warming a problem that must be confronted through state policy. Then a so-called stakeholder (political appointees and special interests, really) panel considers dozens of CCS-created policy options — most of which impinge upon individual rights, increase energy costs, or add to the cost of government — that ostensibly reduce CO2 emissions in the state. CCS holds the hand of the group through several meetings and its decision-making, until the threats to personal liberty and financial well-being are established as official government philosophy. Ideally (to CCS), legislatures will adopt them and add to everyone’s cost of living. Nanny-staters celebrate.
In doing this, CCS claims it is not acting as an anti-global warming advocate. Yet, look at how the finances of this organization work:
CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. Who foots the bill? Several foundations on the global warming panic train: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The (Ted) Turner Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Energy Foundation, and many others. For example, the state of Washington is paying only $200,000 for CCS’ services — half of what their cheap process has cost in other states.
Then CCS controls the entire policy development: the agenda, scheduling and oversight of their meetings; the CO2 reduction options that stakeholders consider; analysis (which is not an examination of cost/benefit or climate impact) of those options; the voting process; the changing and/or elimination of options; and the writing of all meeting minutes, presentations and reports.
Virtually every one of CCS’s greenhouse gas-reducing options, which stakeholders find almost impossible to eliminate or alter (as if they wanted to) because the voting procedures are stacked against it, will curtail individual freedom or further burden taxpayers and consumers. Rather than surveying stakeholders in an up-or-down vote, options are instead considered already approved unless enough members (who are political appointees, with almost no scientists or economists) are bold and knowledgeable enough to object to them.
Ominously, this advocacy is destined to arrive at a state capital near you:
CCS has conducted this cookie-cutter process in more than a dozen states, and more are in its sights. The motives, tactics and plans are not hard to see, but they are a threat.
Of course, CCS is doing nothing wrong here, and the reader should not infer such. Instead, as this global warming debate continues, and media regularly question the funding of virtually every individual and organization refuting the supposed consensus regarding the science involved, shouldn’t the same scrutiny be applied to those advancing the hysteria?
Or, would that be too much like journalism?
‘Grantsmanship’ Distorts Global Warming Science
By Jerome J. Schmitt
Almost every day another species of plant or animal is “discovered” to be threatened by global warming. I read a new report concerning moose in Scandinavia that are unexpectedly “threatened” despite what researchers admit is a growing population. Penguins are in danger from loss of Antarctic ice even though the Antarctic ice-cap is known to be growing with colder temperatures recorded in the southern hemisphere in recent years according to NASA. Fortunately for these species — which hitherto managed to survive and thrive on their own for hundreds of thousands or millions of years — intrepid 21st Century researchers have arrived on the scene with Al Gore just in time to “rescue” them from climate change. How is it possible that such disparate species all around the globe are in such dire straits all at once?
Perhaps it has less to do with actual species’ population trends and other such noisome facts and more to do with a novel nexus between the news-media and “grantsmanship” among academic researchers who have hit upon a winning formula: if one ties one’s research project somehow — even via the most tenuous and flimsy grounds — to global warming, one’s grant proposal will have much greater chance to be selected for funding, one’s chances of appearing on 60 Minutes or NPR are greatly increased, and as a consequence of this positive PR for one’s project, university and funding agency, one’s grant is more likely to be renewed.
In contrast, if one continues to toil on relatively obscure scholarship where actual scientific data is important, trend lines have meaning, and logical debate is allowed, the chances of winning funding for one’s work are greatly reduced. Scientists have learned therefore that they will be rewarded handsomely by identifying any tangential connection between their favorite studies and “global warming” alarmism. Like Pavlov’s dog with a PhD.
Getting back to the science…
According to the EPA: Known causes, "drivers" or "forcings" of past climate change include:
Changes in the Earth’s orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth’s tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth’s surface. These orbital processes — which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years — are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.
Changes in the sun’s intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the "Little Ice Age" which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe.
Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5 ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1816 as "the year without a summer."
These climate change "drivers" often trigger additional changes or "feedbacks" within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate’s initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling).
Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations: The heating or cooling of the Earth’s surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth’s orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2007). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low.
Graphs from Dr. Arthur Robinson, co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
John Christy is a climate expert (PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science; M.S. University of Illinois, 1984; Atmospheric Science; M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978; B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics). “If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today,” says Christy.
He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic Circle. Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the northern Atlantic.
Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic. Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north latitude â€” the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.
Did Dick Cheney leave his SUV running on Mars?
The issue of "global warming" throughout the solar system has been contested by some scientists, but it should also be noted that warming has been found on Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune's moon Triton. As written by James M. Taylor and published in the Environment News, the planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists’ claims that the Earth’s modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy.
Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically
According to a September 20 NASA news release, “for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.” Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years. The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at “a prodigious rate.”
“The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago,” reported Yahoo News.
Solar Link Possible
Scientists are not sure whether the Martian warming is entirely due to Mars-specific forces or may be the result of other forces, such as increasing solar output, which would explain much of the recent asserted warming of the Earth as well. Sallie Baliunas, chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C. Marshall Institute, said, “Pluto, like Mars, is also undergoing warming.” However, Baliunas speculated it is “likely not the sun but long-term processes on Mars and Pluto” causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure.
Pat Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, similarly expressed a desire for more information about the Martian climate. “What is the internal dynamic that is warming Mars?” asked Michaels. “Given the fact that there are not a lot of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on Mars, and given the fact that new research indicates that 10 to 30 percent estimated conservatively of Earth’s recent warming is due to increased solar output, the Martian warming may support that new research.”
Models May Be Wrong
The new research mentioned by Michaels is the Oct. 2 release of findings by Duke University scientists that “at least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxin gas released by various human activities.”
“The problem is that Earth’s atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun,” Duke associate research scientist Nicola Scafetta explained in a Duke University news release. Moreover, “the longer the time period [that the Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium] the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere, because it takes time to adapt.”
Examining a 22-year interval of reliable solar data going back to 1980, the Duke scientists were able to filter out shorter-range effects that can influence surface temperatures but are not related to global warming. Such effects include volcanic eruptions and ocean current changes such as El NiÃ±o.
Applying their long-term data, the Duke scientists concluded, “the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming.”
“[Greenhouse] gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought,” Scafetta observed.
Hey, where'd that silver mine come from?
Referring to the panic surrounding retreating glaciers, Reid A. Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology offers the following:
“When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It's all written down."
Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners' instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. "What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?"
We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
"A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went," he says. "There used to be less ice than now. It's just getting back to normal."
More to come…