MARCH 2022

By Selwyn Duke, January 21, 2022

Late last year, I got into a discussion with a fellow who was quite sold on the idea that man’s activities were warming the Earth. While not a hardcore ideologue, it was apparent the gentleman had accepted the climate change narrative presented by mainstream media and believed we truly were imperiling the planet. I didn’t say much to him initially, as we were engaged in some recreation, but later on I resurrected the topic and told him I just wanted to pose one question.

“What is the ideal average temperature of the Earth”? I asked.

It was clear he was without an answer, so I explained my rationale. “If we don’t know what the Earth’s ideal average temperature is,” I stated, “how can we know if a given type of climate change — whether naturally occurring or induced by man — is good or bad? After all, we can’t then know whether it’s bringing us closer to or moving us further away from that ideal temperature.”

It was as if a little light bulb had lit up in his head, and he said, “You know, that’s a good question!”

I haven’t seen the man since, as we were just two ships passing in the night, and I don’t know how his thinking has evolved (or regressed) between then and now. I do know, however, that someone who’d seemed so confident and perhaps even unbending in his position had his mind opened with one simple question and a 20-second explanation.

Of course, part of the question’s beauty is that no one can answer it. There is no “ideal” average Earth temperature, only a range within which it must remain for life as we know it to exist. At the spectrum’s lower end, polar creatures proliferate; at its higher end, tropical animals do (though warmer temperatures do breed more life, which is why the tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic. Moreover, crop yields increase when CO2 levels are higher).

This brings us to another important point: Apocalyptic warmist dogma is buttressed by the virtually unchallenged assumption that if man changes something “natural,” it is by definition bad. But this is prejudice. Most of us certainly don’t believe this, for instance, when humans cure disease and use science to preserve and extend human life (or that of our pets).

As for climate, there have been at least five major ice ages, and “the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!),” informs the Utah Geological Survey. Then there was the Cryogenian period, during which the Earth was completely, or almost completely, covered with snow and ice. If man had existed during that time, would it have been bad if his activities had raised the temperature a couple of degrees?

Within ice ages are shorter term cycles known as glacials (colder periods) and interglacials (warmer ones); glacials last approximately 100,000 years while interglacials last about 10,000 to 30,000 years. We’re currently in an interglacial called the Holocene Epoch, which began 11,500 to 12,000 years ago. This means that we could, conceivably, be poised to soon enter another more frigid glacial period.

Now, again, were this mitigated by a couple of degrees via man’s activities, would this be a bad thing?

In point of fact, warmists suggest this is the case. For example, citing research, science news magazine Eos wrote in 2016 that our Holocene Epoch “may last much longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.”

Once more, would this be bad? Why? What’s that ideal average Earth temperature that this climate change would supposedly be moving us further away from? If you’re a member of one of the vast majority of Earth’s species, those prospering in (relative) warmth, it sounds like good news.

The question in question won’t cut any ice (pun intended) with those emotionally invested in the doom-and-gloom global warming thesis. After all, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into,” to paraphrase Anglo-Irish satirist Jonathan Swift. But with the more open-minded majority, the question can turn down the heat on the fear.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe or Parler, or log on to

Return to Index


By Casey Plunkett, November 8, 2019

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change. In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is’,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for earth’s population to “be stabilized -- and, ideally, gradually reduced -- within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country”, who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields -- their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in Biology; a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link -- so I looked.

In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as: infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change -- let alone allow them to tell me how to live my life.

This begs the question, “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know this is faux science? The climate is a complex dynamic that science don’t fully understand, let alone predict. Nonetheless, radical, Statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions -- taking lemmings over the cliff with them.

At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite “scientific consensus” on man’s effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy. Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they’ve discovered.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index


By Thomas Lifson, September 24, 2019

A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has rejected the unscientific bases of the doom-mongering over a purported climate crisis.  His work has not yet been picked up in this country, but that is about to change.  Writing at the Australian site Quadrant, Tony Thomas introduces the English-speaking world to the truth-telling of Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (hat tip: Andrew Bolt, John McMahon).

There's a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is  prepared to cry "Nonsense!"on the "global warming crisis" evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He's as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises — the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.

The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on "the sorry state of climate science". It's titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He's published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics. 

Today's vast panoply of "global warming science" is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers' black boxes as a given. 

Dr. Nakamura has just made his work available to the English-speaking world:

There was no English edition of his book in June and only a few bits were translated and circulated. But Dr Nakamura last week offered via a free Kindle version his own version [sic] in English. It's not a translation but a fresh essay leading back to his original conclusions.

And the critique he offers is comprehensive.  

Data integrity

(AT just published the story of Canada's Environment Agency discarding actual historical data and substituting its models of what the data should have been, for instance.)

Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of "data falsification" by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming "The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public," he writes.

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, "the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting." The reason:

These models completely lack some critically important  climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.

Ignoring non-CO2 climate determinants

Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable.  As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can't be judged "with the knowledge and technology we currently possess."
Other gross model simplifications include
# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics
# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.
# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: "Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet."
# Inability to deal with water vapor elements
# Arbitrary "tunings" (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood
Concerning CO2 changes he says,

I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system …

… The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.

Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a "never changing quantity". He says, "It has only been several decades since we acquired  an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No."

There is much, much more. Read the whole thing.

But who are you going to believe: a superbly qualified Japanese scientist or a Swedish teenager with mental issues?

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

JULY 2017

 By Michael Bastasch 6/04/2017 - The Daily Caller -

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace confronted former Vice President Al Gore on his 2006 claim that unless drastic action was taken humanity would face a “true planetary emergency” in the next decade.

“Unless we take drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years,” which Gore said would precipitate a “true planetary crisis” due to man-made global warming.

Wallace pointed out it’s been 11 years since Gore made the claim in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and there doesn’t seem to be a planetary emergency.

So did Gore admit he was wrong? Of course not!

Here’s how he answered:

Well we have seen a decline in emissions on a global basis. For the first time they’ve stabilized and started to decline. So some of the responses for the last 10 years have helped, but unfortunately and regrettably a lot of serious damage has been done.

Greenland, for example, has been losing one cubic kilometer of ice every single day. I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rise now.

We are going to suffer some of these consequences, but we can limit and avoid the most catastrophic if we accelerate the pace of change that’s now beginning.

Gore also mentioned the directors of his upcoming sequel film “An Inconvenient Sequel” are adding a new segment at the end to account for President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement on climate change.

Gore’s first film “An Inconvenient Truth” has been credited with popularizing the global warming debate. The film emboldened environmentalists and probably played a role in the Obama administration’s failed effort to pass cap-and-trade legislation in 2009.

But many (if not all) the claims Gore made in his 2006 film never materialized. The Daily Caller News Foundation fact-checked Gore’s claims on his film’s ten-year anniversary. (After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate)

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Article reprinted with permission from The Daily Caller:

Return to Index

MAY 2017

By Chris White 04/24/2017

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.

Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.”

NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic, because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.”

Neither agency responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Article reprinted with permission from The Daily Caller:

Return to Index

MARCH 2017

By Martin Armstrong Feb 3, 2017

A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels. Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend and Chairman of Temple, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Low and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?”

All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?

Return to Index


Rising Water Levels Confound Global Warming Claims
By Jack Spencer, Aug. 8, 2015

"Faster than ever before.” That’s how one headline from the Weather Channel described current changes in Great Lakes water levels. But the article itself acknowledged that Lakes Huron and Michigan, which come together in the Straits of Mackinac and so are considered one lake by hydrologists, actually rose faster 65 years ago. So why did the headline writer call the current rise “faster than ever before?"

For more than a decade, those who claim man-made global warming is "settled science" exploited below-average Great Lakes water levels to promote their hypothesis. Although the period from 1999 to 2013 set fewer records than previous low-water spells, it was repeatedly portrayed by environmentalists and their media allies as clear evidence of climate change.

This contention became untenable when water levels began increasing rapidly in the second half of 2013. Instead of accepting that their arguments were being washed away, those promoting man-made global warming latched on to the increase as evidence of an “extreme weather phenomenon” attributable to global warming.

Never mind that 65 years ago this body of water displayed an even faster rise.

“What we are saying is that the water level increase on Lake Michigan-Huron beginning January 2013 through 2014 is rivaled only by the increase that occurred between January 1950 and December 1951,” said Keith Kompoltowicz, chief of watershed hydrology for the Army Corps of Engineers in Detroit. “The criteria we’re using for comparison are increases over a 24-month period.”

The 1950-51 increase was slightly greater than the recent increase, yet media accounts create the impression that the latter was unique. Some articles that have since been removed from the Internet said precisely that. Others, like the one cited above, tried to have it both ways, suggesting the recent rise was unique while acknowledging the earlier rise was bigger.

Some who promote man-made global warming focus on what they refer to as the unprecedented 15-year period of lower-than-average Great Lakes water levels. First, the recent low levels prevailed for 14 years, not 15. More importantly, the “precedents” are all confined within the narrow 98-year period during which the Army Corps of Engineers has been taking measurements. This period includes just three distinct low-water-level episodes.

Of course, for most of the 4,000-plus years the Great Lakes have existed in their modern form (they first came into being around 10,000 years ago) no one was systematically tracking water levels. But the United States Geological Survey, which studies the geological evidence of water level changes going back millennia, says the swings were far more extreme in the distant past than in recent centuries.

USGS studies also indicate a roughly 400-year spell of near-drought conditions in the Great Plains and Great Lakes regions corresponding to the Medieval Warming Period. It is likely that the Great Lakes experienced frequent spells of low water levels while those conditions predominated, and some of those low level periods lasted longer than 14 years.

The 2013-2014 increase was the largest recorded for Lake Superior over a 24-month period — the largest during the 98 years for which records exist, that is. But Lake Superior water levels also recovered very quickly from the lowest recorded level in 1926, reaching above-average levels in 1927. But that increase does not qualify under the "within 24-months" criteria.

Permission to reprint this post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.

Return to Index


By Howard Richman, July 9, 2015

At the July 3 Nobel laureates conference on Mainau Island, 30 of the 65 attendees signed a media reported letter urging action against global warming. Not reported by the media: the attendees listened to Norway's 1973 Nobel physics laureate, Ivar Giaever, give a truth­telling "Emperor's New Clothes" speech. Also, the majority of the Nobel laureates refused to sign the alarmist global­warming letter.

Giaever gave a great speech. His explanations were clear. His graphs were persuasive. He took the part of the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes folktale. The boy saw the emperor parading around naked and cried out, "The emperor has no clothes on!" Giaever was saying that the fraction-of-a-degree differences in temperature upon which global warming theory is based are as invisible as the Emperor's new clothes. He said:

To my surprise both "alarmist" and "deniers" (I guess that I'm quoted as a "denier") measure the average temperature for the whole earth for a whole year to a fraction of a degree, and that the result is significant. Of course it's not!

How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and for the whole year and come up with a fraction of a degree? So, I have this cry here. I think the average temperature of the earth is equal to the Emperor's New Clothes. There was a boy who said, you know, who cried at might, "The Emperor has no clothes on," and I would cry out and say, "You can't measure the temperature for the whole earth with such accuracy!"

In The Emperor's New Clothes, the scam artists proclaim that those who can't see the pretend clothes are so incompetent that they should be fired. Today, similar insults are invoked in order to cower the opposition:

Donald Trump is currently telling the truth about illegal immigration and trade agreements and is refusing to be silenced by attacks. Ivar Giaever is telling the truth about global warming and is refusing to be silenced by insults.

There is a lot of truth in the Emperor's New Clothes folktale. Although attacks and insults can silence the truth, eventually a courageous truthteller speaks out. Then everyone looks around and sees that the emperor is parading around naked.

Howard Richman with his father and son co­authored the 2014 book Balanced Trade: Ending the Unbearable Costs of America’s Trade Deficits, published by Lexington Books, and the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future, published by Ideal Taxes Association.

Reprinted with permission from The American Thinker:

Return to Index

JULY 2014


Posted By Michael Bastasch  05/30/2014

This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.

Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other subpopulation estimates.

PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.

“Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG ‘global population estimate,’” Crockford wrote on her blog.

“These are guesses, to be sure, but they at least give a potential size,” Crockford added.

PBSG disclosed this information to Crockford ahead of the release of their Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan in which they intend to put a footnote explaining why their global population estimate is flawed.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says in its proposed footnote. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

“It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated,” PBSG continues. “Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.”

“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy,” says PBSG. “Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

PBSG’s admission also comes after academics and government regulators have touted their polar bear population estimates to show that polar bear numbers have grown since the 1960s. PBSG estimates have also been used to show that polar bear populations have stabilized over the last 30 years.

Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago, some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.

Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.

Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Article printed from The Daily Caller:

URL to article:

Return to Index

MAY 2014

By Marc Hopin, April 18, 2014

Scientists believe that over the last two billion years or so, there have been as many as seventeen times that Earth has experienced an Ice Age. They suspect an Ice Age when they see shifts in geological formations that are so severe that the only explanation appears to be glaciers forming and moving large quantities of land from one part of the continent to another part.

Each Ice Age is estimated to have lasted for at least 100,000 years, with some lasting millions of years. Each was eventually followed by a period of gradual warming, resulting in the glaciers melting and retreating, and leaving behind the land that the glaciers had moved or carved. Contrary to anything being reported in the mainstream media, we are currently living in an Ice Age.

Man did not inhabit the planet during any of the Ice Ages, except the last one. For those Ice Ages that took place prior to man, the only inhabitants of the planet were animals and plants. They were also all that was left when the subsequent periods of warming began and ended. Nature, and nature alone, caused these periods of climate change.

The men and women who lived through their Ice Age, not knowing that there had been previous periods of global cooling, probably wondered what they did to cause the planet to become so cold. Did they burn too many fires, kill too many animals for food and clothing, or not kill enough animals, resulting in excessive animal flatulence? Or perhaps they did not wonder at all, knowing that acts of nature were beyond their control.

And herein is the problem for climate scientists. There is no "normal" temperature for Earth. What is normal is for the temperature, over hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years, to vary greatly. The cycle of periods of extreme warmth and cold, and everything in between, is what is normal. Before man and after man, the Earth has experienced these huge swings in temperatures. Who are we to say that the climate for the last couple of hundred-thousand years is normal and that some deviation of a degree or two is abnormal? Who are we to say that the rising or falling of sea levels from recent levels is abnormal? To the contrary, variations in temperatures and in sea levels have been taking place for the 4.5 billion years of the Earth's existence. Change is what is normal.

The different Ice Ages have proven to be a reset button of sorts. Some of them have cleansed the planet of life that had previously dominated the surface and the seas. The glaciers destroyed that which was not wise enough or which was unable to get out of its path and then receded to leave behind a clean slate for nature to begin anew. Destruction and renewal is what is normal.

Short of a Star Wars-like planet-annihilating Death Star, Earth will survive any attempts by man to destroy the planet. We see the power of Earth with every hurricane, tsunami, tornado, earthquake, and volcano. Man has yet to defeat any of these singular events. Our batting average is .000. Earth is pitching a perfect game against us.

This is a commonsense analysis of climate change. It is based on the history of Earth’s climate, not on a computer model trying to predict the future. Climate-predicting computer models are man-made, and their outcomes are self-serving for the men who designed them, while actual changes to the climate are the result of natural, cyclical forces, far beyond the control of man.

Marc Hopin is the author of the children's book The Tooth Fairy Needs Your Teeth!

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

MARCH 2013

Thomas Lifson, February 13, 2013

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming. Yet President Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday cited the now-discredited notion of such a consensus as the foundation of his green agenda.

It is bunk.

... merely 36 percent of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model. The scientists in this group "express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

This is important evidence. The results cannot be ascribed to conservative skeptics (no doubt paid off by men in top hats with bundles of cash) ginning up a biased survey. Not only was it peer reviewed and published in an established journal, Organization Studies, Taylor notes:

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as "denier" to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as "speaking against climate science" rather than "speaking against asserted climate projections." Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the 'vast right-wing climate denial machine.'

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists.

Not only is global warming a fallacy and fraud, it is being sold by President Obama on the basis of a fallacy and fraud.

Hat tip: John Dunn

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index


Andrew Bostom, July 11, 2012

Notwithstanding the latest hysterical claims from the sadly politicized climate scientologists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), insisting 2011 was somehow "a year of extreme weather," serious investigators at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz have just published a sobering analysis in Nature Climate Change which reconstructs 2000 years of climate within northern Europe.

Utilizing tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia, the investigators created a sequence dating back to 138 BC. The density measurements are closely correlated with the summer temperatures in a targeted region on the edge of the Nordic taiga, enabling them to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. Their high-resolution representation confirmed temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also demonstrated the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age. (See image, below)

In addition to depicting these cold and warm phases which were not influenced at all by anthropogenic warming, but rather "by solar output and (grouped) volcanic activity changes" - the new climate reconstruction curve also reveals a striking if unexpected phenomenon. Professor Dr. Jan Esper of the investigative team provided this apt summary assessment of the main findings:

We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low. Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

MAY 2012

April 6, 2012 by Don Surber

Al Gore is wrong. James Hansen is wrong. Michael Mann is wrong. Phil Jones is wrong. Andrew Revkin is wrong. All those smarmy, self-righteous, sanctimonious and insufferable jerks who use pseudo-science to push their stealth socialism to save the planet are dead wrong.

Global warming is not killing off polar bears.

“The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing,” the Globe and Mail in Toronto reported.

We have too many polar bears — 5 times the number estimated in the 1960s when hunting for polar bears was effectively banned.

From the Globe and Mail in Toronto:

“The debate over the polar-bear population has been raging for years, frequently pitting scientists against Inuit. In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the numbers in the region had dropped by 22 per cent since 1984, to 935. They also estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them.

“But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 25,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level] there has ever been.”

“There’s much at stake in the debate. Population figures are used to calculate quotas for hunting, a lucrative industry for many northern communities. Hunting polar bears is highly regulated but Inuit communities can sell their quota to sport hunters, who must hunt with Inuit guides. A polar-bear hunting trip can cost up to $50,000. Demand for polar-bear fur is also soaring in places like China and Russia and prices for some pelts have doubled in the past couple of years, reaching as high as $15,000.”

I know that readers are thinking, but Don, that is only one report. But the report confirms my suspicions. For years, polar bear experts have reported a growing number of underweight polar bears heading south for food. Far from being signs of an apocalyptic extinction, those are classic signs of overpopulation. The habitat is not shrinking; over-breeding that has the species overrunning the land (in this case the sea. We stopped hunting to beef up the herd, so to speak. Now the polar bears suffer as there are too many of them.

Happy hunting.

Return to Index

MAY 2012

By Christopher Chantrill, March 28, 2012

The more we learn about climate science, the more we learn what a shabby, back-of-the-envelope business it is. Dr. Michael Mann, the climate science poster boy who simplified the global climate of the last millennium into a hockey stick, just came out with a book to remind us how anyone who disagrees with him is a shill for dark forces. He's a bully, and in the ClimateGate e-mails, he bullies even his colleagues.

It's déjà vu all over again, of course. Fifty years ago, another academic published a shabby little paper and then succeeded in bullying everyone into endorsing his view that saturated fat was the cause of heart disease. Gary Taubes describes this researcher's personality in Good Calories, Bad Calories:

Henry Blackburn, the long-time collaborator at [the University of] Minnesota, described him as "frank to the point of bluntness, and critical to the point of sharpness." David Kritchevsky, who studied cholesterol metabolism at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia and was a competitor, described [him] as "pretty ruthless" and not a likely winner of any "Mr. Congeniality" awards.

This "frank ... critical ... ruthless" academic was Ancel Keys, inventor of the K-ration. He and his wife (an expert in measuring cholesterol) investigated several hundred people in the general population of Naples, Italy in the early 1950s and found that they measured low on cholesterol and had less heart disease than the fat-eating Neapolitan rich. Keys decided pretty quickly that dietary fat was the main cause of heart disease and spent the next couple of decades doing research to confirm his hypothesis.

The political situation back then was eerily familiar to our own time. In the early 1950s, the health establishment had just finished up the greatest public health success story of all time. With sanitation and vaccination, public heath had conquered the great scourges of infectious disease. So what could it do for an encore? It could solve the post-World War II heart-disease scare and apply the same epidemiological tools that had isolated the cause of cholera and typhoid. It was a no-brainer.

Fast-forward to climate science in the 1980s. The environmental establishment had just achieved the great goals of clean air and clean water and had transformed the U.S. metropolitan environment. What could it do for an encore? It could apply the same science, public relations, and regulatory tools used for the environmental success and save the planet from catastrophic global warming!

As we skeptics have seen, the global warming enthusiasts often had more enthusiasm than science. Climate science is a young science, and it doesn't know all that much about the climate. Not yet. The same was true back when heart disease became the number-one killer in the years immediately after World War II. What was killing all those middle-class Americans? Ancel Keys decided that it was the saturated fat in foods, and he couldn't wait for the results of his research -- people were dying. So he persuaded the government to fight cholesterol with low-fat diets right away. When the research results came in, they were close to the Folgers taste test: "no difference." But by then, big budgets and reputations were committed to the idea that a high-fat diet causes heart disease, and the government couldn't change its mind.

People with half-baked ideas that are not ready for prime time instinctively grasp that they need the bludgeon of government force. There's a long and tragic history of half-baked ideas linked up to government, from Horace Mann's half-baked idea in the 1830s that government education would reduce crime, Marx's half-baked critique of capitalism, and on to Lysenko and "whole language" reading. It makes sense that Michael Mann's flawed Hockey Stick paper would be boosted at the dawn of climate science by the global-warming alarmists and given an authority it didn't deserve. So also did Ancel Keys' cholesterol theory get established into a huge government war on fat.

You can see how young folk get sucked into this. Young Karl Marx looked out at the world in the 1840s and saw an out-of-control industrial revolution. Something had to be done before the world ended! Same with Ancel Keys, when he had his Aha! moment about cholesterol at a conference on nutrition and disease in Naples in 1951. No doubt the young James Hansen and the young Michael Mann had their Aha! moments as well.

The separation of church and state is an attempt to keep religious enthusiasm at a distance from the temptations of government force. Only now we need a separation of secular church and state. That way we can keep secular-religious ideas on saving the planet at a distance from political power.

Then, when we've made progress on that front, we could try the separation of science and state, and even the separation of economy and state.

We've just got to save the planet from second-rate scientists and their half-baked ideas.

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his and also At he is blogging and writing An American Manifesto: Life After Liberalism.

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

APRIL 2012

March 11, 2012 by Don Surber

So much for an ice-free Arctic. Henry Hudson’s long-ago dream of a Northwest Passage that would link England to the Orient by sea will have to wait another century as Mother Earth gives him the cold shoulder. Again.

From Real Science: “1979 was the peak year for Arctic ice, yet 2012 has more ice around Greenland and Alaska than 1979 did.”

Same date satellite data seems to show that Iceland and everywhere else is iced over this year when they were feeling a little green 33 years ago.

Of course, our moral and intellectual superiors elsewhere in the press keep banging the drums of Man Caused Global Warming.

From Medill Reports, which is written and produced by graduate journalism students at Northwestern University’s Medill school:

Rising temperatures and more heat waves due to climate change can cause heat stroke, heart attacks, dehydration and even increased incidences of violent crime and suicide, said Dr. Aaron Bernstein, associate director of Harvard University’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Bernstein kicked off a day of provocative presentations at Northwestern University’s third annual Climate Change Symposium, held Thursday. He showed how seemingly small changes in average temperatures translate into much longer cycles of very hot days and record hot days.

Rising sea levels and more extreme weather events can displace large numbers of people living in coastal cities or island nations, he said. “Weather refugees” have higher incidences of infectious diseases, he noted. Bernstein compared the lackluster political and social response regarding the climate change crisis to a scenario from emergency medicine.

“The situation is akin to showing up to the emergency room with some pain in your belly and it hurts on your right side and you feel nauseous. And the emergency room doctor says, ‘Boy that’s probably some indigestion. We are going to send you home.’ And you are thinking, ‘Could this be appendicitis?’ ”

Just how a temperature increase does all this is not explained. Not being a scientist, I would compare the crime and suicide rates in New Delhi — a warm place — to those of Detroit. But I don’t think the good doctor did so and I don’t think reporter Lisa Barbella asked.

It’s just another attention grabbing headline — “Harvard physician warns of climate change health hazards” — that shows the same scare tactics used by scam artists. I was watching an episode of “Family Guy” where a salesman tries to sell the gullible father “volcano insurance” in Rhode Island. That’s what all this nonsense reminds me of.

Anyway, the polar bears are safer today than they were 33 years ago.

And come to think of it, the rest of us are from “heat stroke, heart attacks, dehydration and even increased incidences of violent crime and suicide.” reports of seas rising from a melting polar icecap are greatly exaggerated.

Hat tip: Tom Nelson.

Return to Index

APRIL 2012

Jerry Schmitt, February 24, 2012

James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.  Prof. Lindzen sounded the alarm early over the systematic subversion of Climate Sciences in North America and Europe by a cabal centered around Al Gore and the UN's Maurice Strong.

The Telegraph  has published Prof. Lindzen's at as the House of Commons undertakes to "Reconsider the Climate Change Act" -- the provisions of which have decimated the British economy.  America's hapless Republicans somehow are unable to organize an effective political debate over global warming hysteria that is affecting everything from Solyndra to the Keystone Pipeline-- even though I'm sure Prof. Lindzen is available to testify before Congress.  This renewed debate in Parliament represents a significant shift in the balance of power against the eco-fanatics.

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index


December 16, 2011 by Don Surber , See

Beluga whales are up to 20 feet long and can weigh 2 tons. Polar bears love them because not only are they tasty, but each one has a million calories. Eat one and you don’t have to hunt for a month.

Well, polar bears, soup’s on because more than 100 of these million-calorie meals are stuck in the frozen food section of Chukotka, Russia. Vlad Putin may have to send in icebreakers because the White Sea and Barents Sea in the northwest of Russia are freezing fast.

From Agence France Presse:

“A group of over 100 Beluga whales are cut off from the sea and are prisoners of ice floes in the Bering Sea,” the Chukotka region said in a statement on its website, saying the local governor Roman Kopin had requested an ice-breaker.

It said that the whales were trapped just 15 kilometres (10 miles) south of the village of Yanrakynot on the Bering Sea.
The statement said the Kopin had written a letter to Transport Minister Igor Levitin and Emergencies Minister Sergei Shoigu “to study the possibility of sending an ice-breaker to save the whales.”

It said that the whales risked becoming starved and the advance of the ice floes was reducing the space that they had to swim in.

“Given the lack of food and the speed at which the water is freezing, all the animals are threatened with exhaustion and death,” it added.

The AFP story went on to note: “The Beluga whale is a protected species in Russia and it is one of a handful of wild animals whose cause has been championed by Russian Prime Minister and nature lover Vladimir Putin.”

Now we know that because this event does not fit the global warming narrative, this is just weather. Or maybe global warming now causes ice.

The Associated Press report:

Russia scrambles to save some 100 trapped whales

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian agencies are scrambling to some 100 beluga whales — an endangered species — that are trapped among large chunks of polar ice floating in the frigid Bering Sea.

Russia’s nature protection watchdog says there is a chance that the whales might perish. Authorities say the ice is 10-15 centimeters (4-6 inches) thick and is preventing the whales from reaching the open sea where they can swim freely.

Russia’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology said Thursday that it has asked the Transportation Ministry for help and that an inter-departmental group is working on how to save the whales.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature listed the beluga whale as an endangered species in 2008.

Return to Index


November 22, 2011 by Don Surber

The story two Octobers ago by Charles J. Hanley of the Associated Press was a sad one. Caribou were dwindling due to mankind’s global warming! A survey found that a quarter-million caribou had disappeared. Wrote Charles J. Handley: “Global warming has boosted temperatures in the Arctic twice as much as elsewhere, and Canadian researchers say the natural balance is suffering.”
Two years later, those missing caribou have been found. In Saskatchewan. From the Canadian Press:

A vast herd of northern caribou that scientists feared had vanished from the face of the Earth has been found, safe and sound — pretty much where aboriginal elders said it would be all along.

“The Beverly herd has not disappeared,” said John Nagy, lead author of a recently published study that has biologists across the North relieved.

Those scientists were shaken by a 2009 survey on the traditional calving grounds of the Beverly herd, which ranges over a huge swath of tundra from northern Saskatchewan to the Arctic coast. A herd that once numbered 276,000 animals seemed to have completely disappeared, the most dramatic and chilling example of a general decline in barren-ground caribou.

But Nagy’s research — and consultation with the communities that live with the animals — concludes differently.

His work springs from recent studies that question the long-held theory that caribou always return to the same calving ground. It holds that different herds use different grounds, and that’s what sets them apart.

“In the past, herds have been defined based on their calving grounds,” said Nagy. “However, it’s been shown that not all herds maintain fidelity to their calving grounds.”

Herds are now defined by which animals hang out together, not by where they give birth.

“It’s actually behavior that structures these herds, not calving grounds.”

It turns out that the Beverly herd has simply shifted its calving grounds north from the central barrens near Baker Lake, Nunavut, to the coastal regions around Queen Maud Gulf. Nagy’s analysis of radio-tracking data showed caribou in the region once thought to belong to the Ahiak herd are, in fact, Beverly animals.

So, it was a false alarm. The herd did not die out. It switched locations. I’m glad. As one scientist said: “Many of the community people reported that elders think this is nothing new. Caribou move.”

Once again, we learn that the Man-made Global Warming alarmists were wrong.

They stated something as fact.

It was a fallacy.

They leaped to a conclusion that just was not there.

Don’t expect a follow up from the Associated Press. the world suffering from the evils of greedy capitalists is a better story than scientists don’t know what they are talking about.

Caribou/climate expert Liv Solveig Vors told the Associated Press two years ago: “Climate change is changing the way they’re [caribou are] interacting with their food, directly and indirectly.” Charles J. Hadley also wrote, “Vors said caribou are unlikely to adjust.”

Apparently they do and they did.

Hat tip: Kate at Small Dead Animals.  See

Return to Index


By Russ Harding, Aug. 25, 2011

Climate change alarmists have been busy blaming every conceivable threat to mankind and the planet on global warming. The mainstream media eagerly report every new study that predicts the Armageddon-like consequences we can expect from defiling the planet by breathing and burning fossil fuels. If we did not have enough to fear from melting glaciers flooding our major cities to extensive droughts and the invasion of exotic diseases, we now have to worry about aliens invading the planet to punish us for our eco-sins.

A recent study, “Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis,” released by the Pennsylvania State University Geography Department, contemplates extraterrestrial revenge due to man-made global warming. According to the authors, “….ecosystem-valuing universalist ETI may observe humanity’s ecological destructive tendencies and wipe humanity out in order to preserve the Earth system as a whole.” It sounds like an idea for a new Al Gore film. The authors go on to say: “These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets.”

It’s not surprising that climate change alarmists would turn to science fiction to support their cause. They have found it increasingly difficult to get the American public to buy their doomsday scenarios, especially when the public considers that regulations designed to reduce CO2 emissions come with a lot of economic harm and little environmental gain.

Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.

Return to Index


Randy Fardal, November 08, 2010

Why are welfare queens sent to prison while eco-capitalists buy mansions? It appears that the carbon credit trading exchange some eco-capitalists sold just a few months ago for $634.5M is now worthless. According to the Financial Times:

The owner of the US’s only nationwide cap-and-trade market has signaled the death of the seven-year-old industry, saying companies were no longer interested in trading carbon emissions credits in the absence of government legislation.

Virtually nothing the eco-capitalists produce creates wealth for society, including their carbon exchanges. They are not participating in free-market capitalism; it’s just parasitic political capitalism. And since most of what they do is based on the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] scam, one could argue that many of them are guilty of misrepresentation or outright fraud.

Meanwhile, the buyer at the other end of this transaction, Intercontinental Exchange, apparently lost a half-billion-dollar bet that the carbon-taxing Democrats would retain control of the House in the 2010 elections. That’s fine; ICE is a profitable private sector company that took a calculated risk, and whose losses will be borne by its shareholders. Because of pending Democratic legislation, that risk had potentially great rewards -- perhaps even “windfall profits” -- so it’s unlikely that shareholders now blame the company’s executives for malfeasance.

But taxpayers indirectly cover about a third of the shareholders’ losses. Because ICE’s overall business is profitable, its losses on the climate exchange reduce its tax liability. For instance, according to its most recent SEC filing, ICE expensed a total of $25M during the third quarter for costs associated with the Chicago Climate Exchange acquisition:

The increase in operating expenses was primarily attributable to costs associated with the acquisition of Climate Exchange plc, including $7 million of acquisition expenses and $5 million in severance charges. Operating expenses also include $5 million in amortization of intangibles and $8 million in ongoing operational expenses associated with Climate Exchange during the third quarter of 2010.

During the third quarter, ICE’s effective tax rate was 32 percent, so other US taxpayers will have to pick up about a third of that $25M cost -- over $8M -- because the acquisition reduced ICE’s tax liability by that amount. Assuming it takes another quarter or two to shut down the exchange completely, its operating expenses probably will total about $20-25M. Those charges are taken in the quarters incurred, and the remainder of the $635M write-off will get amortized over many more quarters.

Bottom line: Taxpayers will have to cover about a third of the total $655-660M bet that ICE lost on its Climate Exchange acquisition. Can the leftists be happy about that? After all, the added government revenue would have paid for a large portion of Nancy Pelosi’s taxpayer-funded private jet.

Page Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker:

Return to Index

MAY 2010

Rick Moran, April 04, 2010

The level of coverage in America regarding questions raised by the Climategate scandal and other related revelations is a scandal. The Euro-media has been on the story from the beginning and surprisingly, is telling the story in a mostly objective manner.

Spiegel Online has an exhaustive, 8-page review of events and discoveries since the Climategate emails were revealed. It shows a climate science community in near chaos and dispirited over the fact that so much data was fabricated or deliberately ignored.

The Climategate affair is grist for the mills of skeptics, who have gained growing support for their cause, particularly in English-speaking countries. What began with hacked emails in the United Kingdom has mushroomed into a crisis affecting an entire scientific discipline. At its center is an elite and highly influential scientific group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Working on behalf of the United Nations, the scientists organized under IPCC's umbrella -- including Phil Jones -- regularly prepare prognoses on the Earth's looming greenhouse climate. Without the IPCC reports, governments would not be embroiled in such passionate debate about phasing out the age of oil and coal.


Since then, the IPCC has experienced a dramatic fall from grace. Less than three years after this triumph, more and more mistakes, evidence of sloppy work and exaggerations in the current IPCC report are appearing. They include Jones' disputed temperature curve, the prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 -- which was the result of a simple transposition of numbers -- and the supposed increase in natural disasters, for which no source was given.
In mid-March, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon slammed on the brakes and appointed a watchdog for the IPCC. The InterAcademy Council, a coalition of 15 national academies of science, will review the work of the IPCC by this fall.

There is already a consensus today that deep-seated reforms are needed at the IPCC. The selection of its authors and reviewers was not sufficiently nonpartisan, there was not enough communication among the working groups, and there were no mechanisms on how to handle errors.

This is a big departure for German media who have been one of the strongest advocates over the years for action by governments to head off climate change. The idea that a leading publication would devote so much space to explaining why Climategate is so important is a good sign that skepticism is making some headway - at least overseas.

Meanwhile, mainstream media and general audience science publications in the US continue to treat climategate as a blip on the radar, not worth covering. Even when emails surface proving that NASA has based its temperature data on faulty readings, there is barely a whisper at the New York Times or elsewhere.

If cap and trade is to be headed off, skepticism regarding the need for it must penetrate the voter's minds. Even with the near blackout, Americans are becoming more skeptical of global warming but it's not good enough. The case must be presented fairly with both sides getting a hearing.

That won't happen unless the mainstream media in America starts covering the story the way it should be.

Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

MARCH 2010

By Dexter Wright, February 05, 2010

The potential criminality of the Climategate scandal is exactly the issue that is being investigated by authorities in Britain. The British Parliament has convened hearings to investigate East Anglia University and the Climate Research Unit to uncover unethical and illegal activities. As more information is revealed, the whole Climategate affair begins to take on the makings of a good mystery novel. Like any good mystery or crime plot, the web of involvement is widespread.

But in order for a reader to be drawn in, the author must establish the motive and opportunity for the crime to be believable. To understand Climategate, we must start at the center of the web. At the center is the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University and the work he orchestrated at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). This is exactly where the British Parliament has started its investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing.

The British investigation, headed up by Phil Willis, M.P., focuses on four areas: data manipulation, data suppression, violations of the Freedom of Information Act, and data integrity. Clearly, the recently uncovered e-mails will play a big role in this investigation. A new thread in this web has appeared recently concerning a separate investigation conducted by the European Law Enforcement Organization Cooperation (aka Europol). Investigators have found evidence of a complex carbon-trading scam on the European Climate Exchange. Just three short weeks ago, three British subjects were arrested in an apparent scam worth billions of dollars. Much of the criminal activity alleged involves tax evasion.

Trading on the European Climate Exchange is open to the world market, but the carbon credits only involve the European Union (EU) nations giving brokers the ability to hide trading activities in other countries and avoid paying taxes. This is known as a Carousel Fraud. Curiously, this thread of tax avoidance is also spun into the tangled web of e-mails from East Anglia University. In one of the e-mails dated 6 March 1996, two members of the Jones Gang, Stepan Shiyatov and Dr. Kieth Briffa, discuss how to avoid paying taxes in Russia:

Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.

This is not an isolated e-mail concerning money. On 7 October 1997, Andrew Kerr of the World Wild Life Fund (WWF) sent an e-mail to essentially the entire global network of the Jones Gang expressing grave concerns that Kyoto would be a "flop" and fretted about the possible economic impact it might have:

It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if Kyoto is a flop.

Best wishes, Andrew

The question is, why would the WWF be interested in "new economic opportunities" if the Kyoto Accord were to fail? Aren't they supposed to save panda bears? As they say in Washington, "follow the money." One of the major benefactors of the WWF is the global banking giant HSBC Holdings plc. HSBC is a major trader on the European Climate Exchange. The public stance on climate was voiced by Stephen Green, a Group Chairman at HSBC:

Finding the solutions to climate change requires a concerted international effort involving governments, NGOs, intergovernmental institutions, the public and, of course, the business community. The HSBC Climate Partnership is an example of how different types of organizations can work together and has already been a catalyst for change in how we do business.

"A catalyst for change in how we do business"? Is that a way of saying market manipulation? By "involving" all of these "communities," is this a collaborative effort or a conspiracy? Is the WWF a member of these "communities"? The question must be asked whether the WWF is a tool of market manipulation?

With $31 billion in carbon credits being traded on the European Climate Exchange, there is certainly an incentive to commit fraud. These trades are dominated by banks like HSBC and energy companies like British Petroleum (another benefactor to the WWF). But how is an opportunity for fraud established? Unlike other commodities, like wheat or coffee, you can't ship a boxcar-load of carbon dioxide to the purchaser. The trades are done strictly on paper. The intangible nature of carbon credits provides the perfect opportunity for international fraud.

Page Reprinted from the American Thinker:

Return to Index


Why the Global Warming Hoax
By Maureen Rudel

Except for those who get their information only from the "mainstream media," almost everyone has now heard of the e-mails exchanged between the director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, and other "climate scientists" at other universities, including the University of Pennsylvania's Michael Mann. These e-mails clearly showed they destroyed data, faked results, knew the cooling temperatures since 1998 showed their models weren't working and couldn't explain the failure of their hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted by people-caused global warming.

They still claim that the theory has merit even though their "science" is questionable and the earth has actually been cooling.  This reminds me of Dan Rather who still believes his George W. Bush-National Guard story is true even though his evidence was faked.

Global Warming has become almost a religious belief with the proponents.  They apparently hate the Western way of life.  They despise us for succeeding when so many other countries have failed to provide their residents with even a modest quality of life.  They hate capitalism because it produces winners and losers.  These people believe that everyone should be equally miserable rather than rewarding hard work and effort.  They receive grants to promote their ideas. 

Companies that would not be commercially successful in selling their products without government subsidies (wind energy, other "green" energy companies) support the theory because without it, their businesses would fail.  People like Al Gore who plan to or have gotten rich in trading "carbon credits" also support it because without the theory and government mandate, no one would buy the emperor's new clothes.

Because the US Senate has stalled the "Cap-and-Trade" bill, more accurately known as the "Cap-and-Tax" bill, which Barack Hussein Obama guarantees will necessarily make your energy bills skyrocket, the Environmental Protection Agency, plans to adopt a regulation which will accomplish the same thing without the inconvenience of a congressional vote.

The Congress can stop this.  They have the ability to prohibit regulation of carbon dioxide.  If they don't, they must be removed.  We do not need to be taxed into the stone age to provide this gift to the environmental gods.

Return to Index


By Richard Morrison, Created 06/24/2009

CEI Calls for Agency to Release Concealed Report

Washington, D.C., June 24, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today charged that a senior official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

As part of a just-ended public comment period, CEI submitted a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position was put under wraps and concealed.

The study the emails refer to, which ran counter to the administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change, was kept from circulating within the agency, was never disclosed to the public, and was not added to the body of materials relevant to EPA’s current “endangerment” proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.

“This suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “EPA’s conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the President’s widely-touted claim that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.’”

CEI’s filing requests that EPA make the suppressed study public, place it into the endangerment docket, and extend the comment period to allow public response to the new information. CEI is also requesting that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the study’s author, a senior analyst who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.

Reprinted by permission from  CEI (  CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. For more information about CEI, please visit our website at [3].

Return to Index

APRIL 2009


If you think it has been a cold, snowy winter, you are right.
I checked the East Tawas monthly average temperature stats for this winter so far.
November: 3% below normal
December: 19% below normal
January: 37% below normal
February: 3% above normal
March: 8% below normal through March 12

Snowfall: 40% above normal through March 12

So, I guess the headline on the news will be “February Temperatures Above Normal- More Proof that Manmade Global Warming is Real!”

Return to Index


Thomas Lifson, January 14, 2009

It should come as no surprise to find courage coming from the United States Naval Academy. But when the subject is global warming, it is a pleasant confirmation of a more general point. Professor Mark Campbell of the USNA is yet another hero from Annapolis. His response to name calling from a Baltimore Sun editorialist deserves an audience beyond Maryland.

The good professor wrote the following letter, published yesterday in the Sun:

According to the editorial "A New Year's resolution" (Jan. 2), tens of thousands of scientists like me are "flat-earth types."

I guess my doctorate in chemical physics from Johns Hopkins doesn't give me nearly the qualifications to analyze the science associated with the global climate as an editor with an agenda.

If we are going to stoop to name-calling, an appropriate name for people with the view The Baltimore Sun endorses could be "Chicken Littles." But instead of claiming that the sky is falling, they claim the sky is burning.

The editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true.

And I don't even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it's just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth's climate.

Arguing that our country should decrease its use of fossil fuels is a laudable goal, but the reason to do so should be to reduce our reliance on energy from foreign sources, not to reduce the danger from some imaginary boogeyman.

The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.  Mark Campbell, Annapolis

The editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true.

And I don't even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it's just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth's climate.

Arguing that our country should decrease its use of fossil fuels is a laudable goal, but the reason to do so should be to reduce our reliance on energy from foreign sources, not to reduce the danger from some imaginary boogeyman.

The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.  Mark Campbell, Annapolis

The writer is a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The liberal media have taken upon themselves the role of enforcers of Al Gore's global warming con game, resorting to insults to dismiss legitimate questioning of what is, after all, only a theory, one that has not been proven. It is very important to stand up and confront these bullies, challenging them, to defend their insults. The one thing that warmists fear most is a serious scientific debate. That's why they always fall back on the phony claim of "consensus" - a claim that makes no sense, as science is not decided by consensus, and as more and more scientists stand up and puncture the claim.

Professor Campbell strikes me as a man worthy of his institution. And that is saying a lot.

Hat tip: Mark Roth.   Page reprinted by permission from:

Return to Index



Those of us who are "dish nuts" are stunned to learn from the on Jan. 5, 2009, that Waterford Wedgwood, the 250-year-old maker of luxury glassware and china was placed into bankruptcy. 

The mayor of Waterford, Ireland, Jack Walsh, has warned that if production ceased at the Waterford crystal factory, it would be a "national disaster."  The company is seeking new funding with the probability that it will have to turn over a controlling share of the company.

The Canada Free Press, on Monday, Jan. 5, 2009, noting that the liberal Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, trying to place the blame for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes on the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, located a videotape from a Fox News program showing the true story.  Despite threats of a proprietary rights lawsuit if the videotape was run on You Tube, a video now appears on a conservative Canadian website, ProudToBeCanadian.CA clearly showing President Bush warning of the dangers in April 2001 and again in 2003.  These calls were met with resistance from the House Finance Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, who vehemently denied any problems with the two entitled saying there was "no crisis." The requested legislation for controls was blocked by House Democrats and killed.

In April of 2005, Charles Schumer, liberal Democrat senator from New York dismissed similar warnings from then-Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "did a very, very good job."  The video can be seen at:

The reported on Jan. 1, 2009 that satellite observations of the sea ice over the 30 years of observation show that the level is the same as it was in 1979.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions. 

Sea ice is floating and doesn't affect ocean levels, but due to its transient nature responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

The earlier predictions this year that the North pole ice could melt entirely in 2008 were so wrong was attributed to colder temperatures, weaker winds, the fact that the new thinner ice grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The TimesOnline from the United Kingdom reported on Jan. 4, 2009, that residents of a model housing estate bankrolled by Hollywood celebrities and hand-built by Jimmy Carter, are complaining that it is falling apart.

Fairway Oaks, built in northern Florida by 10,000 volunteers, including Carter, in a 17-day blitz, are known 8 years later for cockroaches, mildew and mysterious skin rashes. 

A lawyer representing many of the 85 homeowners said that Habitat for Humanity should have told people that part of the estate had been built on a rubbish dump.  One resident pulled up his floorboards to find rubbish 5 feet deep under his kitchen.  Others complain of cracking walls and rotting door frames.  The case claims the idea that using volunteers, rather than professional builders is causing as many problems as it solves.

Return to Index


Jerome J. Schmitt, September 24, 2008

Outsiders familiar with the proper workings of science have long known that modern Climate Science is dysfunctional. Now a prominent insider, MIT Meteorology Professor Richard S. Lindzen, confirms how Al Gore and his minions used Stalinist tactics to subvert, suborn and corrupt a whole branch of science, citing chapter and verse in his report entitled "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" His answer: A resounding "NO!"

Detailing the corruption, he names a series of names. Until reading this I did not know that "For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore." Page 5

Although a bit lengthy, this very important report is highly readable and revealing. While some of the paragraphs are a bit technical, I encourage AT readers to wade through them because their purpose is to provide specific examples of how a radical cabal is forcing scientists to ignore or amend measurements that undermine the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Scientists are literally forced to include sentences in their papers that indicate their support of AGW, even if these sentences are non-sequiturs, or even if they conflict with the overall thrust of the paper. In this way, Al Gore's uneducated political commissars are able to deliver the "consensus" he so craves.

How is this possible you might ask? Prof. Lindzen gives considerable background history.

However, having been an undergraduate and graduate student in the hard sciences, and later a research collaborator with dozens of industrial scientists and university professors, perhaps I can shed some further light. Today's scientists get to the top of their field by extreme dedication to their specialty involving inordinate focus and concentration that cannot tolerate distractions. The best scientists are constantly "at home" at their lab bench, with their instruments, analyzing data, teaching a few promising students and preparing publications. Most scientists interact intensively only with other specialists in allied fields ("geeks").
Many scientists are naturalized citizens from Asia and Eastern Europe, unfamiliar and intimidated by American politics and government, to which they are dependent upon for visas and grant support. Although all stereotypes are unfair to individuals, there is some truth to the one of the shy, retiring, absent-minded professor. His or her absent-mindedness is most likely due to intense cogitation on a difficult scientific problem. Their dealings with one another are only possible by maintaining extreme standards of honesty, integrity and open-mindedness to scholarly debate in search of the truth. The very qualities that make them good scientists and scholars thus leave them ill-equipped to deal with the raucous, underhanded, disrespectful, politically-motivated radicals unleashed upon them by Al Gore and his fifth column for a "hostile takeover" of their scientific institutions.

I naively thought that the National Academy of Sciences could impose some quality-control on an errant discipline. Prof. Lindzen notes that even this august body has been penetrated by eco-activists by exploiting loopholes in its nominating procedures.

Fortunately, in science "truth will out". The long term faith of the American public in science, a trust built up since WWI is at stake. Next it will be important to see whether a prominent scientific journal publishes this revelation.

As an aside, for those who have wondered how leftist cabals were able in the 60's and 70's to take over our universities' humanity departments, the National Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities, Prof Lindzen's report lays bare the template for radicalization.

Page Reprinted by permission from:

Return to Index


By Michael Asher, DailyTech, July 16, 2008

Viscount Monckton gives a presentation during the 2007 Conference on Climate Change "Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to Daily Tech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

Return to Index

MAY 2008

By Danny Huddleston, April 25, 2008

NPR has an interesting article on global warming... or cooling? The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat. James Hansen and Al Gore must be so disappointed.  NASA is spending around 20 million dollars a year to deploy and monitor 3000 robot buoys around the worlds oceans and the data coming in doesn't support their theory on global warming, in fact it turns out the world has cooled slightly in the last five years.

It's surprising the mainstream media hasn't picked up on this, you would think the fact that the earth is cooling would be front page news.

Wondering what we get for 20 mil per year?  Here is a brief description from the Argo home page.
Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.  This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.

Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete.  Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above.  While the Argo array is currently complete at 3000 floats, to be maintained at that level, national commitments need to provide about 800 floats per year (which has occurred for the past three years).

NPR has the money quote from Josh Willis at NASA: (emphasis added) "Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming."

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters.  They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.  So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system.  The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature.  Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.  "There has been a very slight cooling..."

It might just be worth 20 million if it helps to calm down global warming hysteria.  One good feature of the Argo system is that it is virtually tamper proof, unlike the land based system where temperature readings can be artificially inflated due to the urban heat island effect and bad placement of the monitoring stations. (i.e.: next to AC units) as has been reported.

Also a recent article from the BBC states that global temperatures have not risen since 1998.  That's 10 years with no increase and a slight cooling in the last five, all the while CO2 levels are rising every year.  Haven't we been told that more CO2 = higher temperatures?  It appears that the exact opposite is happening.

Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker.

Return to Index

APRIL 2008

Marc Sheppard, February 15, 2008

Yet another climate expert concurs that, while solar activity normally fluctuates in 11-year cycles, we now appear to be at a cold standstill. And his research adds voice to growing concerns that Sun cycle 24's late start may have a chilling effect on the Earth's Climate.

I suppose some background of our coverage thus far may be in order:

Last December, Dr David Whitehouse noted that the apex of solar activity at the end of last century corresponded with the period's unusually high temperatures, and that temps have been flat since activity abated. He suggested we were entering a new solar cycle which would begin a period of global cooling. The Sun expert reminded readers that a similar sunspot holiday in the 17th Century (The Maunder Minimum) corresponded with the coldest and most damaging temperatures of that millennium (The Little Ice Age).

Then last week, we discovered that scientists at Canada's National Research Council are also concerned with the apparent hibernation of old Sol, and are seeking emergency funding for equipment to better observe our primary source of heat. And they, like Whitehouse, also believe we may be entering into another minimum.

While the greenhouse gas effect obsessed MSM [Main Stream Media] have completely ignored this phenomenon, meteorologist Anthony Watts has not.  On Wednesday, the founder of the oft-cited released results of his own "exhaustive search" for recent solar activity, reporting that: "we've seen months and months of next to nothing, and the start of Solar cycle 24 seems to have materialized then abruptly disappeared."

In Watts' wonderfully illustrative essay, he steps us through a somewhat technical yet quite readable explanation of sunspots and how their numbers are indicative of the "activity level of the solar dynamo." He then joins the minimum club, equating recent inactivity coupled with the late (and, perhaps, false) start of cycle 24 to patterns last seen during the Dalton Minimum. Not by coincidence, the diminished solar activity during Dalton also coincided with a period (1790 to 1820) of lower than average global temperatures, leading Watts to conclude: "No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that's wrong, because a Dalton type solar minimum would be very bad for our world economy and agriculture."

Yes, it would. Then again, so would wasting resources - financial or otherwise -- to reduce totally benign -- if not beneficial -- greenhouse gases through Carbon taxes, Cap-and-Trade, Carbon capture/sequestration technologies, or any other preposterous schemes.

Especially should average temperatures plummet, as predicted, in the next few years responding to the abatement not of atmospheric CO2 (which will likely continue to rise), but rather sunspots.

The unremitting mulish refusal to accept the yellow dwarf star at the center of our solar system as the force that drives our climate and weather - despite all overwhelming correlating evidence -- is simply mind-boggling.  

It betrays a lack of reason so profound, it is exceeded only by the choice to attempt controlling global climate rather than adapting to its unwavering and inevitable flux.

Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker,

Return to Index



A new study, reported on by Monisha Bansal of on December 11, 2007, by climate scientists at the Universities of Rochester, Alabama and Virginia found that the climate change  models based on human influence do not match observed warming.  This challenges the claims of Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

The report was written by David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia.

"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations," Singer told Cybercast News Service.

"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."

Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases."

"Their models just don't consider them properly," he said.

Singer said, "We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.

"We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun," he said. "These are very subtle changes that are very difficult to observe. The sun is really a quite variable star."

Singer said because global warming is a natural event. "There is little point to try to control emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which means that all of this legislation and all of these efforts to find substitutes for fossil fuels are pointless, useless and very, very expensive," he said.

Despite this, a group of "scientists" are spending a lot of time and money in beautiful Bali, Indonesia, worrying about climate change and trying to figure out how to kneecap the American economy, with which they cannot compete.  Unlike real scientific inquiries, however, they will not let anyone with an opposing view in to meet with them.  This is reported
by Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov, from Sen. James Inhofe's website.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants. 

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.   

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort.

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming.  We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog.  Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming."

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained.

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time.  If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said. 

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said.

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.  

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said.

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

Return to Index


Thomas Lifson, November 30, 2007 

You can't make stuff like this up. The snicker factor just keeps mounting over the antics of global warming alarmists. Patrick Condon of the Associated Press reported last March:

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

While losing toes to frostbite is no joke, one has to wonder if these two publicity-seekers were undone by believing their own propaganda. Did visions of an ice-free North Pole lure them into pressing onward after some equipment was damaged? Extreme cold is to be expected if one is visiting polar regions, and presumably, as experienced polar trekkers, they brought along adequate gear. So why did they not abort the mission when they suffered gear problems?

And how many purportedly harmful carbon dioxide molecules were generated by the rescue airplane to be sent to save them from their folly?

I hope the two recover fully and come to realize that it can still be really, really cold in the arctic, no matter what Al Gore tells them.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
I hope they are now letting those school groups know that it is foolish to plan to swim in the Arctic because it gets really, really cold there.

Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker

Return to Index



In an article in cnews from the Canoe network in Canada, Ezra Levant reported on August 13, 2007, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has admitted that its claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US was wrong.

Goddard's director, James Hansen, a great fan of the global warming hysteria, says the world has never been hotter, and that doomsday is just around the corner.

However, in the first week of August, NASA admitted it got its numbers wrong and quietly revised their rankings of the hottest years in American history.  The hottest year was 1934 -- four of the hottest years on record are now in the 1930s, only 3 are from the last ten years.  The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were revised downward so much, they're now cooler than the year 1900.

Lorne Gunter from the National Post on, on the same day, reported that Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre -- the man who demolished the Mann "hockey stick" graph that wrongly showed temperatures shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century, was at it again.  McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick demonstrated that the graph was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.

McIntyre noted that a little less than a decade ago, the US government changed the way it recorded temperatures.  No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old until McIntyre did.  Once he pointed out the problem, NASA quickly made the corrections.

The "warmers" are not happy with this result, but this is not new.  Ten years ago, they found a similarly small error in the temperature data collected by weather satellites.  These were a thorn in their sides because while the warmers were insisting that Earth was getting hotter, the satellites showed it was, in fact, cooling down.  The scientists who maintained the orbiting satellites did not take into account orbital degradation.  When the effects of drift were added into the observations, the cooling was found to be just 0.01 degree per decade rather than the 0.04 degrees previously claimed.

And to top off this story, John McCaslin of The Washington Times reported on August 14, 2007 that a Washington DC resident, John Lockwood, conducting research at the Library of Congress, came across the following headline in the Nov. 2 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Artic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Everything old is new again. . .

Return to Index



On July 5, Agence France-Presse reported that scientists who probed 1.2 miles through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed.

DNA of trees, plants and insects found beneath the glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago.  It was previously believed that boreal forests such as this could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago.

The samples suggest the temperature probable reached 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer and 1 F. in the winter.

The study published in the July 7 edition of Science also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 9 F. higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and co-author of the paper, said: "What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought."

Return to Index

MAY 2007

J.R. Dunn

Greens are crowing over the Supreme Court's move to throw itself into the global warming debate in Monday's Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated by government. (I haven't read the decision so I'm not sure if "can" translates as "must".)

But they may be cheering too soon. The record of the courts acting as referee for social engineering programs outside their area of expertise is not a particularly impressive one - think "forced busing". In whichever such case you care to examine, you find millions wasted, the problem as bad (if not worse) than it was before the judges became involved, and nothing accomplished apart from the judicial system obtaining yet another coat of tarnish.

Combine the courts with the dubious assertions of global warming enthusiasts and you have real recipe for trouble. The courts are in the habit of issuing orders, otherwise known as commands. And ruling the economy by command is always a self-defeating strategy in the long run. The old Soviet Union fell apart, despite (or because of, more accurately) the best efforts of Gosplan - the state economic planning agency that attracted the brains of the best and the brightest of the Soviet educational system

Yesterday came news of a clear example of what we're in for. Over two years ago, the state of Hawaii mandated use of ethanol-based fuel for all automobiles. This time, it was not the courts but the legislature and governor which produced the mandate. It must have seemed like a smart idea. Hawaii is, after all, a leading U.S. producer of sugar cane, a perfect source of ethanol. Shifting cars over to an ethanol mix would not only cut petroleum use, but aid agriculture, generate $100 million or more in plant investment, and create 700 jobs.

Two years and more have passed, and yesterday, according to the Honolulu Advertiser not only has no ethanol been produced, but the ground for the plants hasn't even been broken. The delay is blamed on "financing, permitting, engineering and other problems". In other words, one branch on the state government is interfering with what another is trying to bring off. The schedule for the first batch of Hawaiian ethanol has been pushed back to some time late next year.

In the meantime, Hawaii has been forced to import ethanol from places like El Salvador, to the tune of 50 million gallons a year. At whose cost? Hawaiian drivers, needless to say.

The program is still considered a success. Gasoline use rose "only" 4% last year. It would have gone up more if it wasn't for ethanol - you can trust them on that. And oil imports? They went up nearly 9% just the same.

The final kicker to the whole program is that, even when all the planned factories are up and running, they'll provide only 30% of the required ethanol. No further companies have expressed serious interest, for reasons that I'm sure are mysterious to any good Hawaiian bureaucrat.

The point here is that these Gosplan-type operations never work. A cursory glance at the records of the USSR, Red China, or Nazi Germany will reveal the futility of command-and-control planning clearly enough. And we don't even have to look that far - we have America's version, imported almost intact from Germany: the NASA space program. A decade of Herculean effort and incredible expense constructed Saturn-Apollo to put men on the moon Another decade of Herculean effort and incredible expense resulted in the useless and dangerous Space Shuttle. Today, forty years on, we're planning another decade of expense and effort to build an expanded and upgraded version of Apollo. To do what? To go back to the moon.

The universal failings of Gosplan programs are no secret. They're well-enough known to raise suspicions that the Greens can't be all that serious in insisting on them to the effective exclusion of all else. But the Greens truly don't know any better. They believe that's how things are done. Which has both good points and bad - we're going to see truly titanic amounts of money and resources wasted in the years to come, amounts that will make the Hawaii spending look trivial. But at the same time, the Green dream of some sort of global environmentalist state will never come to pass. They'll see to that themselves, through their own actions. Along with those of their lawyers, the judges, and the bureaucrats. One way or another, the Greens will regret making planet-saving a legal matter.

Reprinted by permission  from: at April 04, 2007

Return to Index

MARCH 2007


Since the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its latest report in early February, the Main Stream Media (MSM) has taken the position that the argument is closed.  There is nothing else to say.  Only idiots would argue against humans causing global warming.

However, some small voices are getting out.

On Feb. 5, 2007, in the Canada Free Press, Dr. Timothy Ball, a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen May College, stated definitively that "Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)."  There is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change.  Recently Yuri A. Izrail, Vice President of the UN sponsored IPCC confirmed this statement.

Ball noted with approval Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker, who, in his latest book "State of Fear," took time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

He also noted that Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and professor of meteorology - especially atmospheric waves, speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by Humans.  Lindzen is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT.

Ball's article was immediately attacked.  So, on Feb. 7, 2007, Judi McLeod responded in the Canada Free Press.  Ball replied to the charges against him by noting that his doctoral thesis, placed in the public record in 1983, Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, used the remarkable records of the Hudson's Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714-1952 in large areas of Canada.

Dr. Ball says: "Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred.  The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.  These climate changes are well within the natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun.  But there is nothing unusual going on."

Lawrence Solomon of the National Post, wrote in on Feb. 2, 2007, that astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, has changed his views.  "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming.  But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.  Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming.  Even research from the IPCC is bereft of anything inspiring confidence.  According to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.  He believes that solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century warming.

Richard Gray, Science Correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph, reported on Feb. 11, 2007, of a team of scientists led by Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who have published a book on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.  Svensmark believes that the earth is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.  He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.  This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had."

Anil Anand reported in the on Feb. 11, 2007, that the Himalayan glaciers are not shrinking.  According to VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of the Geological Society of India, research on Indian glaciers is negligible.  Out of 9,575 glaciers in India, research has been conducted on only about 50.  Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.  "Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said.

But while questions are being raised all over the world, in the US, they are not allowed. 

 Vince Patton reported on Feb. 7, 2007, on from Oregon, the Oregon State Climatologist, George Taylor, does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.  The Governor, Ted Kulongoski, wants to remove that title from him and appoint someone else.  Kulongoski said that he wants someone who will agree that greenhouse gases have to be reduced to combat climate change.

Delaware State Climatologist, David R. Legates, is also skeptical of global warming data.  In the Feb. 6, 2007, edition of, Jeff Montgomery reported that his views came under fire when he disputed arguments used to support Delaware efforts to control greenhouse gases as one of several authors in a "friend-of-the-court" brief filed with the US Supreme Court filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

When questions are not allowed on an issue, it is not science.  It is a political position on which no opposition can be allowed.  Ask Hugo Chavez about it, that's the way countries are supposed to run.

Return to Index

JUNE 2006


The liberal news media is trying to turn up the heat on the topic of global warming (Time Magazine's cover story "Be Worried. Be Very Worried) and Al Gore is running around promoting his docu-flick "An Inconvenient Truth," that claims "sea levels may rise by 20 feet, the Arctic and Antarctic ice will melt" and "deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year."

A new study by the National Center for Policy Analysis debunks that nonsense and concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global warming over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change." The changes that did occur, the study says, were caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution. Last year's severe hurricane season was not the result of global warming, but was due to the increased Atlantic hurricane activity brought on by natural tropical climate cycles.

The Arctic isn't melting either, as environmental hysterics claim. The "average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded that "global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice."

Reprinted by permission from the May 24, 2006 Liberty Matters News Service.

Return to Index



You may have heard that there was a conference in Montreal on climate change.  Here's the news you didn't hear.

Mark Coulton, reporting on December 10, 2005 in from Australia that the Kyoto Protocol which sets targets for countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is almost buried.

Australian Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell said countries were realizing that Australia was right not to join the protocol and predicted the system would be scrapped after 2012, when the current agreement expires.

"A number of (countries) are saying, 'Look we made a mistake.  We don't think it's worth opening up a new negotiation about a future commitment when the commitments we have today are looking so unreasonable'," he said.

"Trying to squeeze everyone into the Kyoto style approach is simply not going to work."

The Independent reported on Dec. 27, 2005 that Britain and Sweden are the only European countries honoring their Kyoto commitments to cut greenhouse gasses.

Although the US is portrayed as the ecological villain for refusing to sign up to the agreement, 10 out of the 15 European Union signatories will miss their targets without urgent action.

Recent figures show carbon dioxide emissions increasing in 13 out of the 15 countries, including Britain.

The Scotsman also reported on Dec. 27, 2005, that the worst offenders are Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, each up to 20% off target.  Only Britain, Sweden and France are remotely on target.

In an opinion piece in the StatesmanJournal out of Salem, Oregon, Mickey Bellman put things in context on January 9, 2006.

"Does anyone remember the glaciers that once threatened Florida and cause white spruce trees to grow in Georgia?  Archeological evidence proves that sub-arctic forests grew 18,000 years ago where orange groves and pecan trees now flourish."

"How about that mini-Ice Age of 1100-1600 AD? History books recount the cold weather endured by the Northern Hemisphere during that period."

He points out that we really don't know what controls the Earth's climate, and that frightens folks.  There are predictions of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, droughts and erratic weather if we don't curtail all emissions.  This arrogance and audacity ignores the fact that one St. Helens eruption, one meteor from outer space, or a magnetic shift of the North Pole could erase everything regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency or Kyoto treaty.

John Stossel, in a column published on on Dec. 14, 2005, will get the last word here.

After discussing the Montreal conference in which a bunch of politicians and activists negotiated between themselves about just how much of our freedom to take away in pursuit of a "greener" planet ("green" as in envious of the people who were able to invent, build industries and develop economies in generations past, before the environmentalists convinced world "leaders" that products that improve human life, and the factories that make those products, must be limited in the name of the earth), he pointed to a real problem.

Two to 3 million people die of malaria every year because the US government is afraid of DDT.  The US spends your tax dollars trying to fight malaria in Africa, but won't fund DDT.  The money goes for things like mosquito netting over beds.  The Agency for International Development acknowledges DDT is safe, but will not spend a penny on it.

Fifty years ago, Americans sprayed tons of DDT everywhere.  People sat there and ate in clouds of it, breathed it in, loved it.  No one got cancer and died.  There is no evidence that it hurt people.  It killed mosquitoes.  It did threaten some bird populations by thinning eggshells.  This led to the frenzy caused by the 1962 book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson.

It has since been learned that much smaller amounts of DDT can still effectively keep mosquitoes at bay and prevent malaria.  It was banned after we started celebrating Earth Day.

Commenting about the environmentalists, scientist Amir Attaran said: "If it's a chemical, it must be bad.  If it's DDT, it must be awful.  And that's fine if you're a rich, white environmentalist.  It's not so fine if you're a poor black kid who is about to lose his life from malaria."

Attaran is leading a campaign of hundreds of scientists urging the use of DDT to combat malaria.  It's needed especially in Africa, he says, because malaria kills thousands there every day.  "If I were to characterize what USAID does on malaria," he said, "I'd call it medical malpractice, I would call it murderous."

Return to Index



An October 4, 2005 article from the Calgary Sun noted that Tony Blair declared the Kyoto treaty to be unfeasible.  At a conference on "global challenges" in New York City, organized by Bill Clinton, Blair told the attendees that he had to be "brutally honest" about Kyoto, of which he was once a big backer.

No country, he said, is going to cut its economic growth or consumption to implement the draconian Kyoto regulations.  His argument was two-pronged: No one in the western industrialized democracies is going to allow their standard of living to be ravaged by adhering to Kyoto, and no developing nations such as India and China are going to halt their industrial and economic growth by Kyoto.

The same publication also had an October 13, 2005 article noting that in the years 1000 to 1200 AD, Vikings farmed on the now frozen islands of Greenland and Iceland.  When the Earth was sparsely populated and the internal combustion engine wasn't anywhere close to becoming even a spark of an idea, the Earth was warmer than it is today.

It noted that a Calgary-based group, Friends of Science, launched an ad campaign to dispel the myths that: 1) Global warming causes the violent weather worldwide, 2) The earth is warmer today than it has been in 1,000 years, and 3) Carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

They are joined by 19,700 other scientists -- 95% of them PhDs -- who have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition which states in part:  "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Return to Index



An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific claim about climate change.  If it withstands scrutiny, the collective scientific understanding of recent global warming might need an overhaul, reported USA Today, on October 28, 2003.

The same study was reported in National Post (Canada) on October 29.  The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium.  A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data.  After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed.  Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century.  The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.

Efforts to limit the emission of the green house gases blamed for this claimed warming were bolstered by Mann's research.  Mann never made his data available online -- nor did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research.  That by itself raises question about the U.N. climate-change panel's scientific process.

To guarantee that McKitrick and McIntyre's research will withstand the kind of scrutiny they gave Mann's research, McKitrick said: "If a study is going to be the basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be disseminated and the results have to be reproducible.  That's why in our case we have posted everything online and invite outside scrutiny."

Return to Index

MAY 2003


The Guardian of London reported on April 4, 2003 that two astronomers took a new look at 240 studies of the world's climate and offered a challenge to global warming doom-mongers.  Britain was probably warmer for Robin Hood and Richard Lionheart 1,000 years ago.

Willie Soon and Sallie Bauliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre of Astrophysics worked with a climate scientists to survey research studies of climate covering the last millennium.  These included the measurement of glacier movements, ice cores, coral and stalagmite growth, peat deposits, tree rings, pollen, lake and river sediments and the shifting position of tree stumps.

They report that the 20th century was neither the warmest in the last 1,000 years, nor the one with the most extreme weather.  The mediaeval Domesday book lists 45 vineyards in Britain, as far north as York.  Vikings colonized Greenland, and for a while farmed there.  The study confirms that a mediaeval warm period from 800 to 1300 happened not just in Europe, but world wide.  There was a famous "little ice age" from 1300 to 1900.

Return to Index



Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, wrote, on August 6, 2002, in The Washington Times about a July 25th hearing of the House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee.  

The hearing was prompted by the discovery that federal scientists were using computer models they knew could not replicate US temperatures.  Science operates by a hard and fast ethic.  Theory must conform to reality and be tested by reality.  In the case of climate science, our theories are huge computer models that project various amounts of warming for the next 100 years.

The team that performed the assessment for the government chose two models that predicted the most extreme changes in temperature and rainfall over the United States.  Worse, these models couldn't beat a table of random numbers, or two dice on a crap table, when it came to predicting US temperatures.  They found out that the computer models they were using couldn't even  simulate 25-year averages over the United States as the greenhouse effect changed in the last 100 years.

Tom Karl, who heads the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC, and co-chaired the production of the assessment, had to come to Washington to defend these shenanigans.  His dancing was about as painful as you would expect when a noted scientist has to defend something so wrong.  The core defense was that they were not making "predictions" but "plausible projections" of future US climate with these models. 

Unfortunately, if these deceptive results are used to establish policy or laws, we will all be losers.  As is well known in the computer world, "Garbage in, garbage out."

The same thing goes for science.

Return to Index



While efforts continue to try to implement the Kyoto Treaty which has not been ratified by the US Senate, scientists have warned thousands of officials and politicians gathering for international climate talks in the Hague that the rise in global temperatures is irreversible, and that the best they can hope for is to slow it down by a fraction of a degree, The Sunday Times of London reported on November 12, 2000.

The Hadley Centre, the British Meteorological Office's climate change prediction center advised that even if the developed countries lowered emissions of gases, mainly carbon dioxide by 60% below 1990 levels, the temperatures would still rise by about 2 degrees Centigrade by 2100.

Return to Index



According to a report on on May 31, 2000, more than a dozen climatologists, physicists, geologists, chemists, meteorologists, engineers and economists met for an independent scientific review of the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which they say has been incorrectly summarized and distorted by the UN and the news media for political reasons.

Both the 1,000-page report and its Summary for Policy Makers conclude that there is evidence of "discernible human influence" on the global climate.  However, the scientists meeting in Washington, many of whom participated in the IPCC report as technical reviewers find no credible evidence to support this claim.  They say the Summary is a political document put together by a few scientific bureaucrats.

One of the main inaccuracies is the claim that the 20th Century was the warmest in the last 1000 years, and that in just the last 20 years there has been a major increase in the earth's atmospheric temperature.  

One of the big problems with trying to determine long-term temperature changes is that weather records only go back to about 1860.  By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium.  Extensive evidence shows that both these events occurred on a global scale and that climates fluctuated significantly.  Borings deep into the Greenland Ice Cap to take temperature readings on ice thousands of years old show no actual evidence of recent warming on the Ice Cap, but do show older warming periods.

The report also minimizes the effect of solar activities.  The sun has been very active over the last 100 years.

The US alone has spent $15 billion during the last decade on environmental studies.  If the Kyoto Protocol were adopted (which is one of the objectives of the report), it could cost as much as $5 trillion and will have no discernible impact on the climate change process.

Return to Index

APRIL 2000


David Mastio of the Detroit News had an article in USA Today on December 16, 1999 entitled "Global Warming Propaganda Trumps Science."

In it he commented on a worldwide map packed with more than 100 anecdotes and reports of scientific studies that purport to prove catastrophic global warming.  They cooked the books by ignoring evidence that doesn't fit.

Examples include a study cited which found 31% of 65 bird species in England in 1995 laid their eggs an average of 8.8 days earlier than in 1971 -- though the average change for all 65 species was an insignificant 2 days.  In the West Antarctic, they report that "nearly 1,150 square miles shelves collapsed between March 1998 and March 1999," although a recent study in Science found the sheet has retreated several hundred feet a year for more than 7,000 years.  They also say global warming may make the weather more unpredictable and extreme, but the period between 1991 and 1994 was the "quietest" on record for hurricane activity.

Return to Index



Liberty Matters News Service, January 11, 1999 reports as follows:

In a report released by NASA earlier this week, and trumpeted by ENN (Environmental News Network), the space agency claims once more that Global Warming is occurring, further stating that 1998 was the "warmest on record." However, NASA’s hot air guru James Hansen, the man who started the hysteria in 1988, admitted in October of last year that, "The forces that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes." His statement was given in the 10/27/98 issue of the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Liberty Matters Website is

Return to Index

Go to Our Main Page Legislation, Lawsuits, Items of Interest Look for Past What's New Articles Fill out a Membership Application
Search our Website Meeting Information Some Interesting Links Send us an E-Mail