Skip to content or view screen version

SCIENTIST FORCED TO RECANT

Grant Lockie | 30.06.2002 00:02

An American Scientist has been forced to deny his work by politcal correctness - the inquisition returns.

Scientist forced to Recant his work by politics.A.index:link { TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.index:visited { TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.index:active { COLOR: #003300; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.index:hover { COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } DIV.quotation { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: courier; TEXT-ALIGN: center } #quote1 { BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00 } #quote2 { BACKGROUND-COLOR: #00ff00 } UL { PADDING-LEFT: 2px }
 
OCEANOGRAPHER FORCED TO RECANT BY THE GREEN LOBBY
The Galileo of Global Warming
It's not PC to blame Mother Nature 

In a scientific establishment 50-percent financed by the government few can resist the cult of human-caused global warming.
 

Keigwin, though, is the more intriguing case.
A 54-year-old oceanographer at Woods Hole Observatory near the Massachusetts Cape, he found a way to concoct a 3,000-year record of the temperatures of the Sargasso Sea near Bermuda through analyzing thermally dependent oxygen isotopes in fossils on the ocean floor. 
He discovered that temperatures a thousand years ago, during the so-called medieval climate optimum, were two degrees Celsius warmer than today's and that the average temperature over the last three millennia was slightly warmer than today's. 
Roughly confirming this result are historical records -- the verdancy of Greenland at the time of the Vikings, the little ice age of the mid-1700s, a long series of temperature readings collected in Britain over the last 300 years documenting a slow recovery from the ice age, reports of medieval temperatures from a variety of sources, and records of tree rings and ice cores.

These previous findings, echoed by Keigwin's, are devastating to the theory of human-caused global warming. 
If the Earth was significantly warmer a thousand years ago, if we have been on a re-warming trend for three centuries, if, as other even more voluminous evidence suggests, the Earth has repeatedly seen mini-cycles of warming and cooling of about 1,500 years duration, then any upward drift in temperatures we may be seeing now -- included scattered anecdotes of thinning arctic ice -- is likely to be the result of such cycles. 

Thus the case for human-caused global warming can no longer rest on the mere fact of contemporary warming. 
To justify drastic action like the Kyoto treaty requiring a reduction in U.S. energy consumption of some 30 percent, unfeasible without destroying the U.S. economy, the human-caused global warming advocates would have to demonstrate a persuasive mechanism of human causation. This they show no sign of being able to do. 
Grasping the point, scientists at Exxon Mobil recently used the Keigwin data in a Wall Street Journal ad and the PC bees hit the fan.

By all reasonable standards, Keigwin is a hero. 
Not only did he invent an ingenious way to compile an early temperature record, but he made a giant contribution to discrediting a movement that would impose a deadly energy clamp on the world economy. 
But soon enough his government-financed colleagues began to exert pressure. 
Was he a tool of the oil companies? 
Lordy no, he wrote, in an indignant letter to Exxon Mobil, denying that his findings had anything much to do with the global warming issue. 

As the Wall Street Journal reported, "Dr. Keigwin warns that the results are not representative of the Earth as a whole. He says that the importance of his research isn't in the data per se, but rather that marine geologists can undertake such a study at all.... He wants to put the issue behind him." 
Hey, he's got a new government grant to find out "what's causing a substantial warming in the Atlantic Ocean off Nova Scotia." 
He has not reached any conclusion -- but according to the Journal, "he gives a nod to global warming concerns, saying 'I'd take a guess.'"

Scores of scientists have been pressured to embrace the cult pressures that befall any critic of the cult of human-caused global warming. 
In a scientific establishment 50 percent financed by government, few can resist. 
An eminent scientist who was once the leading critic of global warming had to stop writing on the subject in order to continue his research. 
The source of the pressure that ended his publications was then-Senator Al Gore. 
Later this scientist coauthored a key paper with Arthur Robinson -- organizer of a petition against Kyoto signed by 17,000 scientists -- but had to remove his name under pressure from Washington.

Keigwin's denials of his own significance are all pathetically misleading. 
The temperature pattern he found in the Sargasso Sea is indeed a global phenomenon. 
Sallie Baliunas and Willi Soon of Harvard have uncovered a new oxygen isotope study that extends this temperature record another 3,000 years based on six millennia of evidence from peat bogs in northeastern China. 
The peat bog records both confirm Keigwin and demonstrate an even warmer period that lasted for 2,000 years. 
During this era, beginning some 4,000 years ago and running until the birth of Christ, temperatures averaged between 1.5 and 3 degrees Celsius higher than they do today. 

Summing up the case is an article published earlier this year by Wallace Broecker in the prestigious pages of Science entitled "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?" His answer is a resounding yes. 
As Craig and Keith Idso report in a March 7 editorial on their Webpage, Broecker recounts substantial evidence for a series of climatic warmings spaced at roughly 1,500-year intervals. Broecker explains the science of reconstructing the histories of surface air temperatures by examining temperature data from "boreholes." From some 6,000 boreholes on all continents, this evidence confirms that the Earth was significantly warmer a thousand years ago and two degrees Celsius warmer in Greenland. This data, Robinson warns, is less detailed and authoritative than the evidence from the Sargasso Sea and from the Chinese peat bogs. 
But together with the independent historical record, the collective evidence is irrefutable. Thousands of years of data demonstrate that in the face of a few hundred parts per million increase in CO2, temperatures today, if anything, are colder than usual. 
Temperatures in Antarctica, for example, have been falling for the last 20 years. 
The global satellite record of atmospheric temperature, confirmed by weather balloons, shows little change one way or another for the last three decades. 
Terrestrial temperature stations, on average, show more warming over the past century, but many are located in areas that were rural when the stations were established and are densely urban today, a change which causes local warming. 
The dominance of natural cycles globally is not surprising since, as Baliunas and Soon report, the impact of changes in sun energy output are some 70,000 times more significant than all human activity put together.

Overall, the situation is simple. 
Politicized scientists with government grants and dubious computer temperature models persuaded the world's politicians to make pompous fools of themselves in Kyoto. Socialist politicians were happy to join an absurd movement to impose government regulations over the world energy supply and thus over the world economy. The scientific claims and computer models have now blown up in their faces. But rather than admit error they persist in their fear-mongering. When this happened with DDT, hundreds of millions of people died of malaria. They continue to die. How many people would die as a result of an energy clamp on global capitalism?

From May, 2001 American Spectator article.


References
Still Waiting For Greenhouse http://www.john-daly.com/
Global Warming Petition Project http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
CO2 Science Magazine http://www.co2science.org/index.html
The Science & Environmental Policy Projecthttp://www.sepp.org/
Absorption of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere   http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm
Proffessor Lindzen MIT http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Greenhouse_Bullcrap.htm

 http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_159.asp
 http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_161.asp
 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
 http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm
 http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/aginatur/prog1.htm
 http://www.nccnsw.org.au/bushland/bushtalk/0071.html

Grant Lockie
- e-mail: grant2812@hotmail.com
- Homepage: http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Greenhouse_Bullcrap.htm

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

big business propaganda !

30.06.2002 01:21

La revue dont provient cet article est clairement un outil de propagande industrielle.

Rappelons que la famille Bush (the power ;p) fait du business dans le secteur de l'énergie, qui est comme par hasard l'industrie la plus menacée par le traité de Kyoto. Les sommes en jeu sont énormes.

Alors à votre avis, qui entre les activistes écologistes et l'industrie a le plus d'intérêts financiers à corrompre des scientifiques ? Et qui a le plus de moyens financiers pour le faire ?

Voici l'avis de scientifiques non corrompuEs et spécialiséEs dans le domaine du réchauffement climatique :

Climate change: "Greenhouse effect created by humans: Myth or reality?" [Anne Mette K. Jørgensen, Ph.D., Head of Research Department, Denmarks Meteorological Institute (DMI) and Henrik Feddersen, Ph.D., Danish Climate Centre, DMI] :
 http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.Jorgens.Fedders.pdf

Enfin voici deux articles de presse qui montrent de quoi sont capables le big business et les services secrets lorsqu'il s'agit de protéger les intérêts de certains lobbies industriels :

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4412987,00.html

 http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/document.html?did=84435

arty

arty
- Homepage: http://ARTivisme.net


easily debunked screed above - unreadable

30.06.2002 02:48

You still havent provided proof that global-warming is not human caused. Either way the destruction caused by increasing human activity is destroying eco-systms and will kill us all. Try harder next time.
Thanks

lets see


???

30.06.2002 05:06

if you visit the author's site you will find the real motivation for his somewhat caustic and sarcastic attacks on 'greenies' (as he calls them). To sum up his position, "the Kyoto treaty requiring a reduction in U.S. energy consumption of some 30 percent, (is) unfeasible without destroying the U.S. economy ... " The scientist "made a giant contribution to discrediting a movement that would impose a deadly energy clamp on the world economy." Now this argument is a bit of a canard. For example, scrubber technology would remove pollutants and toxins from the envirmoment, and while there are those who insist that this would 'destroy all human civilization' what it would more than likely really do is start a new industry, while imposing a capital cost on old ones, and the last decade of so or so of the drive to inflate earnings at all costs (even it means cooking the books) such capital expenses were not acceptable (by the way, if you did the Worldcom thing, and declared normal expenses as capital expenses, you could do the accounting thing of adding these are capital expenditures to income (which is legal, unlike that thing World Com, Xerox, Enron, etc. all did) and thus investing in scrubber technology would 'add to earnings' while at the same time allowing a deduction in following years (depreciation). Now as for global warming, the author could state his position with less sarcasm and he might seem more credible (rather he indulges in strange sounding McCarthy era type talk about one billion Indians and one billion Red Chinese taking over the world after the United States goes tits up because of the greenies and their global warming crusade - this obsession with his stock portfolio and a fear of the loss of western hegemony is the real underlying reason for the authors concern about bashing global warming, and it just doesn't get any deeper than that. If the author would rely less on right wing sources for some of his references that might seem more credible as well. However, if you can put up with the author's fifties style paranoia about the loss of Western dominance to those billions of funny colored foreigners and his overriding concern with his stock portfolio, and if you can somehow ignore the constant sarcasm and snide remarks about the 'greenies' and his charges of 'McCarthyism' and his one sided comic book portrayal of enviromentalists, you might find some things to consider in his articles, however, I would recommend that you check his facts thoroughly and get the other side of the story as well, since his agenda makes him less than completely trustworthy in my judgment. Now it would be interesting to find out what his take is on the other enviromental issues - for example, we must all be familiar with acid rain, also caused by industry, which turned lakes into lifeless acid pits, and which Reagan tried to blame on ducks and geese peeing in the lakes and rivers, and do we not remember the sorry state of the Great Lakes (covered with scum, the waters filthy and poisoned, and at the time the big fuss once again was over the effects not polluting would have on everyone's stock portfolio, the standard reason for Reagan and everyone else has as their fundamental motivation in attacking the enviromental movement - dire predictions of our collapse into bankruptcy, and the inevitable rise of other more polluting countries like India and China, who will then take over the world because of their lax regulations.) There are more problems with the wasteful use of resources than just global warming, and as I said, it would be interested to hear the authors rational for acid rain (a global cycle of duck piss that rises and falls over thousands of years?)

bh


some fact checking

30.06.2002 05:38

The author's take on trees is somewhat misleading (he states that trees suck up Carbon diioxide like a sponge). Actually trees and plants are on a cycle. During one part of the day they inhale CO2 and during the next half they exhald CO2. Here we are assuming that there are actually some trees left. Second, the author calls the ocean one of the greatest pollutors releasing massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Actually this is false, as the ocean works, over time, more like a sink for CO2. The difference in the amount of CO2 fixated by plants and that exhaled is a fraction of one per cent in favor of fixation (in otherwords plants inhale and exhale equal amounts of CO2, except for a fraction of one per cent.). Similarly the ocean absorbs 2 per cent more CO2 than it 'exhales' and thus functions more as a sink than as the largest global polluter of CO2. Large amounts of CO2 are trapped in the sediments on the ocean floor as a result, so the ocean is not a major global polluter as his article suggests, but rather a sink. The only factor in the global warming equation that does not cycle CO2 (taking it in and putting it out again) is human beings, who just put it out. So then to argue, as the author does, that the natural balance can handle the CO2 is questionable, over the short term. If we think in terms of centuries or millenia, then the ocean is the best hope for sinking all that extra CO2, given that it sinks a couple of per cent, and thus the real scientific question becomes, how much carbon dioxide is the coean capable of sinking and how much is available. In any case, the author's article presents a distorted version of what is actually going on (in that he suggests that the ocean puts out CO2 when it is actually a sink, and that plants gobble up CO2 like gluttons, when actually they are in equilibrium). If the rest of his facts are as distorted as this, then his whole series of essays becomes questionable, but then, as I said, his agenda is protecting his stock portfolio and maintaining western hegemony, which he clearly states himself, and so the standard fare is offered, as it has always been offered when fighting the enviromental movement, even over obvious forms of polution like acid rain and the chemical polution of lakes and rivers, which was undeniable, you might remember, but was denied nevertheless, so we can expect that even if global warming should become uncontroversial, and undeniable, it will still fit the pattern of previous conduct and be denied long after it is undeniable. Something to remember as times goes by...

bh