Many news outlets are reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming. While this has conspiracy theorists all a twitter, the truly shocking thing is the content of that report. The executive summary contains a list of items contradicting claim after claim put forth by the IPCC and global warming alarmists. The contents are nothing short of incendiary.
For many years the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP) has published the Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine dedicated to rational thought and a scientific view of the world around us. Mostly concerned with debunking pseudoscience and mystical beliefs, its articles mostly concerned UFOs, bigfoot sightings, psychic spoon benders and spirit mediums. Now, unfortunately, it seems they have allied this previously skeptical magazine with one of the biggest scientific scams of our time, anthropogenic global warming.
Around 1.2 million years ago, a shift in global climate began that caused a change in the timing of the alternating warm and cold periods—called interglacials and glacials—that have persisted during the Pleistocene Ice Age. Prior to that time, ice age glacial periods lasted about 40,000 years but since ~700,000 years ago ice-age cycles have lasted for around 100,000 years. Orbital variations, called the Croll-Milankovitch cycles, do exert some forcing on the 100,000 year time scale, but it is relatively weak. Orbital cycles seem to many too feeble an explanation for the change in glacial-interglacial timing. Some scientists have attempted to attribute the timing shift to a drop in CO2 but a new study confirms that carbon dioxide levels were not the cause of the climate shift.
It is no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of our planet and the life it harbors that CO2 levels have been falling for billions of years. Despite all the hoopla over rising CO2 levels, eventually Earth will have lost so much carbon dioxide from its atmosphere that plants and trees will suffocate, signaling an end to life as we know it. Now, a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, led by physicist King-Fai Li, have proposed a way to avert disaster—get rid of much of the atmosphere.
The lingering cool temperatures being experience by much of North America has weather forecasters wondering if we are entering a new Little Ice Age—a reference to the prolonged period of cold weather that afflicted the world for centuries and didn't end until just prior to the American Civil War. From historical records, scientists have found a strong correlation between low sunspot activity and a cooling climate. At the end of May, an international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA released a new prediction for the next solar cycle: Solar Cycle 24 will be one of the weakest in recent memory. Are we about to start a new Little Ice Age?
One of the fundamental aspects of Earth's ecological and climate systems is the way carbon moves through the biosphere. From land to air to water, through living organisms and even the plant's crust, carbon—the stuff of life—is always on the move. Scientists thought they had a pretty good understanding of how the carbon cycle works, until now. Recent work with strange, jellyfish like creatures called thaliaceans is causing scientists to re-evaluate the workings of the carbon cycle.
Two computer modelers from CMU have written a program to simulate the interaction of cosmic rays with Earth's atmosphere. Because the model failed to predict significant increases in cloud cover, global warming activists are claiming the theory linking cosmic rays to climate change has been discredited. Climate models have failed to accurately predict the current downward trend in temperatures and now we are asked to accept a model as proof of how the Universe works. In truth, the paper cited is nothing more than a study of a computer program, and has nothing to do with the physical reality of how Earth's climate functions.
The Earth Institute at Columbia University held a panel discussion recently on the subject of climate change. The main themes of the evening were the complexity and fluidity of climate science, interweaving policy, politics and science, and evolving public attitudes. Not surprisingly, being held in an academic environment, the audience at Columbia was firmly in the camp of climate change believers and was preoccupied mainly with deflecting attacks by deniers. Why do anthropogenic global warming proponents seem so paranoid about opposing views?
Increased scrutiny of climate catastrophists' claims is leading to panic among the promoters of global warming hype. Rather than attempting to counter mounting evidence that global warming—at least as defined by the IPCC and its supporters—is not a valid scientific theory, a number of leading catastrophists have issued a public call to climate scientists. Their plea? Further dumbing down climate science by using a simplified “common climate language” to “advance the public's decision-making capacity.”
Currently the sun is in one of its least active periods since the Maunder Minimum, during the depths of the Little Ice Age. A quiet Sun comes along every 11 years or so—it's a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. What does this have to do with global warming and climate change? It just may be why things keep getting colder as climate activists tell us Earth is melting down.
The good news: US adults do believe that scientific research and education are important. About 4 in 5 adults think science education is “absolutely essential” or “very important” to the US. health care system (86%), America's global reputation (79%), and the economy (77%). The bad news: most Americans think it is up to someone else to actually do the science. What's worse is that a new national survey, commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences, says that the American public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.
At the beginning of chapter one of The Resilient Earth, we opened with a quote from Meg Urry: “Nature is what it is.” It seems that this statement has troubled one of our readers, who has written us criticizing our “total disdain for species.” While Professor Urry's statement was not specifically referring to the inevitable extinction of all species, that is a scientific truth that we put forth in the book. It seems that this nugget of scientific knowledge doesn't set well with the green crowd.
Northern Ireland's environment minister, Sammy Wilson, announced Monday he has banned British government TV ads on climate change and denounced their energy-saving message as “insidious propaganda.” Wilson said the Act on CO2 ads were “giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV, they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40 feet of water.”
An interview with Allen Simmons, co-author of The Resilient Earth, appears in the latest edition of the Rockport Pilot. Quoting Simmons, “We are not challenging weekly weather models, nor those which predict the paths of hurricanes. We are challenging computer models which predict Earth's temperature 100 years in the future. So the main purpose of the book was to uncover the who, how and why these long-range predictions of Earth's temperature were being made.”
Here are some interesting climate related tidbits from the science news feeds; food for thought in the new year. First, researchers at the University of Oregon have discovered evidence linking the disappearance of North American megafauna, the Clovis people and the onset of the Younger Dryas period to a comet impact. For years scientists have blamed the disappearance of the American Mammoth, Mastodon, saber toothed cats and other large land animals on human predation or climate change.