[at-l] More Global Warming ahead

[jbryankramer at msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

Oh right, and tell me do you still believe in the Easter Bunny?

"Consider, next, the Climate Research flap. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon
of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics wrote a technical paper
for the journal. They contended that the one degree Fahrenheit of global
warming observed over the past century is within the range of natural
variation for the last millennia, and thus tells us nothing about whether an
artificial greenhouse effect has begun. The instant-doomsday crowd went
ballistic, besieging Climate Research with complaints about data flaws in
the Baliunas-Soon paper.

The journal's editor-in-chief was forced to resign by the publisher of
Climate Research, officially for publishing an improperly vetted paper but
actually for giving voice to greenhouse-doomsday critics. Several big news
organizations ran stories suggesting there was something shockingly wrong
about the Baliunas-Soon paper because it contradicted another study,
endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.
greenhouse-effect agency. That study asserts that global temperatures were
almost precisely stable over the last 1,000 years, until beginning to shoot
upward about the year 1900. The stable-temperatures concept is holy writ to
the greenhouse-doom faction."

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1108

"If it remained merely a disagreement about science and research methods,
there wouldn't be much of a story - or reason for concern. Unfortunately, it
turned into a scientific lynching of Soon and Baliunas and anyone associated
with them. For example, Chris de Freitas, the editor of Climate Research
that published the paper, was criticized for having failed in his
responsibilities of quality control, even though the paper passed an
extensive peer-review process and the publisher defended de Freitas'
handling of the paper. It was argued de Freitas should be removed from his
position simply for having published it. Mann, in his Senate testimony,
dismissed de Freitas' credentials solely because he "frequently publishes
op-ed pieces in newspapers attacking IPCC and attacking [the] Kyoto
[protocol]."

Washington Times

"Too many scientists have based their research, their reputations and their
incomes on the greenhouse theory. So rather than debate the growing evidence
that the greenhouse theory is fundamentally flawed, many
greenhouse-believing scientists have begun viciously attacking those who
question its conclusions and denouncing any agnostic as a heretic --
especially ones presenting uncomfortably challenging proof. Witness Willie
Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Both are noted solar physicists. Earlier this year, they published an
exhaustive study of the climate of the past 1,000 years or so in the journal
Climate Research. They examined more studies on historic climate trends --
240 in all -- than any previous researchers, and concluded the 20th century
was not unusually warm. In the past millennium there had been at least one
other period when, worldwide, temperatures were as much as 2 C to 3 C warmer
than the 1990s. This was not a particularly startling conclusion. There have
been dozens of papers written by geologists identifying a Medieval Warm
Period running from about 800 to 1300 AD and a Little Ice Age spanning 1300
to about 1850. Soon and Baliunas merely confirmed that these earlier studies
were right. But Soon and Baliunas were both vehemently attacked.... However,
when an independent review was conducted of the Soon/Baliunas article, no
misrepresentation was found nor any shortcomings with Climate Research's
peer-review process. (These latter facts are often left out of news stories
on the controversy, though.)" - Edmonton Journal, November 12, 2003,

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR010204.

"Everyone who reads Science -- the journal of the lobbying organization the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) -- knows that it
only accepts one side of the global warming story in its "Compass" and
"Perspectives" sections, and in its more opinionated, mainline articles.
Anyone who writes otherwise for those sections gets a quick rejection.
That's understandable because global warming is scheduled to pay U.S.
scientists about $4.2 billion next year, and the AAAS is just doing its job
keeping the customers happy. "

http://info-pollution.com/new.htm

Bryan

 Samuel Adams advised, "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity,
and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the
sake of the latter."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Morgan [mailto:morganpaulw@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 07:40
> To: jbryankramer@msn.com
> Cc: at-l@backcountry.net
> Subject: RE: [at-l] More Global Warming ahead
>
>
> Bryan,
>
> They 'dared' to publish a paper without peer review which is why they
> 'resigned'.  Read this article
> (http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v24/n3/CREditorial.pdf) from the
> journal publishers about the problem.  The paper, as published, made
> unfounded conclusions without enough data to back up the
> conclusion.  Peer
> review would have asked for the paper to be revised with additional data
> backing up the conclusion.  Poor science is the reason the
> editors resigned
> - not the topic of the paper.
>
> Too Tall Paul
>
> >I am not way off, 6 editors from a journal were fired for daring
> to publish
> >a paper that contradicts Enviromental Theology:
> >
> >"Six hundred years ago, the world was warm. Or maybe it wasn't.
> What's the
> >truth? Beware. This question has recently been elevated from a mere
> >scientific quandary to one of the hot (or cold) issues of modern
> politics.
> >Argue in favor of the wrong answer and you risk being branded a liberal
> >alarmist or a conservative Neanderthal. Or you might lose your job.
> >
> >Six editors recently resigned from the journal Climate Research
> because of
> >this issue. Their crime: publishing the article "Proxy Climatic and
> >Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years," by W. Soon and
> S. Baliunas
> >of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> >
> >"Then last month the situation became even more complex. S.
> McIntyre and R.
> >McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed
> >critique of the original hockey stick work. They stated bluntly that the
> >original Mann papers contained "collation errors, unjustifiable
> truncations
> >of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location
> >errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality
> >control defects." Moreover, when they corrected these errors,
> the medieval
> >warm period came back-strongly. Mann, et al., disagreed. They immediately
> >posted a reply on the Web, with their criticism of McIntyre and
> McKitrick's
> >analysis.
> >
> >The math questions involve the procedures for combining data sets. Mann
> >used
> >a well-known approach called principle component analysis. This method
> >extracts from a set of proxy records the behavior that they have
> in common.
> >It can be more sensitive than simply averaging data, since it typically
> >suppresses nonglobal variations that appear in only a few records. But to
> >use it, the proxy records must be sampled at the same times and have the
> >same length. The data available to Mann and his colleagues
> weren't, so they
> >had to be averaged, interpolated, and extrapolated. That required
> >subjective
> >judgments which-unfortunately-could have biased the conclusions.
> >
> >When I first read the Mann papers in 1998, I was disappointed
> that they did
> >not discuss such systematic biases in much detail, particularly
> since their
> >conclusions repealed the medieval warm period. In most fields of science,
> >researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their
> >conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with
> >disdain those who play their conclusions to the press. I was
> worried about
> >the hockey stick from the beginning.  When I wrote my book on
> paleoclimate
> >(published in 2000), I initially included the  hockey stick graph in the
> >introductory chapter.  In the second draft, I cut the figure, although I
> >left a reference.  I didn't trust it enough....
> >
> >http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller121703.asp
> >
> >----------------------
> >There's lots more, of course I suspect you'll reject Harvard and MIT as
> >Conservative rags.
> >
> >Bryan
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find high-speed ?net deals ? comparison-shop your local providers here.
> https://broadband.msn.com
>
>