Nick Sundt of the World Wildlife Fund was present in a recent congressional hearing in which members of the administration were asked to respond to questions about “climate gate.” You should read Sundt’s whole report, as it is very impressive, but I particularly enjoyed White House science adviser John Holdren’s incredible refutation of all the overreaching concerning “ClimateGate”:
The e-mails are mainly about a controversy over a particular data set and the ways a particular small group of scientists have interpreted and displayed that data set. It is important to understand that these kinds of controversies and even accusations of bias and improper manipulation are not all that uncommon in science – in all branches of science. The strength of science is that these kinds of controversies get sorted out over time as to who is wrong, who is right, and how much it matters, by the process of peer review, and continued critical scrutiny by the knowledgeable community of scientists.
Of course openness in sharing of data and methods is very important in this process. And as I think you all know, this administration is a strong proponent of openness in science and in government, and Administrator Lubchenco will have things to say about public access to the climate data maintained by her agency and maintained by other agencies in the United States.
In this particular case, the data set in question and the way it was interpreted and presented by these particular scientists constitute a very small part of the immense body of data and analysis on which our understanding of climate change rests. The question being addressed by these data was have there been natural periods of warming in the last one or two thousand years in particular, that have been stronger than the episode now being experienced.
That is an interesting question and because of the controversy around it at the time most of these emails were written, that is in the early 2000s, the National Academy of Sciences undertook a thorough review of all of the relevant datasets, and all of the methods of analysis not just the dataset used by these particular authors or the methods used by these particular authors. The National Academies report on this matter [Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years] was published in 2006 and it concluded that the preponderance of available evidence points to the conclusion that the last 50 years have been the warmest half century in at least the last 1,000 years and probably much longer.
There is and there will remain after the dust settles in this current controversy a very strong scientific consensus on the key characteristics of the problem. Global climate is changing in highly unusual ways compared to long experienced and expected natural variations. The unusual changes match what theory and models tell us would be expected to result from the very changes in the atmosphere that we know have been caused by human activities, above all burning fossil fuels and tropical deforestation.
Significant impacts on human wellbeing from these changes in climate are already being experienced and continuing with business as usual in the fossil fuel burning and the tropical deforestation activities that are the largest contributors to these changes in the atmosphere is highly likely to lead to the growth of the impacts to substantially unmanageable levels.
That, folks, is what a scientifically serious person, expert and deeply informed on the issue, has to say about the significance of “Climate Gate.”
(Not that we won’t have a lot of commenters here who feel fully entitled to dispute it….)
December 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I can see it already:
“But Holdren’s a member of the liberal government elite! CONSPIRACY!!!!”
“I don’t care what the National Academy says with their fancy statistics that are just meant to fool us normal people. I plotted some numbers in Excel, and look at this!!!!!”
“Shame on you, Chris Mooney! Kool-aid drinker!!!”
“I’m no expert on climate change, nor am I a scientist, but….blah blah blah government bad blah blah liberals blah blah grant-grubbing blah blah scientists blah blah water vapor blah blah IPCC.”
Now that we have the foolishness out of the way, Holdren’s response is absolutely, 100% dead-on. Simply perfect.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
(Not that we won’t have a lot of commenters here who feel fully entitled to dispute it….)
OH NO YOU DID’NT. OH NO YOU DID-N-T.
…
That was a very impressive clarifaction/rebuttal by John Holdren… I am especially impressed by his clarity, and I’m happy to see it being addressed so seriously.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
n 1971, John Holdren edited and contributed an essay to a book entitled Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man. He wrote (along with colleague Paul Ehrlich) the book’s sixth chapter, called “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide.” (Click here to view a photograph of the table of contents, showing Holdren’s essay on pages 64-78; click on the image to the left to view the cover.) In their chapter, Holdren and Ehrlich speculate about various environmental catastrophes, and on pages 76 and 77 Holdren the climate scientist speaks about the probable likelihood of a “new ice age” caused by human activity (air pollution, dust from farming, jet exhaust, desertification, etc.).
Woodward and Bernstein you ain’t.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
John Holdren … “scientifically serious person”… this is a satire, right? We are talking about the same person who one decade shouts “ice age! we will all die!!…” and another “warm age”! we will all die!!…”?
As a satire maybe it was not very funny… but of course I get your point. That man is really a lunatic. No disagreement there.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
That looks fun. Lemme try that.
“In 1970, John Holdren wrote a paper entitled “Global Warming: Rising Temperatures at the end of the Century”. In the paper, Holdren et. al. speculated that global surface temperatures would rise to about .3 degrees Centigrade by 2000, compared to 1950 temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Astonishingly, he was absolutely correct and only a few of his predictions in the same paper did not come true. In 2002, Holdren was awarded the Award for Outstanding Scientific Contributions and Overall Science-y-ness.”
Hey, that wasn’t so hard!
(And that, kids, is why you should also include the source of your bit of quoting material).
December 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
In case you missed this from CBS News (see link below):
“The professional association for physicists is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency.
…
Of the signatories so far, Happer says, 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and there is a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. He adds: “Some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition. The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster.”
…
Princeton University’s Robert Austin:
I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work — we are owed examination of the analysis.
…”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml
December 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
For those who didn’t read the findings “The National Academies report on this matter [Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years] was published in 2006″ is based strongly on …….. you guessed it Mann et.al. tree ring studies etc… and of course another luminary Briffa, K.R promenantly named in the emails.
We all know who he is right?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Those climate-change sceptics are mental aren’t they?
Oh ****.
I’m a climate-change sceptic. I’m not sure about that but… This is awkward.
Damn. Now I look like an eejit.
As, apparently, one of the few climate change sceptics who isn’t living in his own Dan Brown conspiracy-fantasy, I thought I would chip in (and prove that dialogue is possible with the sceptics!) and say this is all sound stuff. Well done Discover. Although, I was more impressed by the clarity of the comments than that of the original post.
It has seemed to me over the past couple of weeks that the only audible voices on both sides of the debate have been the most perniciously hysterical. I do have strong (and I think – but I would say that – valid) objections to how some of the more vociferous supporters of global warming have defended the scientists involved. (The semantic-violence done to the meaning of “trick” being a shining example.) But for the sceptics and denialists to claim that this has any impact upon the warming debate is ludicrous in the extreme. I believe that George Bernard Shaw once said that his problem with socialism was all the damn socialists. I feel similarly about my own sceptic-camp. And for the record, I don’t deny warming is occurring. If I did, I fear my brain might drain out through my ears.
Thanks for restoring my faith in clear thinking on a forum.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Global Warming: Rising Temperatures at the end of the Century
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
December 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
And that, kids, is why you should also include the source of your bit of quoting material
When I google Dave McK’s post about John Holdren, one of the primary sources where it can be found, word for word, is the Illuminati Conspiracy Archive: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?tag=john-holdren
The other place, you ask? Zombieblog – a general “I hate liberals” nest of foolishness: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
Coincidence? Oh, I very much think not!
(an interesting trinket that I just learned from the comments at Zombieblog: polar ice is not melting because of global warming – it’s metling because there’s massive seas of lava underneath it. Who knew? *facedesk*) Thanks, Dave…
December 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Here is the link that Dave McK was probably citing: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
Here is the link for Harman Smith’s bogus attempt at sarcasm: http://failblog.org/
December 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
From Clive Crook at the Atlantic http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/science_responds_to_climategat.php
Would deleting not just selected CRU data but its entire research effort really subtract nothing from what we thought we knew?If CRU’s work is as redundant as that, taxpayers might wonder if they have been getting value for money. At the very least, in fact, one layer of confirmation would be removed, which is not nothing. And of course CRU’s contribution was much more important than that. The emailers are among the world’s leading, and most influential, climate scientists; they are not just a few marginally significant individuals. It is far from clear how independent the supposedly corroborating research on the temperature record is. Networks of co-authors span these various efforts. A lot of the raw and parboiled data is shared. If the CRU work is impaired–that is the question the emails raise–the effects on the state of our knowledge are non-negligible.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Is it true Mann only used 12 samples in his tree ring analysis?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
For all those speaking of conspiracies:
“A Coup d’état is a Conspiracy when squashed, but becomes a Reality when accomplished……”
December 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@robert #8
“The semantic-violence done to the meaning of “trick” being a shining example.”
—–
This confuses me. It doesn’t seem violent at all. Yesterday I went to Google Scholar and did a search for papers with “trick” in the title. In just the first two pages of results there were at least eight papers that clearly use “trick” in the same way. E.g.:
“The Kernel Trick for Distance”
“A trick for the design of FIR half-band filters.”
“Twisted actions and a new version of the Packer-Raeburn stabilization trick”
See? And, mind you, these are in the TITLES of PUBLISHED scholarly papers (who knows how many papers use “trick” in a similar sense somewhere in the text). Jones’s email is a private, informal communication with someone he knows well.
Have you never said, “Ah, there’s a trick” when someone says something like, “I can’t seem to get this widgiwad off the franistan”?
I see no semantic violence here. In fact, the notion that “trick” can only refer to something underhanded strikes me as rather more violent.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
@15. Chris Dunford,
I agree with you.
However, what about “hide the decline” and subversion and oppression in the peer-review process?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
It is high comedy that Holdren goes back just far enough to ignore the medieval warm period. He is using the same trick of minimizing or ignoring data that doesn’t support the preconcieved hypothesis, that is at the heart of Climategate. The body of peer reviewed studies critical of AGW proves the science is not “settled”. Here are a few- http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
December 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
ehmoran, it’s not very difficult to find out what they were talking about regarding “hide the decline”. To quote RealClimate,
“As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”
Who was oppressed in the peer-review process?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
#17, the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon, not global.
http://www.desmogblog.com/amazing-it-seem-we-still-have-shoot-down-medieval-warming-crock
December 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
@15. Chris Dunford and #16,
“I agree with you.”
However, if the trick involves shifting or using an additive effect to deceptively show something that’s not actually there then that’s like a CPA fixing the books to show a better profit. That’s unethical, dishonest, and the man needs to be black balled……
Oh yeh, CPAs fixing the books end up in jail. Does Enron bring any reminders back.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@19. Cameron,
Yeh, regional only in the Northern regions, right,
As reported, Alaska and Canada went through the same thing…..
Its only regional in your sense because the population in Europe was the most affected and reported on…….
December 8th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Its funny that anyone would even conceive of Holdren as someone who could rebut anything. In 1986 he predicted that one billion people would die of global warming by 2020. He was an associate of Paul Ehrlich, who has been wrong about virtually everything. Also, of course, he spectacularly lost the natural resources bet with Julian Simon, being wrong on all elements. It is more than coincidental that such a huge failure is Obama’s “science” advisor. Keep him in the spotlight, he only helps the cause of climate realists.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
@ehmoran #16:
“However, what about “hide the decline” and subversion and oppression in the peer-review process?”
———–
I’d suggest reading the “trick” email again and doing a little more research. Here are some questions to answer:
What decline is he “hiding”? (Hint: It can’t be a decline in global temperatures, since not even skeptics argue that temperatures declined between 1961 and 1998, which is the time span he’s talking about).
Why is the word “real” in the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick of adding the real temps”? He says that he used the REAL, i.e., instrument, temperatures. So, how do you hide a real decline using real temperatures? How is that possible?
And how is it “hiding” anything if he discloses the “trick” in the published paper, as he did?
On the “subversion and oppression” of the peer review process, where do you see that? I see some talk about not submitting papers to, or citing papers from, a journal because, in his opinion, its peer review process had gone off the rails, resulting in the publication of “crappy papers” . There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you’re a scientist and you believe that a journal is publishing “crappy papers” and not living up to scientific standards, it’s the RIGHT thing to do. (And apparently the editors who resigned from the journal in protest agreed.)
Do you find something other than that?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
You’re correct, Chris. The entire Swifthack, in fact, is full of that kind of silliness that can be debunked by actually looking at the real paper….which few to none of the skeptics seem to have done.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“peer review process”
Is controlled by Scientists is the field and who the journal wants the paper review by, so its easy to control the process if your in the fiefdom….
They hid the decline in temps, plain and simple, no matter how much you want to deny this……
Plain and Simple…..
And, What ever…….
Gosh, I agree with you about using the word trick, and you’re still defending the word. WOW, you’re still on defense when someone agrees with you.
Maybe there is more of a problem here than I thought?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I repeat:
Is it true Mann only used 12 samples in his tree ring analysis?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
AGWers, read and weep….
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
December 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Harman Smith Says: (post #5 above)
“In 1970, John Holdren wrote a paper entitled “Global Warming: Rising Temperatures at the end of the Century”. In the paper, Holdren et. al. speculated that global surface temperatures would rise to about .3 degrees Centigrade by 2000, compared to 1950 temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Astonishingly, he was absolutely correct and only a few of his predictions in the same paper did not come true. In 2002, Holdren was awarded the Award for Outstanding Scientific Contributions and Overall Science-y-ness.”
Hey, that wasn’t so hard!”
Yep, lying through your teeth is never hard. Lets inject some reality:
1. There is no trace to be found of the paper you claim. In fact, it is nearly impossible that a paper with this title was published in 1971 – if only because it is universally acknowledged that the term “global warming” was coined in 1975 paper by Broecker ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker#cite_note-6 ). There is, however, a well-known Holdren’s 1971 paper ( http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873 ) that does claim an upcoming ice age.
2. Broecker’s paper is 100% data-free and is pure speculation. In essence, it implies that our planet is something as simple as your backyard greenhouse – and if so, we gonna get warm from all the CO2 we release. Interestingly, the next persons who took up this conviction by the early 1980s were Hansen, Jones, Wiegley – all without data, just axiomatically assuming that CO2 release absolutely must lead to the warming; no other possibilities were even considered by the time the term became popular in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Do check up those early publications. Very enlightening! Essentially, the people at the center of the scandal today were the people who, from the the very beginning, did not EVER even doubt for a second the reality of the CO2-driven anthropogenic warming!
3. Holdren’s argument is an appeal to the authority. Incidentally, anyone who bothered to read the report knows damn well, that the authority based its report overwhelmingly on The Team’s data – data that we now know are to be suspected.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:29 am
John Holdren calls for the CO2 emissions and concentrations to be doubled or tripled, to improve the food production:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guru-of-science-czar-holdren-called-for-doubling-co2-emissions.html
December 9th, 2009 at 6:02 am
@10:
So the only one’s who have John Holdren’s essay of 1971 are conspiracy theorists? That’s odd. I’m beginning to think that someone made the hole thing up! Oh no, they can’t be that crazy… or can they?
December 9th, 2009 at 6:46 am
ehmoran, you’re just repeating “he hid the decline” without addressing any of the glaring problems with the statement. Not very convincing. Makes it sound like you’re just parroting something you heard or read.
If you can’t answer these questions, you can’t defend your position:
What decline is referring to?
How could he hide a real decline using real temperatures?
Why did he disclose what he did in the paper if he was actually trying to hide something?
Regarding peer review, you’ve now switched from a clear implication that there was something in the emails that revealed “subversion and oppression” of the peer-review process. Now you’ve switched to a regulation-issue conspiracy theory, which certainly makes it sound like you’re unable to defend your original claim.
No points are awarded.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:41 am
So the only one’s who have John Holdren’s essay of 1971 are conspiracy theorists? That’s odd. I’m beginning to think that someone made the hole thing up! Oh no, they can’t be that crazy… or can they?
Actually, I would call making stuff up that paints the opposition in a negative light smart. I mean, if you can’t refute the science for years, and then when all the predictions the opposition has made start coming true, you don’t have much recourse. What’s a conspiracy-theorist to do except make up a conspiracy?
December 9th, 2009 at 7:45 am
ehmoran, you’re just repeating “he hid the decline” without addressing any of the glaring problems with the statement. Not very convincing. Makes it sound like you’re just parroting something you heard or read.
If you can’t answer these questions, you can’t defend your position:
What decline is referring to?
How could he hide a real decline using real temperatures?
Why did he disclose what he did in the paper if he was actually trying to hide something?
Regarding peer review, you’ve now switched from a clear implication that there was something in the emails that revealed “subversion and oppression” of the peer-review process. Now you’ve switched to a regulation-issue conspiracy theory, which certainly makes it sound like you’re unable to defend your original claim.
No points are awarded.
And suddenly Chris Dunford came to the realization the rest of us have on the other Swifthack threads: ehmoran is just a troll who fails to address any point you bring up, no matter how damning. I hope you’re prepared to hear the same two or three points parrotted to you in the form of a hypothetical, Chris, no matter how well or in how many ways you refute them with evidence.
Push ehmoran long enough, and those two or three points will start getting thinly-veiled rants about liberals attached to them. It’s kind of funny.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Re EHMoran
“peer review process”
Is controlled by Scientists is the field and who the journal wants the paper review by, so its easy to control the process if your in the fiefdom….
Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Moran prattles the same complaints about peer review that the evolution deniers at the Dishonesty Institute, the CFC/ozone depletion deniers, the 9/11 troofers, the cigarette smoking/lung cancer deniers, the HIV/AIDS deniers, and the big bang deniers have? They all say the same thing, namely that the editors of the journals involved deny them access to its pages because of a giant conspiracy of the scientists in the relevant fields to suppress dissent. It never occurs to them that their papers don’t get accepted for publication because they are a pile of crap.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I’d suggest reading the “trick” email again and doing a little more research. Here are some questions to answer:
It’s a valiant effort, Chris, but ehmoran is impervious to factual arguments.
We’ve been having this discussion for days, now. We’ve shown him the original source material. We’ve given him links and excerpts of the papers discussing, in detail, the nature of the decline in high latitude tree ring density since the 1960′s. We’ve noted that far from being hidden, “the decline” is discussed openly in the articles in question. We’ve pointed out that dendochronology is just a single proxy among many which support the Mann’s original result.
He doesn’t care.
I think the next step is for ehmoran to challenge you to perform a biodome experiment. He’ll also demand the raw data and the Climate Modeling Code. (No, not the ones that have been available online for years, the other ones).
December 9th, 2009 at 9:57 am
@bilbo:
And suddenly Chris Dunford came to the realization the rest of us have on the other Swifthack threads: ehmoran is just a troll who fails to address any point you bring up, no matter how damning.
Ah. I’m new here. It takes a little while to properly sort the trolls, the ideologues, and the simply uninformed into their buckets. There’s hope only for the last of these, so that’s what I assume until it’s otherwise demonstrated.
Of course, the other point is that you sorta have to respond even to the trolls and ideologues, otherwise lurkers see an unrefuted comment and get the wrong impression. The trick lies in not posting frustrated over-the-top responses that do more harm than good.
(Hey, I said it was a “trick”. I must be hiding something.)
December 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
There are Vikings buried in permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost is not disturbed.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Story of Viking Colonies’ Icy ‘Pompeii’ Unfolds From Ancient Greenland Farm
Published in New York Times: Tuesday, May 8, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/science/08VIKI.html?ex=1156132800&en=921840c080c26c01&ei=5070
The Viking farm under the sand in Greenland by Terese Brasen April 23, 2001
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/print.cfm?id=776
For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming (hiding the decline):
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
December 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
JUST DO THE BIODOME STUDY………
December 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I think the next step is for ehmoran to challenge you to perform a biodome experiment. -Jinchi
And right on cue:
JUST DO THE BIODOME STUDY……… – ehmoran
December 14th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
There is a lot of data sets, etc and a lot of science, etc. Yet, all this hysteria about man-made global warming falls apart if there was a medieval warming period. They can manipulate data all they want but what are the alarmists going to do with the vikings buried under permafrost? Why would they name the island Greenland? Plenty of evidence about grapes grown at altitudes in that period when they won’t grow there now, etc, etc. This whole man-made global warming is fraud, a sham, an hysteria. I feel sorrow for a lot of intelligent people that got sucked into this thing.