The next time some New York Times reporter wants to write about how man is responsible for warming the planet, maybe he should take a look at an amazing article his paper published on July 15, 1993, largely refuting any connection between the burning of fossil fuels and rising temperatures.
Written by Walter Sullivan, "Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate" addressed findings that suggest "the period of stable climate in which human civilization has flourished might be unusual, and that the current climate may get either warmer or colder much more quickly than had been believed -- in spans of decades or even less."
Doesn't sound like today's hysterical press claims concerning global warming, does it? Neither does this (emphasis added throughout):
The scientists said their data showed that significantly warmer periods and significantly colder periods had occurred during the last interval between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago. They said they could not tell whether that meant similar changes were in store. Their findings were reported today in two papers in the journal Nature. [...]
The new studies found that the average global temperature can change as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a couple of decades during interglacial periods, [Dr. J. W. C. White of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research of the University of Colorado] said. The current average global temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
Wow. You mean natural forces -- i.e. unrelated to anything done by man! -- can create temperature swings of 18 degrees in a couple of decades? And folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore, along with most in the media and an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress are advocating economically destabilizing legislation all because temperatures have risen about one degree in the past 150 years?
But there was more:
The research on the last period between glaciers is considered important because it may provide hints about the effects of rising levels of atmospheric gases, like carbon dioxide, that have a warming effect similar to that caused by the glass in a greenhouse.
"As the last interglacial seems to have been slightly warmer than the present one," the new report said, "its unstable climate raises questions about the effects of future global warming."
Pay particular attention to this next segment:
And this happened without the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels? How can that be?At one point between the last two glacial epochs, the climate melted enough polar ice to raise sea levels some 30 feet. As noted by a member of the drilling team, Dr. David A. Peel of the British Antarctic Survey, it was so warm in England that hippopotamuses wallowed in the Thames and lions roamed its banks.
In his commentary, Dr. White wrote: "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability.
"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."
Don't touch the dials. Amen to that, brother!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So the argument here is
June 11, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Cureboy675So the argument here is that, over a period of 15 years, as new information is obtained, one shouldn't be allowed to change their opinion?
"No, dammit, I don't care what Columbus says. 15 years ago I said the world was flat so that means it must still be flat"
"...between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago"
June 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET byThis article sites "science" based on a planet earth that is clearly older than 6,000 years. This science model, not unlike global warming theories, is clearly outside the realm of Biblical truth and therefore must be discounted. I suggest everyone pay a visit to the creation museum http://www.creationmuseum.org/ to help get a more Bibically-based scientific understanding. From there, all things will become clear.
Actually the argument is:
June 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by WingletDriverBefore we spend TRILLIONS of dollars in a move that will certainly damage our economy and reduce our freedom, maybe we should make sure we actually have a problem. Rather than listening to bufoons who declare the debate over, maybe we might want to measure the scientific evidence.
No It Means
June 11, 2008 - 14:55 ET by NorthCoasterThat the current hype is just that ---hype.
Most scientists that are currently studying geological and climatological history will tell you exactly the same thing as the 1993 article states. They understand more in the last 15 years because of additional information. Most scientists will explain that we still have much to learn about climatic processes.
Politicians who have an agenda that presents AGW as the latest crisis, wish to use it as a tool to control Western Civilization. They have twisted the existing science to demonize the production of CO2. By restricting CO2 production, our civilization can be stopped dead in its tracks. Earnings from carbon taxes can be transfered to others who "deserve it". This process would eventually result in restricting the growth of Western Civilization and keeping the 3rd World dependant on the goodwill of the UN and those controlling CO2 policy.
Power and control is the goal.
What information was
June 11, 2008 - 14:55 ET by BlackwaterWhat information was obtained in the past 15 years that would alter what was said?
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, outside of
soccer." (Dogma)
Astute observation, Cureboy.
June 11, 2008 - 14:56 ET by KarmaYour use of the word, "opinion", says it all. Facts be damned, opinions will lead us to socialism.
So what you are saying that
June 11, 2008 - 15:50 ET by Cureboy675So what you are saying that 15 years ago it was all factual. And now it is all opinion?
And that has nothing to do with the notion that the 15 year old idea corresponds with your own...And the current idea is something you don't agree with?
Cure, it is all construed.
June 11, 2008 - 16:25 ET by bassndudeCure, it is all construed. Parts were left out that would disprove their notion of man made global warming. And the temp trends were skewered. They dont match the global data.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Did I say that?
June 11, 2008 - 16:26 ET by KarmaCan you show me where I stated the opinions of 15 years ago are fact? It's a fact that there were opinions we were heading into "global cooling". It's a fact that there are opinions we are now causing "global warming". It's a fact the climate is forever changing. Facts only please, keep opinion out of it.
The new information we have
June 11, 2008 - 14:59 ET by bassndudeThe new information we have is that the earth is, at this time, cooling. The warming stoped a few years back, 1998? The fact is the earth has been cooler and warmer than it is now. It happned rather quickly. A new ice age is comming now. That is if you go by the same logic the global warming crowd uses.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Obviously. How long have
June 11, 2008 - 19:14 ET by Not-Steve-DoocyObviously. How long have you been visiting this site? Newsbusters loves to distort facts and make up reasons to not like things.
"In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -H.L. Mencken
"The only thing older than a John McCain is old joke...is John McCain! That guy is ancient! " - Stephen Colbert
We have another Last Comic
June 11, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Clear thinkerWe have another Last Comic Standing reject.
This should get interesting.
"Abstain from McCain"
Right Ct...he's another hit
June 11, 2008 - 19:31 ET by bigtimerRight Ct...he's another hit and run troll...I've seen him before...
Delightful eh?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt and troll...
June 11, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Clear thinkerFirst time for me to read his spittle. As you may have guessed... I'm not impressed!
"Abstain from McCain"
Please provide the "feelings" I mean "facts" that were distorted
June 11, 2008 - 22:27 ET by PopularTechI hate using science to form an opinion when I could just use "feelings" like you.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Here is new information about Greenland...
June 11, 2008 - 22:23 ET by PopularTechCurrent Melting of Greenland's Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event (Science Daily)
ERS Altimeter Survey Shows Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet Interior (ESA - European Space Agency)
Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable (Science Daily)
Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (University of Aarhus, Denmark)
Greenland Ice Sheet Changes Are Normal; No Evidence Of Long-Term Climate Changes (Science Daily)
Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice (Science Daily)
Hey look my opinion still didn't change, amazing!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
And how does any of th
June 12, 2008 - 09:40 ET by NL207And how does any of the "new" information obtained alter the facts presented those papers? They were talking about measured history. The only alterations possible are corrections to their methods which refute the measurements taken. I, personally, am not aware of any such nor have you presented any!
Carbon Belch Day
June 11, 2008 - 15:12 ET by kilrodMedia Alert
>From Grassfire.org
I wanted to let you know that I will be interviewed on Fox Business
today and Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show tomorrow to discuss our inaugural
Carbon Belch Day and the insanity of Al Gore's climate alarmism.
Schedule:
Fox Business Today (Wed)
during the 6pm EST hour
Neil Cavuto Show on Fox News
Thursday, 4pm EST hour
+ + Carbon Belch Day is tomorrow!
Thanks to you, Carbon Belch Day has proven to be a great platform to
expose the hoax of Climate Alarmism. We estimate that our grassroots
and media campaign has reached 10 million people.
Already, through our Belch Calculator over 110,000,000 pounds of
CO2 has been set to be released tomorrow by friends like you who
have taken part.
I have many media interviews lined up and I would like to
announce an even bigger total -- perhaps 125 million.
Would you forward this message to your friends and ask
them to join you in taking part in Carbon Belch Day? They
can go here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=8147&RID=16629311
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
It's called Greenland, for
June 11, 2008 - 16:15 ET by mattmIt's called Greenland, for crying out loud!
Crash and Burn CO2 Theory
June 11, 2008 - 16:29 ET by dboSo the argument here is that, over a period of 15 years, as new information is obtained, one shouldn't be allowed to change their opinion?
You mean new information like this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
CO2 goes up while temperature goes down. Just like 1940-1976. These are real satellite measurements too. Not like the made up numbers by "Doctored" Hansen.
Noel, I'm not sure what
June 12, 2008 - 09:53 ET by meteor79Noel,
I'm not sure what the point of this entry was. Were you bored and decided to dig up something so that you could recite some typical bogus denialist arguments? Let's see... (1) The climate has changed rapidly in the past for natural reasons, so present changes must also be natural. Heard that one before. (2) Because natural changes in climate are inevitable, as shown by ice-core data, we should just let nature "take it's course". Heard that one before, too. Nothing new here. Climate scientists are well aware of the ice-core data and it's implications; if the data disproved AGW that would be great, but it doesn't. I'll be waiting for something original... Also,
"the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials"
So, you don't consider human influence on land-use/atmospheric composition "touching the dials"??
More Alarmist Propaganda
June 12, 2008 - 23:08 ET by PopularTechYes you are an Alarmist Propagandist:
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Yes present climate change is natural:
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)
Yes natural climate change is inevitable:
The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores (Science Daily)
Yes the ice core data does disprove AGW:
CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist)
"The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT, You call me an
July 1, 2008 - 14:37 ET by meteor79PT,
You call me an "Alarmist Propagandist" and then cite an op-ed on ad-hominem attacks. I got a good laugh out of that one...
Again, ice-core data doesn't disprove AGW. Please link to an actual journal article (preferably peer-reviewed) next time you want to give evidence for the CO2-temp lag disproving AGW (you won't find one); the link you provided was just typical babble. The ice-core data simply shows us that CO2 was not the primary driver of climate in the past, but that it likely had a large role, given its correlation with temperature. Just because it wasn't a primary driver in the past doesn't mean it can't be a primary driver in the future. This has been explained to you probably hundreds of times, don't you see the error in your kind of logic? Also, don't you find it a little bit ironic that people like you are always emphasizing that they need very hard/solid convincing evidence for AGW, but automatically conclude that any flimsy argument not supporting AGW PROVES it doesn't exist (e.g., ice-core data, the disproved Lindzen "iris" effect, cosmic rays, etc.) I have never said anything PROVES AGW, but the evidence is out there to judge for yourself.
Speaking of babble, meteor...
July 1, 2008 - 14:45 ET by bassndudeI have not seen anything that proves AGW either. Only conjecture, no proof. I have seen much more evidence of natural warming, and sence 1998, a steady or downward trend in global temps.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Just curious, what evidence
July 1, 2008 - 15:45 ET by meteor79Just curious, what evidence have you observed of natural warming?
Mars and Venus
July 1, 2008 - 14:52 ET by UnsaneIf CO2 is THE greenhouse gas, why is Mars about as temperate as Antarctica? Why isn't it a blast furnace like Venus?
Venus is 800 degrees F, hot enough to melt lead. It is covered in clouds so well that you cannot see the surface. The clouds consist of water vapor. Could it be that water vapor is the culprit rather than CO2
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Meteor, we've had this
June 12, 2008 - 23:48 ET by NL207Meteor, we've had this discussion many times.
You know as well as I do that the theoretical basis the alarmist camp relies on to make its predictions is flimsy and in fact as time progresses, we see more and more clearly by means of empirical data that they are simply wrong. These net positive feedback theories are proving false.
Moreover, the original estimates of CO2 driven warming that were computed way back in the 70's when the question of human CO2 emissions was first raised are proving to be quite close to the mark as measured. The basic science was correct or nearly so and it predicted doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would cause about 1 degree K of warming. Since this relationship was non-linear, most of the increase would come with the first 50% increase in CO2. That is approximately what is being observed when solar variation is factored out.
When are you going to give it up? These wild positive feedback engines being postulated by Hansen, Schmidt and the rest of that crowd aren't proving out, are they?
NL207, Yes, we have had
July 1, 2008 - 14:43 ET by meteor79NL207,
Yes, we have had this discussion, but the points you raise are not related to the point I was trying to make. Noel basically states that ice-core data largely refutes AGW. This is simply not the case (which I would think you would agree with); I'm curious what your take is on the implications of the ice-core data.