DOCSLIB.ORG

Sallie Baliunas & Willie Soon Part of the a Rundown of the Skeptics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sallie Baliunas & Willie Soon Part of the a Rundown of the Skeptics Sallie Baliunas & Willie Soon Part of the A Rundown of the Skeptics & Deniers series From Logical Science Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon currently work for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon is a paid consultant and Baliunas is a senior scientist for the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank partially by Exxon Mobil, Olin Chemical, Gulf Oil Corporation, and the White Star Oil Company. The Marshall Institute opposes limits on carbon dioxide emissions and disputes man's role in global climate change. Baliunas & Soon are also contributing editors to World Climate Report which is ran by Pat Michaels and funded by the Western Fuels Association. Baliunas has also written papers for the Oil and Tobacco funded Heartland Institute. Baliunas works for numerous think tanks which have a conflict of interest due to funding by big oil yet she claims it is the mainstream scientists that are twisting the science for monetary gain. In an interview with ABC news she said: "It's the money! ... If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it." Ozone Depletion: From Skeptic To Scapegoat In 1995 Sallie Baliunas testified in from of Congress against the Ozone depletion argument. She testified that natural variability and ozone depletion were due to the Sun's decreasing ultraviolet output as well as other factors. Even though the science behind ozone depletion is well understood Baliunas has never retracted her skepticism. However, in 2000 Baliunas and Soon wrote a paper for the Heartland Institute claiming that ozone depletion is responsible for global warming. This is again at odds with the current scientific consensus. The Claim: 'No warming in 50 years' In a Marshall Institute paper Baliunas and Soon originally claimed the earth was not warming: "But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case... measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which humanmade carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident." The problem with satellites is that their orbit around the earth is not perfectly stable. Over time the satellites fall toward the earth. This orbital decay, among other things, caused sensor problems that needed to be corrected for. Baliunas trusted faulty satellite data over the much more robust ground station data. Once these problems were fixed Baliunas eventually retracted her statement on the lack of warming. However, she still disputes that the observed warming was caused by human influence. The Sun, From Decreasing to Increasing ozone arguments comming soon Data Snooping The Medieval Warming Period Mainstream science works by creating a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis with an experiment. Testing is preferably done in what is called a double blind study. Politically driven scientists will often review vast quantities of data and then cherry pick any pattern that happens to fit thei political ideology. This is called data snooping. Data snooping is an extremely powerful tool for politically motivated scientists because even if the pattern you are looking for only has a 0.5% chance of occuring due to random noise you will only need to review 200 tests to find something that supports your cause. The politically motivated scientists will then find some obscure peer-review journal that has an editor sympathetic to their political causes to publish their data snooping paper. When it comes to filtering out bad science peer review is only a good first filter and in some cases there isn't even a filter at all. Once the paper is published political groups will lionize the paper and use it in every way imagineable to support their ideology. This technique was the hallmark of the tobacco lobby and sympathetic thinktanks and has subsequently been adopted by many other political interest groups. American journalist Chris Mooney claims this technique is the hallmark of not only intelligent design proponents attack on evolution but Harvards Baliunas and Soon's attack on the concept of man driven climate change. The Skeptic The Journal The Whistleblower Chris de Fritas Climate Research Journal Hans von Storch Scientific American describes the logic of the paper: "if a proxy record indicated that a drier condition existed in one part of the world from 800 to 850, it would be counted as equal evidence for a Medieval Warming Period as a different proxy record that showed wetter conditions in another part of the world from 1250 to 1300." Obviously consistency is not Soon and Baliunas's strong suit. Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to Chris de Freitas who was and editor at Climate Research. Chris de Freitas was known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He published the paper despite objections from other editors. Two of the editors of Climate Reseach started to recieve numerous complaints were recieved from leading members of the scientific community. When these complaints intensified some of the editors approached Chris de Fritas. Fritas accused the objecting editors of ‘a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition’. Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen scientists wrote what is often called a "devastating critique" of Baliunas's work in the AGU's peer-review publication Eos. These 13 scientists were authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to write an editorial describing the current status of peer review at the journal. But when Storch's editorial was blocked by Chris de Fritas he resigned. Several other Climate Research editors followed Storch's lead and subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Eventually journal publisher Otto Kinne admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. Dr. Malcolm Hughes of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona: "The Soon et al. paper is so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all." Dr. Michael Mann: “Serious scientists will tell you over and over again that this was a deeply flawed study that should never have been published,” “Scientifically this study was considered not even worthy of a response. But because it was used politically, to justify policy changes in the administration, people in my field felt they had to speak out.” Dr. Claire Goodness, an editor that resigned in protest from Climate Research, makes an accusation of whitewashing: "Some journalists are digging even deeper – into the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute. Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar variability – not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a storm." Dr. Hans von Storch: "After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research; the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in- Chief wanted to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error, and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment in EOS by Mann and several coauthors. (The problem is not whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann's hockey stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for such a conclusion was simply not given.)" Dr. John Holdren president of AAAS: “It’s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington.” Professor Daniel Schrag of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences: “The bottom line is that this paper is suggesting that the unusually warm weather we’ve been having for the last 100 years is part of natural variability,” .. “We have observations to show that that’s not the case.” James McCarthy, a Harvard climate scientist says: "It was sham science," ... "It's almost laughable, except that this study was held up by the administration as a definitive refutation of the temperature record." Soon and Baliunas referenced work by Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. As for the quality of their "consensus debunkin"g work he responds: "The fact that it has received any attention at all is a result, again in my view, of its utility to those groups who want the global warming issue to just go away," The Bush administration tried to include references to the study in the agency’s report on the state of the environment. To block this move, EPA staffers deleted the global warming section from its report. Inhofe said. “The powerful new findings of this most comprehensive of studies shiver the timbers of the adrift Chicken Little crowd.” The Oregan Deception Project The "Oregan Deception Project", as Professor Eli Rabet calls it, was a highly controversial effort to get scientists to sign a document claiming human driven climate change wasn't going to be "catastrophic".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abstracts Connecting to the Boston University Network
    20th Cambridge Workshop: Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun July 29 - Aug 3, 2018 Boston / Cambridge, USA Abstracts Connecting to the Boston University Network 1. Select network ”BU Guest (unencrypted)” 2. Once connected, open a web browser and try to navigate to a website. You should be redirected to https://safeconnect.bu.edu:9443 for registration. If the page does not automatically redirect, go to bu.edu to be brought to the login page. 3. Enter the login information: Guest Username: CoolStars20 Password: CoolStars20 Click to accept the conditions then log in. ii Foreword Our story starts on January 31, 1980 when a small group of about 50 astronomers came to- gether, organized by Andrea Dupree, to discuss the results from the new high-energy satel- lites IUE and Einstein. Called “Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun,” the meeting empha- sized the solar stellar connection and focused discussion on “several topics … in which the similarity is manifest: the structures of chromospheres and coronae, stellar activity, and the phenomena of mass loss,” according to the preface of the resulting, “Special Report of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.” We could easily have chosen the same topics for this meeting. Over the summer of 1980, the group met again in Bonas, France and then back in Cambridge in 1981. Nearly 40 years on, I am comfortable saying these workshops have evolved to be the premier conference series for cool star research. Cool Stars has been held largely biennially, alternating between North America and Europe. Over that time, the field of stellar astro- physics has been upended several times, first by results from Hubble, then ROSAT, then Keck and other large aperture ground-based adaptive optics telescopes.
    [Show full text]
  • $1.2 Million Conflict of Interest Plagues Climate Change Denial Research
    $1.2 Million Conflict of Interest Plagues Climate Change Denial Research... http://natmonitor.com/2015/02/22/1-2-million-conflict-of-interest-plague... $1.2 Million Conflict of Interest Plagues Climate Change Denial Research By James Paladino, National Monitor | February 22, 2015 A recently uncovered document shows that Wei-Hok Soon, a well-known aerospace engineer, was granted over $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies for climate research and failed to disclose a conflict of interest in his peer-reviewed publications. In Washington, climate change deniers are fighting a fierce battle to stave off energy policy reform. The latest casualty of this war of ideas is Wei-Hock Soon, a part-time employee of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Resilient to the scientific consensus that human carbon emissions are fueling gradual warming, the aerospace engineer has served as a beacon for conservative legislators. A recently uncovered document shows that Soon was granted over $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies and failed to disclose a conflict of interest in his peer-reviewed publications. Since the Smithsonian is part of the federal government, former Greenpeace member Kert Davies legally obtained the Soon’s grant agreements through the Freedom of Information Act. Contributors include the American Petroleum Institute, the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil and Southern Company. Several scientific papers and a congressional testimonial were termed as “deliverables,” reports The New York Times. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on behalf of the Southern Company and the Kochs,” said Davies. “What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.” These recent revelations have drawn fire from members of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center and NASA, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners
    EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.0 Process Issues Raised by Petitioners............................................................................................5 3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to Develop the Scientific Support for the Findings............................................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Overview..............................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Issues Regarding Consideration of the CRU E-mails..........................................6 3.1.3 Assessment of Issues Raised in Public Comments and Re-Raised in Petitions for Reconsideration...............................................................................7 3.1.4 Summary............................................................................................................19 3.2 Response to Claims That the Assessments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate and Independent Assessments.........................................................................20 3.2.1 Overview............................................................................................................20 3.2.2 EPA’s Response to Petitioners’
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural Analysis of a Physicist ''Trio'' Supporting the Backlash Against
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 204–219 www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming Myanna Lahsenà Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado and Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Av. dos Astronautas, 1758, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos, SP 12227-010 Brazil Received 18 March 2007; received in revised form 5 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007 Abstract This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of themselves as a physicist elite—understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about human-induced climate change. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Anti-environmental movement; Human dimensions research; Climate change; Controversy; United States; George C. Marshall Institute 1. Introduction change itself, what he termed a ‘‘strong theory of culture.’’ Arguing that the essential role of science in our present age Human Dimensions Research in the area of global only can be fully understood through examination of environmental change tends to integrate a limited con- individuals’ relationships with each other and with ‘‘mean- ceptualization of culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Archive
    Proof that mankind causes KyotoKyotoKyoto basedbasedbased flawedflawedflawed Today’s temperatures are supposedly higher than at any time in the past thousand years. This claim is the central pillar of the Kyoto Protocol, which takes effect this month. It is largely based on the celebrated ‘hockey stick’ graph of temperature history since the year 1000, published by Michael Mann and colleagues in 1998 and 1999. However, according to Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Mann’s hockey stick is no more than a statistical artifact. Their quest to verify the accuracy of this pi- votal study of global warming raises questions about the integrity of world climate research. Author: Marcel Crok, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek Translation: Angela den Tex Peter Kleiner, www.terradreams.de Peter Kleiner, climate change is refuted protocolprotocolprotocol ononon statisticsstatisticsstatistics Mann versus McIntyre This is Mann’s famous hockey stick chart. The reconstruction runs until 1980. In the 20th Century, Mann’s (black curve) and McIntyre’s reconstruction (green curve) are virtually synchronous with the measured temperature. The discussion focuses mainly on the 15th century. McIntyre’s measure- ments, based on the conventional principal component analysis but without the mistakes in Mann’s data, show much higher temperatures. Few people dispute that the earth is getting warmer, but there the same data, temperatures in the 15th Century were just as are people – so-called “climate skeptics” – who question high as they are today – an outcome that takes the edge off the whether the change is historically unique and whether it is the alarmist scenario of anthropogenic global warming. result of human activity.These skeptics are generally outsiders, The criticism by the Canadians is mostly technical in reviled by ”true” climate researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 8.71 MB, for February 01, 2017 Appendix In
    Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 5923 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § v. § No. 4:16-CV-469-K § ERIC TRADD SCHNEIDERMAN, § Attorney General of New York, in his § official capacity, and MAURA TRACY § HEALEY, Attorney General of § Massachusetts, in her official capacity, § § Defendants. § APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THIS COURT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS Exhibit Description Page(s) N/A Declaration of Justin Anderson (Feb. 1, 2017) v – ix A Transcript of the AGs United for Clean Power App. 1 –App. 21 Press Conference, held on March 29, 2016, which was prepared by counsel based on a video recording of the event. The video recording is available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press- release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president- al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across B E-mail from Wendy Morgan, Chief of Public App. 22 – App. 32 Protection, Office of the Vermont Attorney General to Michael Meade, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Bureau, Office of the New York Attorney General (Mar. 18, 2016, 6:06 PM) C Union of Concerned Scientists, Peter Frumhoff, App. 33 – App. 37 http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/peter- frumhoff.html#.WI-OaVMrLcs (last visited Jan. 20, 2017, 2:05 PM) Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID 5924 Exhibit Description Page(s) D Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & App.
    [Show full text]
  • Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Research
    Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Research... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash... http://nyti.ms/1DIYhU3 SCIENCE Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015 For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity. One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming. But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans Von Storch Did Not Have Time to Start His Job Before Sitting Down to Write His Resignation Letter
    Hans von Storch did not have time to start his job before sitting down to write his resignation letter. Just four days before becoming editor in chief of the journal Climate Research, he ended up quitting over a paper that has many scientists hot under the collar. The study -- by researchers at the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics -- has ignited a fierce scientific and political debate that spilled into the U.S. Senate and could influence American energy policy and international relations. All that over what the world's weather was like in the Middle Ages: Was the medieval climate warmer, or cooler, than today's? The consensus of top international researchers is that the 1990s were most likely the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and that humans have probably caused most of the warming observed in the past 50 years. But the Harvard-Smithsonian report, written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, lets humanity off the hook by arguing that the Middle Ages were warmer than the 20th century. Scientists and politicians who are skeptical about global warming have trumpeted that assessment. "The 1,000-year climate study that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has compiled is a powerful new work of science," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R.-Okla.), during a hearing he called in late July to debate the issue. But at the hearing, Michael E. Mann, an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, attacked the study in language unusually blunt for a scientist. "I believe it is the mainstream view of just about every scientist in my field that I have talked to that there is little that is valid in that paper," he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Networked Content Analysis: The case of climate change Niederer, S.M.C. Publication date 2016 Document Version Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Niederer, S. M. C. (2016). Networked Content Analysis: The case of climate change. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:29 Sep 2021 3 Climate Change Debate Actors in Science and on the Web On DeceMber 12 of 2015, a consequential agreeMent in the histo- ry of global cliMate negotiations was reached when 195 coun- tries adopted the so-called Paris Climate Agreement during the 21st annual Conference of the Parties, better known as COP21. Two weeks of “fierce negotiations” ended with the words “I hear no objection in the room, I declare the Paris Climate Agreement adopted,” spoken by the president Laurent Fabius (United Nations Conference on Climate Change, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Regression Analysis of Anthropogenic and Heliogenic Climate Drivers, and Some Cautious Forecasts a Frank Stefani
    Multiple regression analysis of anthropogenic and heliogenic climate drivers, and some cautious forecasts a Frank Stefani aHelmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Fluid Dynamics, Bautzner Landstr. 400, 01328 Dresden, Germany ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The two main drivers of climate change on sub-Milankovic time scales are re-assessed by means of Climate change a multiple regression analysis. Evaluating linear combinations of the logarithm of carbon dioxide Solar cycle concentration and the geomagnetic aa-index as a proxy for solar activity, we reproduce the sea surface 2 Forecast temperature (HadSST) since the middle of the 19th century with an adjusted R value of around 87 per cent for a climate sensitivity (of TCR type) in the range of 0.6 K until 1.6 K per doubling of CO2. The solution of the regression is quite sensitive: when including data from the last decade, the simultaneous occurrence of a strong El Niño on one side and low aa-values on the other side lead to a preponderance of solutions with relatively high climate sensitivities around 1.6 K. If those later data are excluded, the regression leads to a significantly higher weight of the aa-index and a correspondingly lower climate sensitivity going down to 0.6 K. The plausibility of such low values is discussed in view of recent experimental and satellite-borne measurements. We argue that a further decade of data collection will be needed to allow for a reliable distinction between low and high sensitivity values. Based on recent ideas about a quasi-deterministic planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo, we make a first attempt to predict the aa-index and the resulting temperature anomaly for various typical CO2 scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Sallie Baliunas: Combatting Global Warming Would Be a Waste 07/25/2003 Providence Journal
    Sallie Baliunas: Combatting global warming would be a waste 07/25/2003 Providence Journal WASHINGTON HUMANS RECORD historical events, Herodotus wrote, "in the hope of preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done." Nature also writes its own history. And when coupled with that written by men, it can ameliorate the tendency to sensationalize current trends in climate into something unusual or dangerous. Recently, Sen. John Kerry of my home state, Massachusetts, and a leading Democratic Party presidential candidate, added to the alarmism over climate change. At an environmental conference in Washington, he compared the "threat of global warming" with that of the Cold War, indicating that it required the same mobilization of national resources as was needed to defeat Soviet communism. In a similar vein, attorneys general from six states are suing the federal government to enforce reductions in carbon dioxide emission, which is essential to life on the planet and has never been classified as a toxic pollutant but is blamed by alarmists for warming the globe. New York and some other states are even considering legislation for the state to enforce reductions in the emission of CO2, which arises mainly from burning fossil fuels. These domestic calls for action echo a United Nations-sponsored worldwide plan, called the Kyoto Protocol. It requires signatories to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions based upon the notion that the Earth is dangerously warming. The historical record -- both man and nature's -- doesn't support this view. It is true that, according to thermometer measurements, the Earth was warmer by some 0.6 degrees Celsius at the end of the 20th Century than it was in the second half of the 19th.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming
    The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming Sallie Baliunas • The Lavoisier Group Inc • May 2002 1 About the Author SALLIE BALIUNAS, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro- physics and deputy director of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her MA and PhD degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University. She is co-host of the Website www.TechCentralStation.com, a senior scientist and chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C Marshall Institute, and past contributing editor to World Climate Report. Her awards include the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckmann Award for Scientific Freedom, and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. The author of over 200 scientific articles, Dr Baliunas served as technical consultant for a science-fiction television series, Gene Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict. Her research interests include solar variability, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sun-like stars, exoplanets, and the use of laser electro-optics for the correction of turbulence due to the earth’s atmosphere in astronomical images. 2 The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming ORE than one million years ago, the early tool-making hominid species Homo erectus controlled fire as a means Mfor bettering the chances of the species’ survival. Homo sapiens, the modern successor of Homo erectus, continues in the hominid legacy of attempting to control, and thereby outlast, the havoc of nature. Early use of fire meant protection from harsh weather and predators, besides safer food. The evolution from fire to fossil fuels to nuclear energy is a path of improving human health and welfare arising from efficient and effective access to energy.
    [Show full text]