Sabbath 17/5/31/120

Dear Friends,

It has been said that there are “Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics”.

We have reported previously on the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period before it. Many concerned scientists have expressed their professional opinions concerning the Medieval Warm Period. There is without doubt a deliberate attempt at getting rid of the historical evidence and arguments for the Medieval Warm Period.

On 6 December 2006, it was reported in testimony before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the scientific evidence concerning Global Warming was not only wrong it deliberately ignored important evidence that had formed the core body of global science regarding the Medieval Warm period and failed to discuss other warm periods.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Below are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

‘In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.’

‘I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of.’

‘In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the ‘hockey stick,’ because of the shape of the temperature graph. ‘Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

‘There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed.’”

Now one and a half years down the track the hysteria is still apparent and growing, and the science is just as biased and ignoring of the previous cyclic patterns of Global Warming. The journalists are actually feeding this academic farce and misusing the available scientific information. We are now back in the days of the Flat Earth and Roman Church incoherent use of logic and science that saw Galileo condemned for heresy for saying the Earth was round.

I find it rather serious that members of Parliament use Global Warming as a political whipping post and, in the case of the Australian Labor Party and their foolish ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on attaining office at end 2007 for the meetings of 2008, a large and serious millstone was placed around the necks of the Australian people.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Medieval Warm Period existed and it lasted from the T\tenth century to the end of the fourteenth century with the advent of the “Little Ice Age”. The tapestries in UK of the rivers and coastal areas show that the rivers were much higher near the sea than they are at present.

It was obvious to any historian or scientist from visits to Turkey and making comparisons with the sea levels say for example in the Australian coastline that at some period the world sea levels were some seven feet higher than today. There are seaports now many miles inland in Turkey and in Europe. The city of Ephesus mentioned in the Bible was a coastal seaport. To reach Ephesus now one has to get off the boat at Kusadasi and drive a number of miles inland to the city, and the port now stands some seven feet above the existing sea levels.

The Roman accounts of the Thames show it was higher and wider than it is now. Archaeologists are finding that Roman villas in Britain with mosaic tile floors are being unearthed now with evidence of a cooling and the placement of braziers over the tiles marking them in the period before the Romans left Britain. Romans grew wine in Britain but it is only now becoming possible to grow wines as they did then.

To do away with the previous Warm Period scientists literally had to forge the evidence and disregard the work of generations of scientists before them. This dishonesty has been met with silence for the philosophers who had a professional obligation to challenge the “statistics” they fed up to the world as part of this global conspiracy to inflict a regime on the world under the guise of “science.” As philosopher in the field of Religion and Ethics, one has an obligation to point out the truth to a gullible public and a dishonest media.

The truth is being pointed out but no one is listening. The paper Global Warming (No. 218) was first written in 1997. It has been updated often since then. Just like David Deming in 1995 with his borehole measurements and his refusal to misrepresent the evidence, the facts are ignored and misrepresented. These articles and comments by politicians, scientists and journalists have passed now from the category of “Damn Lies” into the other-worldly realm of “Statistics”.

The Piri Reis Map of 1513 of the Turkish Navy was taken from the library at Alexandria. We do not know how old it is but it had to have come from the Roman Warm Period at the latest, as it was taken from the library at Alexandria by the Muslims and that was before the Medieval Warm Period. It indicates a warmer, wetter Earth with a shift in the axis with the water levels higher and submerging the lands north of Brittany, and leaving the West Antarctic Basin exposed and able to be mapped. This feat was only possible using satellites over the last 20 years. The latitude and longitude were represented correctly for the relationship of both South America and Africa, with much wetter areas in the Sahara and in Spain. The coastal systems were indicative of slightly higher sea levels.

These ancient records have been dismissed by either silence or appeal to ignorance. Some of the scientists are simply not well enough educated in other fields to even be aware of the problem.

The so-called science is being used as a control mechanism to impinge on the life and liberty of the nations of the Earth.

This section of earth science is being manipulated so as to enable the actions to be taken to make possible the manipulation of the society to enable the Beast power to take control in the Last Days.

Dr. David Evans, one of the most eminent scientists in Australia and advisor on Global Warming to the Federal Government as consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, has just written (18 July) an article showing that the Global Warming argument is totally false. And he makes the point, as Lord Keynes said: “When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?”

He says:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. “

The problem is that we do have evidence for the Millennial Warm Period but it is not CO2 caused, and it is not man-made in essence but we may well contribute to it. It would happen anyway if we did not even exist.

It is supported by Evolutionary Scientists and by Globalist Economists for similar ends.

Modern Evolution and secular argument have become a religion themselves and seek to supplant biblical religious thought as incoherent babble using the silly arguments of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant groups emerging from it. The Protestant Reformation was only made necessary by the great inroads made by the Sabbatarian system into its flocks. Satan had to act to stop the changes being made by the Body of Christ too early.

The Bible is correct in its representation and scientists would do well to take the system seriously, and certainly philosophers have an obligation to test scientific theories such as tribal migrations and dating systems against it.

Global Warming is a known cyclic change in the Earth’s patterns but it is being used today to affect the last cycle of Satan’s rule on the planet.

Wade Cox

Coordinator General