Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 14, 2015 in Science & Technology | 9 comments

The Elephant in the Climate Alarmists’ Living Room

Elephant in Alarmist's Living Room

As liberal members of the media promote the claims made by climate alarmists, the former don’t mention the elephant in the climate alarmists’ living room. That elephant is a little something called the Medieval Warm Period.

The Medieval Warm Period was a case of global warming that took place before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

It would be reasonable to ask what caused the Medieval Warm Period, since it apparently wasn’t caused by Mankind’s activities.

Instead of answering that question, climate alarmists have tried to delete the Medieval Warm Period from history. Either they claim that the Medieval Warm Period never happened – as in the case of Michael Mann’s infamous hockey-stick graph – or they claim that it wasn’t really global.

Such claim have been refuted by climate scientists.

Here is the the abstract of a science article titled “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula”, published by Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115).

The last sentence states, “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”

Now, here is the introductory paragraph of a 2003 press release issued by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Cambridge, MA – A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

It is one thing to claim that Mankind’s activities have contributed something – even if it is minor – to a present-day period of global warming, which is what that alleged 97% consensus actually says.

It is another thing to claim that Mother Nature can’t be the primary cause of a present-day period of global warming, which is not what that 97% consensus says.

The former claim is reasonable. The latter claim isn’t, because historical climate data refutes it.

Climate alarmists can continue being deniers by turning a blind eye toward the elephant in their living room, but members of the general public don’t have to.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, the study described in the above-quoted press release was funded in part by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Moderate Voice
  • rudi

    Brought to us by the generosity of Big Oil and Coal…

  • rudi


    The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

    The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of several editors of the journal and the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.

    Funding controversy

    Questions have also been raised about funding for the paper. Soon and Baliunas “was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry”.[42]

    Also, the additional sources of funding mentioned in the papers were apparently unrelated to the research presented in Soon and Baliunas 2003 and in Soon et al. 2003: both the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA stated that they had provided funds for work on solar variability, not for work related to proxy climate records as discussed in the papers, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said it had not provided funds for the research.[24] Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant AF49620-02-1-0194, deals with Theory and Observation of Stellar Magnetic Activity,[43] and NASA grant NAG5-7635 studies variability of stars.[44] When questioned during the 29 July 2003 Senate hearing, Soon said that the NOAA grant for Soon et al. was awarded to David Legates, and the papers, showing research into detailed patterns of local and regional climate variability, were directly relevant to his main goal of research on physical mechanisms of the sun-climate relationship. When asked if he had been “hired by or employed by or received grants from organizations that have taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect greenhouse gas emissions”, he responded “I have not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any such organizations described in this question.”[36][45]

    Connections between the paper’s authors and oil industry groups have been well documented. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute.[46] Soon has also received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010.[47] Other contributors to Soon’s research career include the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010, and coal and oil industry sources such as Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.[48] Soon has stated that he has “never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research.”[45]

  • Slamfu

    NASA thinks Global Warming is real, caused by humans, and we need to do something about it.

    NOAA thinks Global Warming is real, caused by humans, and we need to do something about it.

    Insurance companies that have to pay out damages for bad weather and flooding think Global Warming is real, caused by humans, and we need to do something about it.

    The Pentagon thinks Global Warming is real, caused by humans, and we need to do something about it.

    These groups all have strong histories of objective scientific work and data analysis because they do serious, grown up work and face big consequences for being wrong. This is a compelling logical argument to take their climate work seriously. I long ago realized I don’t have time to get a PhD in every field of expertise I wish to have an opinion on, and certainly not in every discipline that has an impact on my life. I realized that I can either stick my head in the sand, go crazy, or trust those who are experts in the field to guide us with their counsel. Climate change deniers seem to prefer options 1 and 2.

    Why don’t you think Global Warming is real, caused by humans, and we need to do something about it?

    • Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist

      Ever heard of “I’ll wait til hell freezes over” for an answer, Slamfu?

      D.R., please surprise us.

      • Slamfu

        Haven’t you heard DdW? Hope springs eternal here at The Moderate Voice 🙂

        • Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist

          Yes, but with our climate warming “elephant in the room,” hell will never freeze over.

  • Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist

    You mention the U.S. military (i.e. U.S. Air Force)

    This is what the military thinks about global warming:

    Every branch of the United States Military is worried about climate change. They have been since well before it became controversial.


    At a time when Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush 41, and even British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, called for binding international protocols to control greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.

    The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.

    This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers.

    This year, the Military Advisory Board came out with a new report, called National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change, that is a serious discussion about what the military sees as the threats and the actions to be taken to mitigate them.

    “The potential security ramifications of global climate change should be serving as catalysts for cooperation and change. Instead, climate change impacts are already accelerating instability in vulnerable areas of the world and are serving as catalysts for conflict.”

    Read more here:

  • David, you quote bogus papers. There have indeed been naturally caused climate fluctuations in the past. A change in output from the sun – no evidence of that here. Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere usually the result of increased volcanic activity – once again no evidence of that. Green house gases resulting in global warning has been accepted science since the late 19th century and the evidence is overwhelming that increased CO2 levels are the result of man burning fossil fuels. Even ExxonMobile has recently admitted that man made climate change is real and a threat. Of course they have their own reason – driving the coal companies out of business so they can sell more natural gas.

  • Markus1

    On December 14, 2015, at 6 in the evening it was 47 degrees F in Chicago. Simultaneously, it was 37 degrees in Montreal and 28 degrees in Moscow (already 12/15 there.) If it had been 28 degrees in the middle of the night in Moscow in 1941, we’d all be speaking German. It looks like there will not be a white Christmas in Chicago and Montreal. Changes in temperature have the potential for significant impacts on many crops; this seems like an important hazard for government study and action.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :