Dispatches from the Creation Wars

The New York Times exposes an internal document (PDF) from the Global Climate Coalition, a group funded by the oil and auto industries, that shows that their own scientists were confirming the reality of human-caused global warming and the effects of greenhouse gasses as early as 15 years ago even while publicly trying to dispute that reality.

The document is from 1995 and it was a “primer” on the various issues being sent around to the auto companies for approval. It essentially admits that global warming is real and human-caused, that many of the counter-arguments are false and that we don’t yet have good enough predictive technology to know the full effects, especially in local areas. It begins by saying:

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.

It further says:

Are there alternate explanations for the climate change which has occurred over the last 120 years?

Explanations based on solar variability, anomalies in the temperature record, etc. are valid to the extent they are used to argue against a conclusion that we understand current climate or can detect a human component in the change in climate that has occurred over the past 120 years. However, these alternative hypotheses do not address what would happen if concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise at projected rates.

The section of the document on what it calls “contrarian theories” to explain the rise in global temperatures as resulting from something other than human activity is particularly interesting. For example, in considering the argument that sunspots is the real cause, the document says:

Direct measures of the intensity of solar radiation over the past 15 years indicate a maximum variability of less than 0.1%, sufficient to account for no more than 0.1DC temperature change. This period of direct measurement included one complete 11 year sun spot cycle, which allowed the development of a correlation between solar intensity and the fraction of the Sun’s surface covered by sun spots. Applying this correlation to sun spot data for the past 120 years indicates a maximum variability on solar intensity of 0.1%, corresponding to a maximum temperature change of0.1DC, one-fifth of the temperature change observed during that period.

If solar variability has accounted for 0.1DC temperature increase in the last 120 years, it
is an interesting finding, but it does not allay concerns about future warming which could
result from greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever contribution solar variability makes to climate change should be additive to the effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

The conclusion of the section on such alternative explanations:

The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow’s hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels’ questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sounds a lot like the tobacco industry’s claims for decades that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.


  1. #1 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 3, 2009

    Gingerbaker, let me state for the record that you’ve got some serious issues to workout with a counselor. Not everyone who looks at the science and comes to a different conclusion is part of some mass effort to ignore the truth. No one is in fact behind it. You might want to ask yourself if the 30 Billion that’s Billion with a B, the US government has given scientists to say there is global warming has had anything to do with computer models like Mann’s that was so rigged it spit out a hockey stick even when random statistical noise was plugged in as data. Things are already gloomy thanks to Global Warming Alarmism ask any one of the 75,000 in Mexico who can’t afford to eat because Bio-Fuel mandates have doubled the price of food.
    Does that lead you to conclude that Alarmist should be presecuted. You have no idea what you’re talking about and should stayh out of a conversation that is well over your head. If you would like to learn something about this issue, you might start with presentation days after he was not allowed to testify beside Al Gore because Gore is coward who is not confident in his science.

    I had the good fortune to attend a Christopher Monckton presentation last Tuesday night. It is easy to see why Al Gore is afraid of him. He (Monckton) is a very honest man on a genuine mission to spread the truth.

    He didn’t even tell people that he has a DVD for sale on the Science and Public Policy website. He has no connections to big oil or coal. He is obviously isn’t doing this for the money. Lord knows that can’t be said of Gore who stands to make a billion if cap and trade legislation goes through in the U.S. Monckton said during the presentation that Gore told the committee last Friday that if Monckton showed up, he wouldn’t. Gore has been running from Monckton for years. As I said, it’s with good reason.

    Monckton would tear Gore apart in a one on one debate. Anyone who doubts Monckton’s abilities should view Apocalypse? No! which is a tape of a presentation he made at Cambridge.

    His presentation Tuesday is still available for free online:


    You can also view Monckton’s review of the 35 errors in Gore’s Sci-Fi Comedy Horror Flick:
    An Inconvenient Truth on my website:


    Lord Monckton’s Written works are available by following this link:


  2. #2 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 3, 2009

    I’m sorry but the tired old comparisons with the tobacco industry are not relevant in sthe slightest way. There is hard evidence that Global Warming Alarmists exaggerate on a regular basis. Al Gore even suggested that it is ok to lie about Global Warming:

    In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. — Al Gore

    Wow that quote has to make one proud to be an Alarmist.
    Any of you Gore supporters want to defend that quote???

    Oh and then there was that little jewel by Houghton:

    Unless we announce disaster no one will listen. — Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

    Once again, you have to proud of one of your leaders. For all the nonsense about the approximately 30 million dollars the traditional energy industry has invested in research, Al Gore Kool-Aid drinkers don’t want to discuss the 30 Billion the US has invested on AGW research. If you are a researcher and want your research grant approved, just stick global warming in the title somewhere, you’ll get your money. One warning if your results don’t support anthropogenic global warming, you’ll never get another dime. Funny how hypocrites on Gores side never question the financial relationships of those who continually tweak their computer models to spit out data in contrast to observed data.

    In the 70s when the lastest liberal “sky is falling” catastrophe was global cooling, it was man and industry to blame then too. Here’s a news flash for liberals, the earth has been heating and cooling since it came into existence. Not one piece of scientific evidence proves that the heating trend which could now be coming to a halt falls outside the area of natural variation.

    Furthermore, Gore kept the two graphs (CO2 and Temp) separated in AIT because he knew that if he put them together one would see that temp increases cause an increase in CO2 not the other way around. Gore essentially
    got his cause and effect back @ss backwards. One of Gore’s flunkies put that graph in a childrens book and the publishers (after reading the text) assumed it must have been incorrectly labeled, so they switched the graphs. Too funny, even a publishing house could tell which date preceded the other.

    As for The Great Global Warming Swindle, one of the scientists interviewed wasn’t told the purpose of the
    film but caught hell when his comment about temp leading
    CO@ and not the other way around came out. He said (with his job and research money on the line) that global warming was anthropoenic. Sorry Prof, if temp leads CO2 then that yanks the rug out from under AGW.

    Founder & Publisher

New comments have been disabled.