Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[trinity.red <trinity.red@gmail.com>]

There are a number of reasons to question this summary of the
peer-reviewed research article:

1) The source of the summary article, OneNewsNow.com:

"Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace
restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our
denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell
you what the newsmakers are saying....

At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust
to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so
much of the "mainstream" media."

(source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/about.php)

2)  The contrast between the content of the actual peer-reviewed
article and that of the popular press piece purporting to summarize
it.  Here are the title and abstract of the peer-reviewed article:

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Keywords
climate trend • troposphere • observations

Abstract
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate
of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with
the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the
satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in
disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5
km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above
8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These
conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based
on essentially the same data. Copyright (c) 2007 Royal Meteorological
Society"

(source: International Journal of Climatology online,
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

Note that a) the research compares climate models' predicted
temperatures to the observed record in low- and high-altitude layers
of the atmosphere in the tropics (where temperatures are generally
predicted to increase least), and b) no cause of temperature increases
(either human or solar) is mentioned in the title, abstract, or
keywords.  (These may be discussed in the full article, which I
haven't accessed as it's behind a paywall.)

3)  Solar activity's role in global temperature has been evaluated in
many other peer-reviewed scientific publications, and while it has
been found to have a definite influence, it appears not to be great
enough to explain recent observed increases in global temperature,
particularly within recent decades.

(See, for example,
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/)

4)  One of the authors (Christy) of the study summarized in the
earlier email has publicly stated that he believes it is
'scientifcally inconceivable' that human activity has not changed 'the
natural course of climate,' and is skeptical only of the degree of
warming that other scientists have forecast.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy)

Another author (Singer), the only one quoted in the popular summary
from the earlier email, is on record as being skeptical not only of
the connection between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, but also
of other scientifically well-documented links between CFCs and ozone
depletion, UV radiation and skin cancer, and tobacco smoke and lung
cancer.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer)

In light of the foregoing points, my opinion (as a Ph.D. scientist
with background in global carbon cycles) is that the popular article
from the earlier email was an extremely poor and biased summary of a
single piece of research that in itself contains nothing to challenge
the established and growing scientific consensus that human activity
is playing a very real and large role in global climate change.

Wylie Harris


On 12/11/07, TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> Certainly there are two sides to it. Here's mine.
>
> documented evidence on the corruption of S. Fred Singer.
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
>
> 1993 and 1994 were busy moments in the life of S. Fred Singer. During this
> period of time Singer was using offices  provided by Sun Myung Moon
> ("moonies") moving his "Science and Environmental Policy Project" ("SEPP")
> to George Mason University -- Institute for Human Studies, orchestrating
> the "Heidelberg Appeal" to counter the Union of Concerned Scientists'
> "Appeal to Humanity", organizing two corrupt science reports published by
> Alexis de Tocqueville Institution attacking the EPA, participating in the
> Tobacco Institute "Whitecoats Project", and co-hosting two fraudulent
> science gatherings.
>
> One of these science gatherings called "Scientific Integrity in the Public
> Policy Process", was co-sponsored by International Center for Scientific
> Ecology ("ICSE") and SEPP, both which were S. Fred Singer front
> organizations, held May 24-25th, 1993, at the Madison Hotel in Washington,
> D.C.
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
> -------------------
>
> Much documentation here on Singer's work for big tobacco and his
> connections to right wing moneymen like Richard Mellon Scaife and Sun Myung
> Moon.
> entire article at http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
>
> also http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65
>
>
> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>
> On 12/11/2007 at 7:12 PM Ken Hargesheimer wrote:
>
> >Study says humans not heating up the planet
> >  Jim Brown
> >OneNewsNow.com
> >December 11, 2007
> >
> >
> >  A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President Al
> >Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human
> >activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."
> >  The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of
> >Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia --
> >finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last
> >30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is
> >published in the December issue of the International Journal of
> >Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of the
> >United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> >  Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the
> >University of Virginia -- and president of the Science and Environmental
> >Policy Project -- says he is "fairly" sure that the current warming trend
> >is due to changes in the activities of the sun. "The sun is constantly
> >active, emitting particle streams that carry magnetic fields; and they in
> >turn have an influence on the climate of the earth," he says.
> >  Singer says he and other global warming skeptics have grown accustomed
> >to claims that they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. "Of course
> >that's not only untrue, but it's completely immaterial," says Singer. "In
> >other words, we are using the data that is furnished by the IPCC. They are
> >published, we use only published work. What we are basically doing is to
> >make a comparison of model results and observations."
> >  The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and
> >therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless
> >-- but very costly."
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it
> >now.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Livingontheland mailing list
> >Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>