Print 75 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Sep 13 at 8:48 PM

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was the worst drought in US history
A primary tenet of global warming alarmism is invalidated.

A recurring theme in my past columns is that a moderate degree of global warming is likely to be beneficial to mankind. Al Gore, on the other hand, says climate change is already causing catastrophic results. In testimony before Congress last March, he stated, "droughts are [already] becoming longer and more intense". But the findings of a group of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers say otherwise.

The scientists, led by Gemma Narisma, examined 100 years of global rainfall data. Using sophisticated wavelet analysis methods, they identified 30 cases of severe droughts lasting 10 or more years. The results showed the number of droughts dropping sharply over time. From 1900-1920, seven droughts, another seven from from 1920-1940, and eight from 1940-1960. But after that, the picture changes. In the period 1960-1980, only five droughts were recorded, and from 1980-2000 (the warmest period of all), only three occurred. Furthermore, of the most severe droughts, none began in the last 30 years..

The researchers found another surprising result. Changes in rainfall levels are not only much more common than previously thought, but they tend to occur in a very abrupt, unexplained manner. More proof that climate change is part of nature.

The work represents the first systematic survey of abrupt climate changes that have occurred in recent history. Professor Johnathan Foley, who also participated in the research, says the study is important, "because previous work largely focused on ancient climates or theoretical changes in future climates".

The findings are published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Michael, time to pull your head out.
By GeorgeOrwell on 9/13/2007 1:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Several of the authors on this website write as if they were heavily funded by big oil. Intelligent readers will draw their own conclusions.

The oil companies, similar to the tobacco companies, know what they're responsible for doing. Global warming is the smallest part of what's really happened, the part that can be shared with the public without causing a panic.

You will not read about big oil's massive pollution of water tables on this site. You will not read about the new Trans-American oil pipeline being built from Canada across the Midwest to the massive oil processing center in Illinois. You will not read about the pollution that this pipeline will cause. Just like there is almost zero information on the pollution big oil has caused in Alaska and Canada.

The anti-global warming efforts by big oil are very similar to how the tobacco industry defended their industry. There are still many people who do not believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer. We will see similar disbelief in the causes of global warming, although the evidence, like cigarettes, is all around you and right in front of your face.

It is very easy to buy some scientists and have them produce reports that support a viewpoint. The tobacco industry was found to be massively guilty of this sort of crookedness. It should be no surprise that the oil industry is doing the same thing, buying scientists to produce reports and studies that global warming doesn't exist, isn't caused by man, etc.

Intelligent readers will broaden their reading beyond this website and draw their own conclusions.

As an aside, one might comment that when we look at the problems in America, and to some extent in the world, many of them come from allowing "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom to lie".

Be seeing you.

By Schrag4 on 9/13/2007 10:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Several of the authors on this website write as if they were heavily funded by big oil. Intelligent readers will draw their own conclusions."

Shouldn't this just come out and say 'If you agree with me then you are intelligent, otherwise your're not.'? Nice...

"It is very easy to buy some scientists and have them produce reports that support a viewpoint."

So, you're telling me not to listen to ANY scientists, because they may or may not have been bought. Yeah, that really helps your argument...

"As an aside, one might comment that when we look at the problems in America, and to some extent in the world, many of them come from allowing "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom to lie"."

You're right. None of the alarmist environmentalists would every lie to us to get us to change our ways. Ever. Or was your point that you don't want freedom of speech? Or is it ok to lie if you get someone to start doing what you think is the right thing?

Sorry for all the sarcasm, but your whole post was just a bunch of attacks against this site, which isn't debate and isn't helpful. You've persuaded nobody of anything. Very nicely done. Give us some counterpoints, stats, SOMETHING!

Also, isn't a pipeline the most efficient and least likely to pollute means of transporting oil (and other products)? In other words, isn't less oil burned if pipelines are used rather than trucking it around? It seems to me that opposing pipelines is asking for increased CO2 output. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

RE: Michael, time to pull your head out.
By dluther on 9/13/2007 1:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
Several of the authors on this website write as if they were heavily funded by big oil. Intelligent readers will draw their own conclusions.

If it were that simple, it would be almost understandable.

However, it appears that Michael Asher has fallen to a far more powerful force than money: pride.

Several conservative news sources have started using Michael Asher's blog here at DailyTech as a source for furthering AGW skepticism, including one of my US Senators -- Jim Inhofe.

It doesn't matter to these people that Michael Asher isn't a climatologist, or that he presents "evidence" from sources unrelated to climatology. For instance, a recent "news article" by Asher ( states that "Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints". However, this survey was done by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, a surgeon specializing endocrinology. Now, you may ask yourself what does endocrine surgery have to do with climatology, and if you come up with an answer, then you're doing a lot better than I am. However, I think that if a climatologist were to take exception to Dr. Schulte's research in the field of endocrinology, the conversation would be vastly different and very well justified. But since it's a detraction from anthropogenic global warming, it is accepted.

Michael Asher is a very well-spoken, intelligent person, with a keen ability to defend his positions with links to supporting research, and without stooping to name-calling.

However, I simply cannot agree with his positions or conclusions, because the evidence he continues to present doesn't come from reliable sources.

By GeorgeOrwell on 9/13/2007 7:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
The first step in helping to save our planet is not coming up with some indisputable grand unified theory of global temperature.

Though some people would have you believe that without such a theory, proven by at least 99.999% of all scientists on a scale from quantum mechanics to planetary ecology, progress is impossible.

These people are playing nothing more than the "divide and conquer" game. The division itself achieves the goal -- lack of ability to combat the big oil agenda.

To avoid being divided on an issue that is critical to the survival of this world, we must rely on common sense, wisdom, and morals.

Common sense tells us there are consequences for every action.

Wisdom tells us that science often takes decades, if not centuries, to really understand these consequences.

Wisdom also tells us that many scientific opinions that try to tell us that something obviously dangerous -- i.e. smoking -- is completely safe, are paid for by those who benefit from this deception.

And morality tells us that given the choice to do right by the world or to do wrong by the world, that it is our imperative to do right.

Hence, we do not need to pay attention to the cock fight that is pretending to establish truth through some one-sided presentation of so-called "scientific" research.

As governments, industry and individuals the world over make choices to save the world, the truth becomes obvious. And likewise the falsity of this blog becomes readily apparent to all.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki