An extraordinary thing happened Monday. The New York Times, at least for a day, jumped off the liberal hype machine on global warming. It published an article that said in the gentlest of ways: Al Gore might be 100 percent wrong.
The Times handled this operation delicately by injecting quotes supportive of Gore, and, by smoothing the edge off the criticisms. But the story was written for one reasonâ€”the liberal media is growing more concerned it is getting played by Gore & Co. in what amounts to one of the biggest scams of all time.
Because I'm not a person who likes or knows much about science, I'm not going to debate anyone about the intricacies of "climate change." My non-scientific common sense detector tells me that it makes a lot more sense that variations in the sun's activities is the main driver in climate change rather than man's output.
In the UK documentary last week, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," that is exactly what scientists interviewed on the documentary believe. The graphs of climate change over the years much more closely mirror sun spot activity than they do CO2 output. If CO2 is the true driver of climate, why did temperatures drop from 1940 until 1975 as industrial output soared?
Scientist Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, was showcased in the New York Times story and he also agrees that Gore's central premise about man causing climate change is wrong.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.Sean Hannity interviewed Easterbrook last evening and the retired professor said his models show that between 2007 and 2010 we will enter a period of global cooling (video above).
"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Dr. Easterbrook told the group. "And I'm not a Republican."
Proving Gore wrong is fun, but redundant. What's really at stake is decision-making in the next several years. Will we rush over the cliff and destroy western economies on the basis of a politically driven theory that might be 100 percent wrong? Or will we listen to people like Easterbrook?