(Here's another response by me to the Feb, 2011, Scientific American issue on global warming....)

"I hardly know where to start with how bad this article and research is, and how much guts it took to print it by Sci-Am.  Scientific American's editors do not care about global warming evidence as long as it fits their pre-conceived bias.  The editors definitely had their blinders on.  Julian Sachs and his photo-shoot friend Myhrvold are trying to put over another blanket of stupidity on global warming.  They think that by using a ten-foot tube to get a six-foot core sample out of an equatorial heat island that their data will not be biased.  The reason that they chose, in my opinion, equatorial heat islands is that there were no comparable mountain regions in the 5 - 10 latitudes to compare against.  If you only measure equatorial heat islands, you will only get increased, biased, temperature effects, no matter what D/H algae lipid levels are measured.  The research is biased before it even starts.  I commend the authors that they do give some credence to solar activity but their heart isn't in it.  The following research is true core drilling.

In 1983, Denmark's Willi Dansgaard and Switzerland's Hans Oeschger brought up two ice cores from deep holes in the Greenland Ice sheet, each core one mile down and one mile apart.  Each core represented 250,000 years of the Earth's layered climate history.  No such long-term climate history had ever before been available.  They laid the cores side by side.  They were astounded to find a smaller, moderate, and persistent temperature cycle superimposed on the big, ice age, climate swings.  The smaller cycle was 2500 years.  They wrote a report in 1984 linking that cycle, unerringly, to the cycles of the sun.  They dismissed volcanoes as a causal factor because there is no such cycle in volcanic activity.  They noted that the cycle shifts were abrupt, sometimes gaining half of the eventual temperature change in only a decade or so. (W. Dansgaard et al., "North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores," 288-98).  They wrote:

     "Since the solar radiation is the only important input of energy to the climatic system, it is most obvious to seek an explanation in solar processes."

At first, some detractors contended that the cycle might be driven by changes in the winds and ocean currents that distribute the sun's heat around the globe.  However, they couldn't find any internal cause for the sudden, long-term shifts from warm to cold and back again.  And the cycle was certainly before CO2 became an issue on this planet.

The authors describe data from "colleagues" that they want to correlate with.  That means that they want to find facts that don't rock the boat on global warming.  The author's research is doomed from the beginning.  It isn't true, unbiased research.  It is research trying to promote global warming from the get-go.  Their shifting band of rain will change and change again.  It has nothing to do with man-made global warming.  It's the Sun, Stupid!

(I now think SciAm's global warming articles are written by 5-year olds)

"Bull-Pucky!  Another attempt by the editors of Sci-Am to blame any climate change on man.  When will the editors of Sci-Am get serious?  At least they admit that, "It hasn't been an easy question to answer", which is an admission they haven't wanted to make in past issues of Sci-Am.  All they offer is daily records of rainfall, snowfall and sleet between 1951 and 1999.  Bang, Boys, that's only 48 years of record keeping.  Most of the little-people alarmists only want to retrace global temperatures back to 1000 CE because they are afraid to go back any farther.  BUT, we can objectively calibrate climate change as far back as the Egyptians.  It is easy to use C-14 to measure tree rings for dating and eyes to measure the width of the same rings.  We can establish these facts:

A.  Egyptian Cooling       -   750 - 450 BCE
B.  Roman Warming          -   200 BCE - 600 CE
C.  Dark Ages Cooling      -   440 CE - 900 CE
D.  Medieval Warming       -   900 CE - 1300 CE
E.  Little Ice Age Cooling -  1300 CE - 1900 CE
F.  Modern Warming         -  1900 CE - present

It is easy to see, even by the purposely blind editors of Sci-Am, that the earth has gone through many warmings and coolings and there weren't enough humans around for most of the time to make a difference to the climate.  The editors quote their silly 48 years of record keeping as if they didn't have a brain.  The editors fawn over the IPCC's future wacked-out predictions of dire flooding, sea-rising, and global warming as if it was a fact.  It is time to get off the global warming bandwagon and become educated.  It's the Sun, Stupid!

Dear liberal, non-thinking, Scientific American editors:

I get so tired of your constant political non-science, especially in the March, 2010 issue.   Jeffrey Sachs can’t seem to understand the climate debate log jam…….Stan Wullschleger and Maya Strahl’s article on climate change:  a controlled experiment, is replete with “could’s” and “maybe’s” and “what-if’s” and many fantastic predictions for the future.  It is hard to know where to start with you idiots.  That’s right, IDIOTS!  If you weren’t so political in your views you could print the reasons why there is a climate debate log jam.  But, alas, you are so far left-wing that you can’t see the forest for the trees.  You are ingenuous, hypocritical and downright liars.  There is more methane from termites than there is from humans,  the sea levels have not changed an iota, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas and NOBODY seems to want to talk about it, and volcanoes produce most of the carbon dioxide on earth.  Our Sun is the biggest weather predictor.  The amount of sunspots or the lack thereof makes our Earth warmer or colder……as if you IDIOTS haven’t noticed!  Greenland was much warmer 1000 years ago……hard data from ice cores.  Wullschleger noted several times how more carbon dioxide makes trees and plants grow more and guess what, the more they grow, the more we get oxygen from them.  Isn’t that what we want?  And again, haven’t you noticed that about every 20,000 years Earth goes into an ice age and then warms up and then goes back into an ice age.  20,000 years ago humans were numerically not enough on Earth to influence anything but the lifespan of a fly.  Our current non-warming has nothing to do with the combustion engine nor bovine flatulence but it has a lot to do with how idiotic you appear.  Scientific American used to be known for trusted science but you idiots have thrown that down the drain.

Richard Hauley DMD

slcdentist@aol.com 

To the Editors of Scientific American:

"THERE IS SOMETHING FASCINATING ABOUT SCIENCE.  ONE GETS SUCH WHOLESALE RETURNS OF CONJECTURE OUT OF SUCH A TRIFLING INVESTMNET OF FACT" - Mark Twain

In response to your December, 2007 editorial, indeed, talk is cheap!  The inconvenient truth is that the editors of Scientific American should change the name of the magazine to Political Science American.  For the past 15 years you have ignored true science and have gone the way of politics, innuendo, half truths and political bigotry.  Yes, global warming is happening but you steadfastly entrench yoursleves in spewing the mantra that man is the cause.  Man is not the cause, and you refuse to publish all the great science on how the mean solar radiation from the sun is increasing.  When the sun increases its sunspots, you get increased global warming.  Never since recorded time has the sun increased its sunspots as much as the last century.  However, since 1880, the mean temperature has only increased 1/2 degree Celsius, from the data at giss.nasa.gov.  And Antarctica in the same time frame has become colder from the same data.  Carbon dioxide is the product of increased temperature, not the other way around.  Humans produce less than 5% of the carbon dioxide.  Volcanoes and decaying plants produce most of the carbon dioxide on the earth.  Termintes produce more methane than humans than humans produce carbon dioxide and methane is definitely a more potent greehouse gas than carbon dioxide.  The total weight of termintes exceeds the total weight of all humans on the earth.  But, carbon dioxide is irrelevant!  Water vapor and its increasing amount in the atmosphere is the largest greenhouse gas on this earth.  As the sun increases its temperature, water vapor from the oceans is increased, and water vapor has the greatest effect on our weather and the global warming porblem.  You cry that the ice is melting and that New York City will be inundated due to the rising sea levels.  The biggest predictor from solid science that I have found is that the sea level will rise no more than 1/2 inch in 100 years!  There is simply too much ocean water on earth to be affected by ice melt.  New Yorkers would disagree with you on global warming after the 15 feet of snowfall they received last winter.  The biggest problem with melting ice is the possible change to the system of ocean currents that bring warmth to Europe.  The continued melting could bring a cold snap to the northern latitudes and throw us into the reverse problem, as described in the November Scientific American of 2004.  And Greenland was much warmer 1000 years ago than now and we know that from the ice cores that have been taken.  The measures you urge has little basis in fact or science.  Groups with other agendas are hiding behind this global warming movement that appears high-minded.  It is time for you to stop spewing hot air, get back to good science or change the name of your magazine.  INDEED, TALK IS CHEAP!

(I have added comments to Scientific American Magazine for years, always making sure that my information was correct.  In the March, 2012, Scientific American, they published a question and answer editorial about Michael Mann, the idiot Phd that developed the now-infamous "Hockey Stick" graph.  I placed my comment, they took it down;  I placed it a second time, they took it down.  Below is the comment in its entirety.  Watch out for Scientific American....they have an agenda!)

"This editorial article has less to do with Michael Mann but more with the Scientific American editors.  Michael Mann has his own self-caused problems and has suffered the backlash of many people due to his stupidity.  The problem with the Scientific American editors is their political bent.  I have repeatedly suggested to them that they should remove the word "Scientific" from their magazine.  They are ingenuous, hypocritical and downright liars in many of their published articles.  Their "interview" with Michael Mann was so biased that we can't possibly call it newsworthy.  SciAm surely knows that the "hockey stick" graph was totally debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick:  "Corrections to the Mann, et al., "Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series, 1998", ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 14(2003) 751-71).  The Michael Mann team had to publish "a correction of error" in the journal NATURE on July 1, 2004.  Mann's "hockey stick" relies on trees from non-disclosed urban heat islands and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample by 390 percent.  Mann's results were flawed due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation, obsolete data and geographical location errors.  Mann's amelus with his lying buddy, Phil Jones, were not taken out of context.  They got caught red-handed and he protests that his emails shouldn't have been hacked.  Too bad, baby!  Mann is a fraud and a liar.  It is bad enough that the emails showed "scientists" plotting to cherry-pick data, subvert peer review, bully editors and evade freedom of information requests.  Mann tries to tell us that the National Academy of Science "affirmed" his findings in their 2006 report.  That is a BIG FAT LIE!  The 2006 NAS report said they couldn't establish the "hockey stick" from Mann's work.  The NAS reaffirmed the Little Ice Age which Mann swept from history along with the preceding Medieval Warm Period.  The NAS panel specifically repudiated 3/4's of Mann's record, specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of downplaying historical uncertainties.  The IPCC dropped the "hockey stick" in 2007.  Mann's stupidity and deception can be described forever.

The problem is Scientific American.  They COULD have published Mann's hacked emails.  All of them are on the internet.  They COULD have been fair on both sides.  But, no, Scientific American is so biased that they look less "Scientific" with each issue.  Politics and print bias has no place in science.  Scientific American has lost their honor long ago.  For myself, I am sick and tired of their bias.  Ice cores and history shows us that it's the Sun, Stupid!