Krugman and Fish Wrapper Ignore Realities Of Global Warming Debate

Paul Krugman of the New York Times is usually so far off the deep end that it's not worth wasting breath on him. However, his column (originally published as a pay-per-view column on the Times site on 2/23) on global warming and California gives a good example of a method liberals use to attempt to stifle any attempt to disagree with them.

The article is about California, and how several policies that it has in place has caused a decrease in per capita energy consumption. Knowing Krugman and how he tends to twist facts to suit his point of view, I'm sure there are a number of factual errors in the piece, but I haven't had time to research them yet.

What stood out to me immediately upon reading the article was the claims he made at the beginning.

The factual debate about whether global warming is real is over, or at least it should be. The question now is what to do about it.

Sure the earth's temperature has gotten warmer. That's not up for dispute. What is disputable is that it is human caused and not part of a standard warming cycle that the earth has experienced many times in the past. However, as usual, Paul doesn't like to let the facts get in the way of his opinion.

But wait, it gets even better.

Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it doesn't matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible.

Man, doesn't the arrogance just hit you like a truck? The sad thing is, he has nothing to be arrogant about. He's so far off base, it's sad. But this is a typical tactic by liberals; try to make it sound like there is no debate about an issue. Why? Simple - they know they can't win their argument by logic, so they try initimidation.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be working with global warming. As I've documented here and here, a number of scientists with very impeccable credentials have begun to speak out on the farce of global warming. Here are some new instances of scientists speaking out that are worth noting.

Joseph Conklin, a meteorologist with expertise in the analysis of surface weather observations, has launched a website to help promote alternative scientific views on climate change. He believes these views have been overshadowed and even wrongly criticized by sensationalist news stories.

Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the co-chair of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) explains how water rising to the level of Gore's claims would take thousands of years.

If the land ice on Greenland were to melt completely, the sea levels could rise six or seven meters again, but the current scientific models indicate it will take thousands of years. Both land and sea ice around Greenland are melting. (Sea ice is melting, but it doesn't raise sea levels because it's already in the water.)

"It would take centuries, if not millennia, to get a four to six meter rise" in sea levels, she said. Global temperatures would have to be raised by 1.9 to 4.6 degrees Celsius and be kept that way for several centuries, she added.

VK Raina, a leading glaciologist in India, believes that the global warming alarmism is bunk and is based on poor data.

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

Nigel Calder, the former editor of the British magazine New Scientist had a few choice words about the hype and junk science behind the global warming machine.

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Timothy Ball, a Canadian scientist with impeccable professional credentials (I have mentioned him here before) makes some great points about what the liberals are really thinking.

As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore (gee, that sounds like Mr Krugman, doesn't it?). They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they’ve reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.

[...]

...the (IPCC) report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.

They couldn’t do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public’s back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that’s the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, “If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control.” Unfortunately, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process.

And finally, here is one more report that I'm certain won't get any play in the Dead Fish Wrapper, or the MSM as a whole. As reported by the Daily Telegraph, "Cosmic rays blamed for global warming."

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

So, are these just "dead-enders on the political right"? Or esteemed scientists who, unlike Krugman, know what they're talking about? But, that's to be expected from Krugman, whose philosphy is "if you can't win on the facts, attack the person and obscure the facts."

 

 

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content