As I have been saying and trying to show on this blog since day one, the idea that man-caused global warming, or climate change, or "climate disruption" is and has been an enormous LIE, a terrible, costly, and cruel hoax. We need to continue fighting to convince the dwindling number of people who still believe in the myth of man-caused global warming that they are flat-out wrong. It is past time to put an end to the hoax. Others can do the finger-pointing and play the blame-game. It is just time to put an end to the nonsense. America and our economic survival depends on it.
Peter
Climate Alarmism at the New York Times
07 November 2010 (source)
The New York Times editorial page has been persistent in publishing alarmist editorials on climate change. The latest one appearing shortly before the November elections accused politicians of being in "denial" about climate change. What nonsense! Climate is changing all the time; it has been doing it for millions of years -- without any human intervention. And politicians are simply trying to stay in step with the public.
There is no credible evidence at all that human activities have had any appreciable influence on global climate changes during the last century. While many scientists still believe in a major human contribution, the number of skeptical scientists has been growing steadily as the evidence against AGW [anthropogenic global warming] becomes ever more apparent.
Just ask yourself: what evidence is there to indicate that any warming over the last century is due to human influences? Not even the UN- supported IPCC has been able to point to any solid facts in favor of AGW. The latest science debate revolves around "finger prints" in the climate record. Do the observations of temperature change in the atmosphere show a certain pattern, which is characteristic of greenhouse warming? The answer is a resounding No.
Without any scientific evidence to support AGW, it is wasteful, counterproductive -- and foolish -- to institute regulations that limit the emissions of CO2, restrict the use of energy, and misdirect energy policy into such areas wind farms, solar projects, and biofuels like ethanol. For economic survival, all of these require huge subsidies. which are paid for by citizens twice over: first as taxpayers, then as energy users.
The mid-term elections have pointed up the public skepticism about AGW. Supporters of misguided policies to control emissions of carbon dioxide, through "cap and trade" and fuel standards, went down to defeat almost everywhere. California provided the big exception and now faces an economic disaster.
As reported by Cooler Heads Digest: "... the new Republican majority in the House is largely skeptical of the claim that global warming is a potential crisis and is close to unanimously opposed to cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing measures. Not only is cap-and-trade dead, but there is a good chance that the House next year will move legislation to block or delay the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The question is, can such a measure pass the Democratic-controlled Senate? There is certainly a majority in the Senate for blocking EPA, but sixty votes will be needed. My guess is that there will be more than sixty votes. As EPA regulations start to bite next year, Senators will start to hear complaints from their constituents. And a large number of Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2012 and will want to avoid the fate of so many of their colleagues this year.
The NY Times may be seriously out of step with its own readers, At least that's how I would judge the results of a survey of readers of Scientific American, a magazine that has been just as alarmist about AGW as the Times:
**77% believe that current climate change is caused by natural processes
**68% think we should do nothing about climate change, are powerless to stop it
**90% approve of climate scientists debating the issue in public forums
**83% believe that the UN-IPCC is corrupt, prone to groupthink, and has a political agenda.
The New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers and to the US public in stoking unreasonable fears not based on solid science.
15 comments:
Ah yes, Fred Singer. You'd lambaste the NY Times but Singer is a trustworthy source?! Interesting.
Regardless of your personal opinion of Fred Singer, the large percentage of people opposed to AGW, as evidenced by the Scientific American survey, is overwhelming. The NYT editorial in question seems to credit much of that opposition to Republican politicians success in 'confusing ordinary citizens'.
Are we, us ordinary citizens, confused? And if so, why does the fault lie with our politicians? Why isn't the IPCC at fault for not presenting a more compelling case?
But I don't believe we're confused. Despite attempts to silence any skepticism, we've been able to examine the issue from it's many angles, not solely the one-sided position of the IPCC. That, thanks in large part to the openness of the internet and sites like this one.
The so-called consensus is fast becoming the minority.
The NYT editorial also seems to take issue with those same Republican politicians for avoiding 'debate about solutions to climate change'. Doesn't it make more sense to first debate the problem before attempting to find solutions? Most people are wise enough to realize that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Most of he skeptical opinion that I have run into come from people just like Fred Singer, and are promoted by people who are not scientists.
One cannot get past the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists, those who actually work in the field and have in-depth knowledge of the field, support the idea of AGW.
Critics have a wide array of scientists from other disciplines (engineering, for instance) but only a handful of actual climate scientists, and a handful of scientists with dubious industry connections, such as Fred Singer.
It is not so much that the public is silly or stupid, but very, very few people have the requisite knowledge and/or time to adequately review IPCC material, much less do the actual science to challenge the climate science consensus.
Nor is it terribly surprising that public opinion is easily swayed---we live in a period when there is a good deal of anti-intellectual backlash. AGW appears to be one of these.
Anon~"Most of he skeptical opinion that I have run into come from people just like Fred Singer, and are promoted by people who are not scientists."~
I could say the same thing about most of the alarmist opinion I've heard. Has there been a more vocal advocate for AGW than Al Gore? At least Singer is a scientist.
Anon~"One cannot get past the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists, those who actually work in the field and have in-depth knowledge of the field, support the idea of AGW."~
The climate is an extremely complex and intrinsically unpredictable system. Regardless of how much 'in-depth' knowledge climatologists have gained, there is still a vast amount that remains unknown. The data they've collected thus far is inadequate and incomplete, at best, in understanding and determining future climate events.
Anon~"Critics have a wide array of scientists from other disciplines (engineering, for instance) but only a handful of actual climate scientists, and a handful of scientists with dubious industry connections, such as Fred Singer."~
I believe the IPCC is a highly political and dubious organization. Btw, the chairman holds degrees in engineering and economics.
Anon~"It is not so much that the public is silly or stupid, but very, very few people have the requisite knowledge and/or time to adequately review IPCC material, much less do the actual science to challenge the climate science consensus."~
Do you have any idea how much money has been spent trying to convince the general public of the imminent dangers of AGW? Perhaps it's not a lack of knowledge on our part but a lack of credible evidence on theirs.
There are plenty of knowledgeable people ready and willing to challenge the science. The IPCC, with its' purported claims of a 90% certainty, has yet to agree to a public debate. I would think that should concern you.
Anon~"Nor is it terribly surprising that public opinion is easily swayed---we live in a period when there is a good deal of anti-intellectual backlash. AGW appears to be one of these."~
You say, "public opinion is easily swayed"... does that describe your opinion or mine?
JSG said: I could say the same thing about most of the alarmist opinion I've heard. Has there been a more vocal advocate for AGW than Al Gore? At least Singer is a scientist.
Anon: Fine, I don’t particularly like Gore either. I wish he’d shut the hell up; he is now doing far more harm than good. So, perhaps you should read IPCC reports—done by scientists worldwide. James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al. If the only opinions you are aware of are Pete and Al Gore, then you have not been doing your homework. Who cares what Gore says anyway? Listen to the scientists.
What do you disagree with, the science or Al Gore?
JSG: The climate is an extremely complex and intrinsically unpredictable system. Regardless of how much 'in-depth' knowledge climatologists have gained, there is still a vast amount that remains unknown. The data they've collected thus far is inadequate and incomplete, at best, in understanding and determining future climate events.
Anon: No one says these people know it all. No says oncologists know it all. But they do know a hell of a lot more than you or I or Pete do. So, in the same way we should listen to oncologists if we discover a mass in our lungs, we should probably listen to climate scientists (not Al Gore). If you think you understand the climate better and can prove climate scientists wrong, peer-review your findings, blow them out of the water.
JSG: I believe the IPCC is a highly political and dubious organization.
Anon: Why?
JSG: Btw, the chairman holds degrees in engineering and economics.
Anon: Okay, but he’s the chairman, an administrator, and not one of the scientists in question. And, if you want to start chucking people for degrees, you’d better throw out the majority of Pete’s authorities here on this blog. Do you hold skeptical opinion to the same critique as you do warmist opinion?
JSG: Do you have any idea how much money has been spent trying to convince the general public of the imminent dangers of AGW?
Anon: Point being? If I were a scientists, and I thought I saw a dangerous pattern in a global phenomenon, I might be willing to spend a good deal of money to convince the public of this. And this alone does not mean the science is untrustworthy anyway.
JSG: Perhaps it's not a lack of knowledge on our part but a lack of credible evidence on theirs.
Anon: We lack knowledge, my friend, unless you have done the research and can parse the science yourself. And if I am looking for credible evidence, I would probably listen to the scientists in question.
JSG: There are plenty of knowledgeable people ready and willing to challenge the science.
Anon: No. This is incorrect. There is only a handful of climate scientists—Judith Curry, the Pielkes, Spenser at U of Wisconsin, and a few others—and a bunch of bloggers and a few scientists not in climate science.
JSG: The IPCC, with its' purported claims of a 90% certainty, has yet to agree to a public debate. I would think that should concern you.
Anon: Why should I be concerned? First of all, science is not a matter of “debate.” Second, the debate is raging on the net. Third, who would be the moderator of such a debate? You, Pete, and I? We are not up to the challenge. None of us know enough. Forth, the denialists tend to misinterpret and misrepresent. Look at this very blog.
The “debate” needs to be done within the expert community, the people who actually know how to judge the science.
JSG: You say, "public opinion is easily swayed"... does that describe your opinion or mine?
Anon: You. I personally don’t know if AGW is real or not. I am not convinced there is any sort of peril at all, but I am willing to believe in the ability of science in this scientific age. I would leave the debate up to the scientists. You and I and Pete should step out of the way.
JSG said: I could say the same thing about most of the alarmist opinion I've heard. Has there been a more vocal advocate for AGW than Al Gore? At least Singer is a scientist.
Anon: Fine, I don’t particularly like Gore either. I wish he’d shut the hell up; he is now doing far more harm than good. So, perhaps you should read IPCC reports—done by scientists worldwide. James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al. If the only opinions you are aware of are Pete and Al Gore, then you have not been doing your homework. Who cares what Gore says anyway? Listen to the scientists.
What do you disagree with, the science or Al Gore?
JSG: The climate is an extremely complex and intrinsically unpredictable system. Regardless of how much 'in-depth' knowledge climatologists have gained, there is still a vast amount that remains unknown. The data they've collected thus far is inadequate and incomplete, at best, in understanding and determining future climate events.
Anon: No one says these people know it all. No says oncologists know it all. But they do know a hell of a lot more than you or I or Pete do. So, in the same way we should listen to oncologists if we discover a mass in our lungs, we should probably listen to climate scientists (not Al Gore). If you think you understand the climate better and can prove climate scientists wrong, peer-review your findings, blow them out of the water.
JSG: I believe the IPCC is a highly political and dubious organization.
Anon: Why?
JSG: Btw, the chairman holds degrees in engineering and economics.
Anon: Okay, but he’s the chairman, an administrator, and not one of the scientists in question. And, if you want to start chucking people for degrees, you’d better throw out the majority of Pete’s authorities here on this blog. Do you hold skeptical opinion to the same critique as you do warmist opinion?
JSG: Do you have any idea how much money has been spent trying to convince the general public of the imminent dangers of AGW?
Anon: Point being? If I were a scientists, and I thought I saw a dangerous pattern in a global phenomenon, I might be willing to spend a good deal of money to convince the public of this.
JSG said: I could say the same thing about most of the alarmist opinion I've heard. Has there been a more vocal advocate for AGW than Al Gore? At least Singer is a scientist.
Anon: Fine, I don’t particularly like Gore either. I wish he’d shut the hell up; he is now doing far more harm than good. So, perhaps you should read IPCC reports—done by scientists worldwide. James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al. If the only opinions you are aware of are Pete and Al Gore, then you have not been doing your homework. Who cares what Gore says anyway? Listen to the scientists.
What do you disagree with, the science or Al Gore?
JSG: The climate is an extremely complex and intrinsically unpredictable system. Regardless of how much 'in-depth' knowledge climatologists have gained, there is still a vast amount that remains unknown. The data they've collected thus far is inadequate and incomplete, at best, in understanding and determining future climate events.
Anon: No one says these people know it all. No says oncologists know it all. But they do know a hell of a lot more than you or I or Pete do. So, in the same way we should listen to oncologists if we discover a mass in our lungs, we should probably listen to climate scientists (not Al Gore). If you think you understand the climate better and can prove climate scientists wrong, peer-review your findings, blow them out of the water.
JSG: I believe the IPCC is a highly political and dubious organization.
Anon: Why?
JSG: Btw, the chairman holds degrees in engineering and economics.
Anon: Okay, but he’s the chairman, an administrator, and not one of the scientists in question. And, if you want to start chucking people for degrees, you’d better throw out the majority of Pete’s authorities here on this blog. Do you hold skeptical opinion to the same critique as you do warmist opinion?
JSG: Do you have any idea how much money has been spent trying to convince the general public of the imminent dangers of AGW?
Anon: Point being? If I were a scientists, and I thought I saw a dangerous pattern in a global phenomenon, I might be willing to spend a good deal of money to convince the public of this.
JSG: Perhaps it's not a lack of knowledge on our part but a lack of credible evidence on theirs.
Anon: We lack knowledge, my friend, unless you have done the research and can parse the science yourself. And if I am looking for credible evidence, I would probably listen to the scientists in question.
JSG: There are plenty of knowledgeable people ready and willing to challenge the science.
Anon: No. This is incorrect. There is only a handful of climate scientists—Judith Curry, the Pielkes, Spenser at U of Wisconsin, and a few others—and a bunch of bloggers and a few scientists not in climate science.
JSG: The IPCC, with its' purported claims of a 90% certainty, has yet to agree to a public debate. I would think that should concern you.
Anon: Why should I be concerned? First of all, science is not a matter of “debate.” Second, the debate is raging on the net. Third, who would be the moderator of such a debate? You, Pete, and I? We are not up to the challenge. None of us know enough. Forth, the denialists tend to misinterpret and misrepresent. Look at this very blog.
The “debate” needs to be done within the expert community, the people who actually know how to judge the science.
JSG: You say, "public opinion is easily swayed"... does that describe your opinion or mine?
Anon: You. I personally don’t know if AGW is real or not. I am not convinced there is any sort of peril at all, but I am willing to believe in the ability of science in this scientific age. I would leave the debate up to the scientists. You and I and Pete should step out of the way.
JSG: Perhaps it's not a lack of knowledge on our part but a lack of credible evidence on theirs.
Anon: We lack knowledge, my friend, unless you have done the research and can parse the science yourself. And if I am looking for credible evidence, I would probably listen to the scientists in question.
JSG: There are plenty of knowledgeable people ready and willing to challenge the science.
Anon: No. This is incorrect. There is only a handful of climate scientists—Judith Curry, the Pielkes, Spenser at U of Wisconsin, and a few others—and a bunch of bloggers and a few scientists not in climate science.
JSG: The IPCC, with its' purported claims of a 90% certainty, has yet to agree to a public debate. I would think that should concern you.
Anon: Why should I be concerned? First of all, science is not a matter of “debate.” Second, the debate is raging on the net. Third, who would be the moderator of such a debate? You, Pete, and I? We are not up to the challenge. None of us know enough. Forth, the denialists tend to misinterpret and misrepresent. Look at this very blog.
The “debate” needs to be done within the expert community, the people who actually know how to judge the science.
JSG: You say, "public opinion is easily swayed"... does that describe your opinion or mine?
Anon: You. I personally don’t know if AGW is real or not. I am not convinced there is any sort of peril at all, but I am willing to believe in the ability of science in this scientific age. I would leave the debate up to the scientists. You and I and Pete should step out of the way.
JSG: Perhaps it's not a lack of knowledge on our part but a lack of credible evidence on theirs.
Anon: We lack knowledge, my friend, unless you have done the research and can parse the science yourself. And if I am looking for credible evidence, I would probably listen to the scientists in question.
JSG: There are plenty of knowledgeable people ready and willing to challenge the science.
Anon: No. This is incorrect. There is only a handful of climate scientists—Judith Curry, the Pielkes, Spenser at U of Wisconsin, and a few others—and a bunch of bloggers and a few scientists not in climate science.
JSG: The IPCC, with its' purported claims of a 90% certainty, has yet to agree to a public debate. I would think that should concern you.
Anon: Why should I be concerned? First of all, science is not a matter of “debate.” Second, the debate is raging on the net. Third, who would be the moderator of such a debate? You, Pete, and I? We are not up to the challenge. None of us know enough. Forth, the denialists tend to misinterpret and misrepresent. Look at this very blog.
The “debate” needs to be done within the expert community, the people who actually know how to judge the science.
JSG: You say, "public opinion is easily swayed"... does that describe your opinion or mine?
Anon: You. I personally don’t know if AGW is real or not. I am not convinced there is any sort of peril at all, but I am willing to believe in the ability of science in this scientific age. I would leave the debate up to the scientists. You and I and Pete should step out of the way.
JSG: Perhaps it's not a lack of knowledge on our part but a lack of credible evidence on theirs.
Anon: We lack knowledge, my friend, unless you have done the research and can parse the science yourself. And if I am looking for credible evidence, I would probably listen to the scientists in question.
JSG: There are plenty of knowledgeable people ready and willing to challenge the science.
Anon: No. This is incorrect. There is only a handful of climate scientists—Judith Curry, the Pielkes, Spenser at U of Wisconsin, and a few others—and a bunch of bloggers and a few scientists not in climate science.
JSG: The IPCC, with its' purported claims of a 90% certainty, has yet to agree to a public debate. I would think that should concern you.
Anon: Why should I be concerned? First of all, science is not a matter of “debate.” Second, the debate is raging on the net. Third, who would be the moderator of such a debate? You, Pete, and I? We are not up to the challenge. None of us know enough. Forth, the denialists tend to misinterpret and misrepresent. Look at this very blog.
The “debate” needs to be done within the expert community, the people who actually know how to judge the science.
JSG: You say, "public opinion is easily swayed"... does that describe your opinion or mine?
Anon: You and all of us, but more you. I personally don’t know if AGW is real or not. I am not convinced there is any sort of peril at all, but I am willing to believe in the ability of science in this scientific age. I would leave the debate up to the scientists. You and I and Pete should step out of the way.
Anon ~ "Who cares what Gore says anyway?"
JSG ~ Who cares? Besides the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, there's the Senates' Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, the Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
He's also been a speaker at the United Nations, the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Democratic National Convention, National Sierra Club Convention, and Harvard to name just a few. Plus he's won an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy.
You say, "Listen to the scientists." But Climate Change is as much a political issue as it is scientific, if not more so.
Anon ~ "So, in the same way we should listen to oncologists if we discover a mass in our lungs, we should probably listen to climate scientists (not Al Gore)."
JSG ~ There is always a degree of uncertainty in science. But the IPCC claims a high level of certainty and understanding of the climate system that is not supported by the studies, many of which are untested and not capable of being falsified. Their future projections of climate are based on climate model simulations that constantly need adjusting and don't agree with real world observations.
Using your analogy, it would be comparable to an oncologist wanting to remove a lung, not because there is evidence of a cancerous mass, but because some simulated model, fed erroneous data, has projected such a mass will form at some future date.
Anon ~ "Do you hold skeptical opinion to the same critique as you do warmist opinion?"
JSG ~ I have nothing to prove and no personal agenda to satisfy. The only 'side' I'm on is in discovering the truth. Yes, I've read the IPCC reports and much of the science and reports on both side of the issue since the last conference. And my skepticism has only deepened.
Anon ~ "Who cares what Gore says anyway?"
JSG ~ Who cares? Besides the Nobel Peace Prize Committe, there's the Senates' Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, the Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
He's also been a speaker at the United Nations, the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Democratic National Convention, National Sierra Club Convention, and Harvard to name just a few. Plus he's won an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy.
You say, "Listen to the scientists." But Climate Change is as much a political issue as it is scientific, if not more so.
Anon ~ "So, in the same way we should listen to oncologists if we discover a mass in our lungs, we should probably listen to climate scientists (not Al Gore)."
JSG ~ There is always a degree of uncertainty in science. But the IPCC claims a high level of certainty and understanding of the climate system that is not supported by the studies, many of which are untested and not capable of being falsified. Their future projections of climate are based on climate model simulations that constantly need adjusting and don't agree with real world observations.
Using your analogy, it would be comparable to an oncologist wanting to remove a lung, not because there is evidence of a cancerous mass, but because some simulated model, fed erroneous data, has projected such a mass will form at some future date.
Anon ~ "Do you hold skeptical opinion to the same critique as you do warmist opinion?"
JSG ~ I have nothing to prove and no personal agenda to satisfy. The only 'side' I'm on is in discovering the truth. Yes, I've read the IPCC reports and much of the science and reports on both side of the issue since the last conference. And my skepticism has only deepened.
Hmmmm...Actually I think my analogy would go more like this:
You see your oncologist because you have developed a cough and the doctor says, "You have a small mass in your lungs that is very likely cancer. It is not deadly now but, untreated, it will be."
How does the doctor know? Because science has taught him or her that under certain conditions, the lung will grow a cancer and it will be very dangerous to the patient. Are oncologists always right? Do they know exactly what to do? Of course not. But they are the experts, and I will bet anything I have that if you, my friend, developed a mass in your lung that you would not run to Pete's Place for science information or blame a politician for the state of cancer. That is a much more apt analogy.
By the way, there is nothing to suggest that the IPCC et al data is flawed--only in the blogosphere and a few scientists do you have any challenge. IF it is a political issue, it is on the side of the denialists.
And I meant the "Who cares what Gore says" more or less rhetorically--although it does occur to me that if people like the Nobel prize committee find merit in Gore's statements, probably we should too (I know, I know, it's a poltical award [which is b.s. rational however]).
Post a Comment