From the Best of the Web: In the first five paragraphs of a recent dispatch from
Stockholm, the Associated Press--in our estimation unwittingly, for the most
part--exposes the deep corruption of the "global warming" enterprise:
Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are
struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past
15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.
Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are
deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next
week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate skeptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to
cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are cooking the planet by
burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests.
The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater
certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent
lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep
into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.
"I think to not address it would be a problem because then you
basically have the denialists saying, 'Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,' "
said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned
Scientists.
The first paragraph describes a scientific
problem: a theory that has been put to an empirical test and found wanting. In
the fourth paragraph, we get a passing discussion of alternative hypotheses. But
this is presented as fundamentally a problem of political communication or
public relations.
And these guys look shifty not just for scientists but
for PR men. Specialists in crisis management emphasize the importance of
building (or rebuilding) public trust by being both honest and forthcoming. But
look at that Meyer quote. He's not calling for forthrightness, just for some
sort of statement so that critics--whom he disparages as "denialists"--can't say
the IPCC "is silent."...
And look how the AP sums up that theory: "that humans are cooking the planet by
burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests." That's science
fiction, not science. If Damon Knight were still with us, he might observe of
the IPCC report: "It's a cooked book." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304713704579095340714975708.html
Really, the bottom line is that global warming is a fraud brought on by those who financially benefit by saying global warming/climate change exists.
But here is the opposite view, from my liberal friend Jamie, who does believe in these scientists: To this I say, well, DUH. I've always thought it was incredibly nonsensical to think that we could pollute to the levels we have for as long as we have and not have something to do with changing the climate. I mean, to have measurable, obvious differences in climate in my lifespan of less than 50 years? How could it not be because we're pumping pollutants into the air, water and ground?
Also, I've yet to hear a logical argument for motive on the part of climate scientists to lie to us about it. They're climatologists. They get paid whatever the climate is. It makes much more sense to me that the energy companies have a huge motive to deny climate change. And when you throw in that the right wing--which is wrong about virtually everything--is heavy on the denialism, it just makes it that much more obvious. http://greenleegazette.blogspot.com/2013/09/report-man-caused-global-warming.html
So, you have a group of scientists and they have made their viewpoint known and it is so clear that both the liberal and conservative think they are right.
Sunrise — 6:57.
12 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment