Columnist Eugene Robinson on Climate-gate

Here is the beginning of Eugene Robinson column:

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting. . . .

Someone should tell him that "Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking." Here is also an interesting discussion by David Friedman about Arctic Sea ice. He notes: "the extent of arctic sea ice has been increasing for the last two years."

Examples of what little mainstream coverage of Climate-gate have occurred can be seen here.

Dr. Michael Mann enters the fray:

A controversy over leaked e-mails exchanged among global warming scientists is part of a "smear campaign" to derail next month's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, one of the scientists, meteorologist Michael Mann, said Tuesday. . . .

Climate change skeptics "don't have the science on their side anymore, so they've resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen," said Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was the recipient of several of the published e-mails. . . .

Labels: , , ,


Blogger John A said...

Oh my, confusing apples and chestnuts.

That temperatures have risen in the Twentieth Century is not actually in dispute. But the cause[s] and amount of rise, well, that is something else again.

We have been told by those at the forefront (Mann, Hansen et al) for at least two decades that only human influence, and mostly CO2 output, could possibly influence temperature and that even if CO2 was stabilised temps would inexorably rise, CO2 must be lessened or even stopped. When it became obvious that after 1998 global temp stabilized or even declined while CO2 continued to rise, the response was that natural factors such as ocean currents - remember, when temps were rising they had no possible influence - had caused a nine year blip which might continue for another ten to thirty years.

In what other field could a prediction (100 years of steady or accelerating temp rise) be admitted to be off ten to forty percent (30percent, or thirty years, seems generally accepted) yet still be claimed to be absolutely correct?

Perhaps CO2 output should be abated. I think it should, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. But to do so because of an obviously flawed hypothesis based on an absurd premise does not seem wise.

11/28/2009 2:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home