Archive for the ‘New York Times’ Category

The last Global Warming skeptic?

January 31, 2007

Hi Brit,

I have good news!  Even our most liberal news paper, perhaps the most liberal serious paper in the world, the New York Times, is not totally convinced about Global Warming and Climate Change: World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming!  While the rest of the story is full of the usual liberal, Global Warming as religion tripe, there is one bit which is very instructive:

Scientists involved in writing or reviewing the report say it is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950. The report is the fourth since 1990 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is overseen by the United Nations.

 “It is nearly certain that there is at least a 90% chance,” that, to me, says they don’t know!  You should also note that, instead of the usual 100 year comparison, they’ve shifted to a 50 year time span.  That’s because, it’s obvious that the temperature spike in the first half of the last century wasn’t due to human activity.  They can’t really explain its cause, but, quietly buried in the reports of the liberal media, is the admission that we didn’t cause it.  It only took 20 years for that bit of information to come to semi-light.  Of course, to any rational mind, that would bring up the question of trust to the “climate scientists” findings about the most recent temperature increase.  Unfortunately, there is grant money, political power, and business interests at stake, so the truth will have to wait.

Another question a rational person might ask, is what has consensus got to do with science?  While I did suffer through a public school education, I was always taught that science dealt with fact, not opinion.  It is a disturbing surprise to me that science has devolved into a popularity contest.  If this is going to be the trend in “science,” it seems to me that, to make it fair, we should put it to our elected representative to decide the position science will bow to.  That would at least, save us a few billion on research funding.

the Grit