The Other Global Warming Story

How am I supposed to know if global warming is a worldwide crisis or not?  I’m a journalist, not a scientist.  All I know is what I read in the papers.  And what I just read in the Wall Street Journal won’t make the global warming true believers too happy.

The piece I read is an op-ed signed by 17 scientists with some pretty serious credentials, and runs under the headline, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”  The signers include a physics professor from Princeton, a technology professor from Cambridge, and a professor of atmospheric sciences from MIT.  There’s also the head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the aerospace engineer who designed Voyager.  There are more with the same kind of heady credentials.  Al Gore is not among them.

The piece starts out with this:  “A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about ‘global warming.’ Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.  In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”

But how can this be?  The New York Times and other really important newspapers are always telling us that if we don’t do something about global warming yesterday, we’ll all be goners tomorrow.  Hey, even Scott Pelley, now the anchor of the CBS Evening news, once did a one-sided piece about global warming for 60 Minutes, and when he was asked about the lack of balance he said he didn’t have to find a Holocaust denier just because he interviewed someone who survived the Holocaust.

Get it?  Anyone who doubts the “official” version of global warming is no better than a dope who denies the Holocaust.  But the Journal op-ed tells a different story.

“Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing,” the op-ed reads, “many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted – or worse.”  By worse, the authors mean you might lose your job if you say the “wrong” thing.  Scientists, I guess, can be closed-minded, just like stupid people.

But what about the facts?  Don’t the facts support the argument that global warming is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off?  Well, not really.  “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact, “ the op-ed states, “is the lack of global warming well over 10 years.”

That really is an inconvenient fact, isn’t it!

The piece asks a question:  “Why is there so much passion about global warming?…”

The authors give us a clue.  They tell us to “Follow the money,”  explaining that “Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucrats to grow.  Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”

We even learn that a Nobel Prize winner in physics recently resigned from the prestigious American Physical Society because he could not accept the Society’s policy that says: “The evidence is incontrovertible Global warming is occurring.”

Like I said, I’m no scientist, so what do I know?  Glad you asked.  I know that  just about every mainstream journalist this side of Pluto believes global warming is real, mainly caused by man, and will destroy us if we don’t act.  If so many journalists believe that  … then I know it’s probably not true.


Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Lee Holt

    Don’t you understand that your article’s perpetuating of the controversy actually contributes to the problem by creating delays that amount to “toy making”. Seems a shame. See more at

  • IABConsulting

    Global Warming is Real. Man causing it is not. The warming and cooling of our world is a normal thing it’s been doing for millions of years. Volcanoes produce more CO2 than we do and Cattle are probably the biggest producers of CO2 in nature. Before we had cars, we used horses and they left behind manure and gave off gas. We light the streets with gas lights and we heated our homes with wood or coal. How is modern man worst than that?

  • NKOZ2005

    Climate change is real, it is just going to happen over hundreds and hundreds of years. It is no real threat to humanity. It has been hijaked for political gain and for funding.
    The fact of the matter is that the oceans are experincing lower PH values from acting like a carbon sink, positive feeback from reduced albedo is real, methane choropleths are real and will sublimate at higher temperatures. This is real emperical data. Industry heads atacked this as false data (as you all may remember) and thir party firms confirmd the data was real and accurate.

    This is not a doomsday scenario. Convert energy from potential energy to kinetic energy = more heat. Build a fire in a room and it ets hotter. Its not rocket science. Some people need to stop running around like the world is going to end and some people need to stop denying its existince altogether. As I said it is real, but not a real thret for another thousand or so years. so move on and lets tackle it when we get there. Anyway there is no way to stop it, so we must adapt to any potential changes!

  • Larry W.

    Bravo, Bernard, bravo!! Man, I’d like to have you over sometime when all my NEA liberal relatives show up for a family meal. At the last meal one of them said “only small minded middle class people (my wife and I) aren’t progressive enough to vote for BHO!” We’re outnumbered 6 to 1. Thanks for the piece you wrote on global warming.

  • Shannon

    There is a movie called an inconsistent truth by Phil Valentine. The movie explains why some scientists believe there is no man-made global warming. I would like people to be objective enough to take a look at both sides and then make up their minds about what they believe. If there is man-made global warming you can gloat, if not you might learn something new. I believe you have to be open to hearing both sides to know the truth.

  • Dave from KY

    While I agre that it appears probable that the climate is turning warmer over the last 100 years, I absolutely don’t believe mankind or any of his CO2 generators is causing the warmup. Why is it that no one denies the evidence of tropical vegitation that once grew in anartica? So I guess all those cavemen’s burning fires had devasting and irreversible effects on the climate!

    • Brent

      There have been several periods in earth’s history that sustained significant plant growth at the poles. Those periods also had extremely high levels of CO2. I’m not sure how your observation supports your claims.

      • Andrew Garvin

        that it wasnt mans fault is the point you missed

        • Nkoz2005

          Yeahhhh…. One of those times was associated with the continent of Antarctica being located near the equator, also.

  • joe from louisiana

    This will possibly go down as one of the greatest hoaxes played on the gullible. Unfortunately, many will get rich on the scheme and the oil industry and tobacco industries are child-like compared to the zealots on the green side. The corruption is stupendous. Right now we have China drilling deep wells 60 nm from the Florida coast because our ridiculous orthodox environmentalists cannot be rationalized with.

    • joe from louisiana

      Correction: China would be drilling anyways but we are strangling our own offshore drilling with red tape.

  • Robert Morelli

    Some of my liberal friends are surprised that I won’t take a stand on climate change — at least, not until I take the time to look into the science myself. They think it’s “obvious” that there’s a scientific consensus about the truth climate change.

    Unfortunately, I’ve seen too many times in the past how political agendas (and other kinds of influence), in particular the powerful biases of the news media, affect the perception of scientific consensus. I also know that when the news media cover a topic in science that I know well, they invariably botch it. I wish I had someone I could simply trust. I’d rather be lazy. Sadly, it’s just not an option.

    The further you go in either direction on the political spectrum, the more you see science subordinated to politics. All the news media these days are staking out more or less irrationally extreme positions.

    As someone who cares deeply about truth and objectivity, it disgusts me that the news media are perfectly content to deliberately dispense falsehoods and distortions. The ones who are supposed to be safeguarding the free flow of information have become one of the worst offenders.

    So, sorry to my liberal friends. I don’t say it’s not true, but I can’t trust you blindly. You long ago lost your credibility.

  • Fred Mcneil

    I’ll just wait for some empirical evidence or warming to appear. I may be waiting a long time as we have not seen any global warming in 15 years now.

  • Wil Burns

    Bernie, The Oil Industry has only been able to find 16 scientists willing to say that climate change isn’t happening? Are they getting cheap when it comes to buying scientific opinion? Can you remember back when the Tobacco Industry was able to find scientists willing to say that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer? I do.

    • cmacrider

      Wil: Unlike the AGW group, the oil industry does not need to “find” scientists willing to say “that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change” (which is the actual issue)there are thousands who have independently stated that Al Gore, Hansen et al. are involved in flawed science.

    • Andrew Garvin

      dumb dumb dumb dumb …dumb heres a nice article headline you might enjoy
      More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

      just give that a read

  • Ralph M. Hahn

    You MUST believe in Global Warning. Who would doubt anything said by the inventor of the Internet? lol

    • Wil Burns

      Of Gore’s involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that,

      As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high-speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship […] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.[3]
      24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduce S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986:

      As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as “The Gore Bill”) after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet).[7]

      Indeed, Kleinrock would later credit both Gore and the Gore Bill as a critical moment in Internet history:

      A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George H.W Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking.
      The bill was passed on Dec. 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the “information superhighway”. President George H. W. Bush predicted that the bill would help “unlock the secrets of DNA,” open up foreign markets to free trade, and a promise of cooperation between government, academia, and industry.

      That Al Gore?

      • Ralph M. Hahn

        This all may be true, Wil. As a former legislative aide and director of communications for three NJ state legislators, I helped create an important environmental Bill that stiffened fines and punishment of illegal dumpers that my Senator and Assemblymen introduced, got it passed and signed into law. But, I never have referred to it as the “Hahn Bill.” lol

        • Wil Burns

          But, I never have referred to it as the “Hahn Bill.” lol>>

          Good for you, but what point are you trying to make? Remember, Al Gore never said he invented the internet!

          • joe from louisiana

            And George Bush never lied about WMD’s. Most intelligence sources led him and Clinton to believe there was a high probability Hussein had WMD’s. Technically, he did have and use chemical agents. Try explaining that to an irrational leftist that chants “Bush lied, Bush lied, liar in chief”.

  • Cyberquill

    If you want to “follow the money,” then taking the position that climate change doesn’t really exist—or, to the extent that it might exist, is unrelated to human activity—and painting those who disagree as “alarmists” is of great benefit to many as well. After all, if there were something to it, costly measures would have to be taken to protect the environment.

    • Cyberquill

      PS: A little further down in this Wall Street Journal piece, in a segment not quoted by Bernie, it says the following:

      A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

      Ah, so who’s “following the money” now?

      • Toddljensen

         Well I guess we can rule out global warming for good now that since this article, more than 40,000 US temperature records have been broken in 2012 and almost 1/3 of the country is having a drought.  That must put the nail in the coffin of AGW!

    • cmacrider

      Cyberquill: As usual, you gloss over the minor minor fact that your AGW group cannot show any CAUSATION between CO2 concentrations and either global warming or climate change (which ever is the current fad) Since you cannot show CAUSATION then the rest of us object to your continuous propaganda in which you propose billions of dollars in expenditure from the public treasury. Secondly, when you fall back on the “precautionary principle” all I can say is take a course in logic and you will discover the falsity of the precautionary principle.

      • Cyberquill

        No problem, but please let me know what course in logic you took, so I won’t take that one by mistake.

  • Phil

    Facts don’t matter, Bernie. They never have. It’s all about ideology. As you once so brilliantly pointed out, people are tribal by nature. They pick and choose which “camps” they will align with, and who will be the “enemy.” Then they cherry pick “facts” that will support their predetermined camp and ignore or demonize facts that contradict their camp. Actually researching an issue thoroughly and objectively is not only too much work, it’s BORING. Welcome to 21st Century America.

  • Realist

    I first heard about this conspiracy theory that AGW was made up by the media and scientists about a year ago. I was hesitant to believe it then, and the more I think about it and read these posts, the more I disbelieve it. Industry, specifically, the energy sector, has more money and thereby more power (especially in the US Gov’t) than academia or media institutions combined and a thousand times over (Exxon is one of the top 20 wealthiest institutions in the world, with the US Gov’t being #1). If AGW science has been suppressed or extensively pushed to one bias, I would expect it to be to industries desires, which in this case would against the support of AGW.

    • Glen Stambaugh

      You haven’t noticed all the “green” propaganda produced by the oil companies? They win when the prices are forced higher artificially by green policies and programs.

    • George

      The left has the backing of the corrupt United Nations whose membership includes, socialist and Marxists states who believe that national boundaries are illegitimate and world governance is the solution to the world’s problems. These governments have as their mission to transfer the wealth of capitalist nations to themselves and other failed states. AGW is a perfect cause for them for it fits in with their objectives. Peo

  • Rick Daniel

    About 4 years ago I read a piece that reported that an English judge ruled that Al Gore’s movie could only be shown in British schools if 9 factual errors in the movie were fisrt mentioned to the hapless students. One of the 9 blew me away. Ice core studies in Antarctica have shown that periods of warming are followed by increased co2, not preceded by them. Bernie mentions this above. My question is why does this simple fact not absolutely once and for all end the debate? How on Earth can co2 cause global warming if t shows up only after the globe has warmed? While I’ve always been a skeptic, I admit, this iced it for me. One other fact surprised me — only 3% of the co2 is man made, 97% is from natural causes. So we’re going to bankrupt the free world to get rid of a portion of 3% of the co2? Hmmmmm …

  • Florida Jim

    Many of the people who rant about global warming have been made millionaires because of their affiliation with those who benefit from the grants, the investments, the campaign promises to give my tax dollars to the Solyndra’s, CH2M and Brightsource’s of Obama’s world .Chris Horner has several books on the scam. Al Gore will not debate him anywhewre because Gore is leading the charade, which is basically another redistribution ploy to tke the wealth of america and distribute it to “more deserving ” couintries, as selected by Obama and the United Nations.

  • Norbit Peters


    We’re conferring the monicker now, and it’s:


    • Randy

      Yup. Works for me. Wish I would have thought of that one!

  • Brendan Horn

    Even if global warming is real, it might not be so bad. This winter has been one of the nicest winters in memory in Connecticut. It has not been cold, there has not been much in the way of ice or snow. Many very nice days of weather. Usually the winter weather is terrible in the northeast.

  • Cathy

    Dear Bernie,
    Thank you for your realistic appraisal. Though I agree that the mainstream media are brain-dead on this issue, nonetheless you haven’t been been paying attention.

    There are scores of excellent articles, websites and books that address the true (i.e. not the IPCC) science behind the global warming scare.

    One that I particularly recommend is Bob Carter’s “Climate: the counter consensus”.

    Check out the reviews and information as linked from here:

    • Rose Campion

      In addition to Professor Robert Carter’s excellent book, “Climate: The Counter Consensus,” another book has just been published that is really good, “Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers.” Written by geologist G Dedrick Robinson, it’s available at Amazon: Professor Carter seems to like it saying, “In an easily accessible style, Robinson leads us through the science information to answer the question, ‘Are human carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming?’ The more surprised you are that the answer is ‘no,’ then the more you need to read this excellent book.”

  • cmacrider

    Your articles raises two related questions, namely:
    (1) Why is it that the mainstream media “sold” global warming as an incontrovertible fact and only now is it becoming apparent that there are highly credible scientists (in numbers) who consider the theory flawed?
    (2) how can a non-scientist know what to believe if the media turns out to have failed to objectively report the case?

    Let me submit a possible answer to these queries.
    First, the media is in the business of selling papers, TV advertising etc. and depend upon circulation or viewing ratings. They, like the scientific community have learned that scary scenarios SELL. The global warming scare was the mother lode for both a certain group of scientists and the media. (After all, shortly after the global warming scare was unloaded, the papers suddenly had “environmental journalists” who were fully occupied regurgitating everything the Global Warming alarmists told them.) It was dramatic news that made money and damn few “journalists” ever subjected the theory to normal critical thinking or were even interested in reporting the comments of the Global Warming sceptics. (and there were many many of them from the outset including Richard Lindzen of MIT and Willie Soon both more qualified in climatology than Michael Mann, Hansen et al.) Years ago there were about 3200 qualified American scientists who signed a Petition saying the “Science is NOT settled” which they presented to the U.S. Government. (The Oregon Petition} The mainstream media CHOSE not to publish the dissenting theories or headline that 3200 scientists disagree with man made global warming theories. The mainstream media CHOSE not to publish the fact that Al Gore’s graphs were deceptive and that historically CO2 increases about 800 years AFTER a global climate temperature occurs. Therefore it cannot CAUSE global warming. The mainstream media CHOSE not to publish that Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” was patently inaccurate if not fraudulent and that it was this graph which formed the foundation for the IPCC Report in the first place. The mainstream media CHOSE not to report the fact that satellite readings showed no marked increase in temperature in the troposphere which meant that the whole greenhouse gas theory was suspect even though a prominent American climatologist tried to tell them so repeatedly. The mainstream media CHOSE not to report that time after time the AGW predictions proved untrue which threw their “science” into question since the hallmark of science is the ability to predict accurately. The mainstream media CHOSE not to report the first Climategate scandal or the second Climategate scandal even though they were infinitely more significant than the fact some president wire tapped some Democratic Party conference. The list is endless. The point is that the media CHOSE not to report on the issue objectively because there is more money for the media in promoting the scare story. 2. How is a non-scientist supposed to know? I suggest that if students and particularly budding journalists were trained in logic, inductive and deductive reasoning, and had some basic algebra, geometry taught in schools rather than psychology and sex education …. then maybe we would produce journalists who could actually function with a critical, objective, and rational approach to news stories. The general public could actually rely on the news being “the news.”

    BTW …. what happened to the acid rain scare? Why has it been off the agenda for years? I thought by now all the lakes would be acid pools and all the forests dead. The answer is that a 10 year study done by the U.S. Governments foremost expert in the field proved that the whole acid rain scare was a hoax. (BTW he strangely retired from that pre-eminent position shortly thereafter .. but no explanation for the retirement was given.)

    Environmental scares make money for the news media objective reporting doesn’t. All you have to do is watch the Keystone XL pipeline environmental scare get ramped up in the days to come.

  • gerry tache

    Great summary of The WSJ op-ed page piece on global warming. Wonder if that global warming phony Al Gore read this piece. That clueless clown has accumulated a fortune falsely wishing global warming on all of us including the current occupant of the White House.
    Good job.

    P.S. The Journal’s editorial staff is tops.

  • RecknHavic

    Man caused climate change is 1970s save the whales redux.

  • Hilary Ostrov

    Mr. Goldberg concludes:

    “I’m no scientist, so what do I know? Glad you asked. I know that just about every mainstream journalist this side of Pluto believes global warming is real, mainly caused by man, and will destroy us if we don’t act. If so many journalists believe that … then I know it’s probably not true.”

    Of course, what always gets elided in the mainstream journalists’ recitation of the mantra is the (evidence-free) theory that it is human generated CO2 that is the “primary” cause of this real (albeit almost imperceptible) global warming (aka climate change). Had any one of these so called “journalists” done any investigative work on the *source* of the meme/mantra, i.e. the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), s/he would have discovered – as did Canadian investigative journalist, Donna Laframboise – that the IPCC is far from being the authoritative body it is claimed to be.

    “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” should be required reading for all journalists (and for anyone who has ever trusted the reports of the IPCC).

    • Ken Hansen

      In the grandest traditions of the scientific community and process, the IPCC report was written backwards – the conclusion/summary report was written first, by political operatives & policy makers, not the thousands of researchers that supposedly ‘signed’ the report when they signed their UN paycheck/grant check. Then, once the summary/conclusion was written and published publicly we were told to wait a year or two for the supporting research notes & documentation.

      That’s not how science worked when I was in school.

    • cmacrider

      Hilary: Excellent Post

    • cmacrider

      Hilary: Excellent Post

  • IndependentLasVegas

    If Obama gets re-elected, which is a strong possibilty, we won’t have to worry about GLOBAL WARMING.. THE END

    • Will Swoboda

      If Obama is reelected, global warming will be the least of our worries.

  • Randy

    Global warming is a stupid argument put forth by brilliantly stupid people with fanatically driven agendas. And the cost will be that we allow ourselves to be distracted by all this stupidity. We should be focused on finding better ways to take care of our planet. It is the only one we have. But instead of finding better ways to power our cars and light our homes and maintain our lives, we are forced to jump through the lunatic hoops of these global warming fanatics and the environment at any cost lunatics whose way to fix the environment includes reducing the number of humans (hasn’t that one been tried?). They yell about coal power plants damaging the environment, and then stop any effort to build a nuclear power plant. They push electric cars down our throats while blocking all attempts to increase the power supply for our already overburdened electric grid. Where do these people think electricity comes from anyway? A magic box? They have lied, misdirected and tried to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. Their end result will probably be harm to the environment since they are the only ones that can be right. I just don’t think this ends well for the human race unless we get our collective heads out of the global warming “up and locked” position. And Mr. Gore? He is the lunatic in chief. All his money and prestige is now tied up into the thermometer is climbing and the sky is falling. These scientists are right. Just follow the money.

  • EddieD_Boston

    All you need to know about global warming is that it’s now called climate change since the increase in temperature stopped 10 years ago.
    What these idiots don’t grasp is that the earth will destroy us (Haiti quake, Japan tsunami, Katrina etc.) way before we destroy it.
    Doesn’t a 1.6 degree change in average temperature over the last 150 years mean the average temperature has been amazingly consistent?

    • cmacrider

      EddieD: At this time of the year in Canada we are looking for a little global warming. We don’t expect any since P.M. Harper’s Throne Speech doesn’t seem to contain as much hot air as Obama’s State of the Union Address

  • Shirl

    You’re right, all one has to do is follow the money to see whom is benefiting from all the BS. This is how our government has been operating for years now and everyone knows it. It’s time to do something about it; VOTE for NEWT!!!!

    • M. Shipley

      Newt Gingrich was for it before he wasn’t for it. Be careful with your vote.

  • Meme Mine

    Obama knows that another “Iraq War” was called; “Climate Change Crisis” and it made fear mongering neocons out of all of us. CO2 fear wasn’t about a changing climate, it was about CONTROLLING a changing climate by taxing the air we breathe with bank funded and corporate run CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS ruled by politicians. Climate change scientists are to science now what pesticide and chemical scientists were to environmentalism and surely history will call climate blame a consultant’s wet dream.
    REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed the crisis was just a tragic exaggeration after all.

    • EddieD_Boston

      I can proudly state I was a Global Warming(ooops, Climate Change) sceptic since day one b/c I learned my lesson with the Acid Rain hoax. It turned out the Envirofundamentalist we flat out lying.

      I’ve taken everything they say since then with the provervial grain of salt.

    • Shek

      Hi Jonathan,It can be confusing the umebnr of claims being made that the world is warming / isn’t warming and that’s because the issue has become somewhat divided, often for partisan reasons.No doubt what you’ve been taught in school is correct. If a school were to knowingly misteach it’s pupils then it faces prosecution. Global warming has actually been on trial several times in courts of law and on every occasion the Judge has ruled that the facts and science behind global warming are accurate.Those who don’t accept global warming is happening don’t have an argument against the theory. Instead they have used more than 100 different excuses ranging from claims that the world is cooling, that Margaret Thatcher invented global warming, that it’s because Earth is moving closer to the Sun – all manner of unrelated claims.In your question you mention that you’ve learned that a lot of people are against the idea of global warming. In reality there’s not that many. It’s broadly accepted the world over, the only notable exception being the US where it is more of a political issue than a scientific one.If you look at global warming scientifically then there’s no question that it’s happening. No doubt you were taught that greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere and that the more of them there are the more heat is retained. What you may not have been taught is the mechanism by which these gases retain heat, this is something that is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.You may think that it would be pointless to try and argue against the theory of gravity, and you’d be right to do so. But it’s even more pointless to argue against the laws of quantum mechanics. Not only are these laws universal and invariable, but they’re the most powerful and successful of all scientific laws. Trying to argue against them really is futile – not that it doesn’t stop some people claiming there’s no such thing as global warming.Because the science is so solid, it’s no surprise then that there isn’t a single scientific organisation on the planet that disputes the theory of manmade global warming.So instead, what we’re left with are a umebnr of uncoordinated, unscientific, and largely uninformed individuals who, often for personal reasons, object to the notion that the world is warming and we, as humans, are having a hand in it.It’s very telling that those who argue against the theory NEVER address the issue as a whole, instead they focus on the minutiae and on the distortion of reality. By adopting this technique it’s possible to ‘disprove’ anything. Take gravity for example, if it existed then trees would grow downwards not upwards, water could never evaporate, birds and planes would crash to the ground, the atmosphere would be sucked down to Earth not up in the sky, Earth would compress itself into a tiny ball etc etc.This is an example of the style of argument used by those who reject the theory of global warming. They latch on to an illogical argument and run with it, steadfastly refusing to acknowledge their own ignorance and basically doing everything they can to avoid exposure to anything that opposes their fallacy.

  • Wallace Flint

    Hi Bernie,
    Re global warming- I’d say that there seems to be the lure of government money (that’s yours & mine) to advance this B.S. on global wesrming. Why can’t these goernment people just be honest to the America people and move on to really important things like foreign policy or domestic oil & natural gas, for starters, along with the dangers of another general war out there. As tie goes on, we, the people will see more and more things to worry about, that are really important!

    In God We Trust!
    Wally Flint- Boonvillle, NY

  • Ken Hansen

    I appreciate systems that generate less waste than other systems, and I have no reason not to consider a car’s emissions as one aspect of my purchase decision, but I will not pay a significant premium (20-30% in the case of the Volt) for a mediocre car that otherwise wouldn’t interest me.

    The crisis atmosphere around AGW works not to rally everyone around one position – it simply polarized people and turned what was a fairly mixed bag of opinions on AGW into two well-defined camps of absolutists, deniers and defenders.

    The AGW defenders do themselves and their cause a disservice by constantly trying to top everyone else with ever more outlandish claims and doomsday scenarios.

  • rbblum

    But, the global warming issue would serve as a method to further the universal, globalization effort. It would provide the powers-to-be ever more bureacracies with many more rules and regulations that would generate capital via taxes, fines and fees necessary to mold their version of life on Earth.

  • val binkowski

    Your a journalist so do what a real journalist should do…get the facts from all sides and not just a statement signed by 17 scientists against AGW(not an op-ed consensus, except for the WSJ). But researching all the facts wouldn’t be fair and balanced because it doesn’t support your conservative agenda. Hiding behind “what am I suppose do do…I’m just a journalist” is a sad and pre-biased position to take and not very “fair and balanced.” And please don’t run intereferance for Romney or Huntsman who have flip-flopped on global warming to suck-up to the audience they address. Surely you can do better as a real Journalist who is looking for real science.

    • ph16

      Oh believe me, I believe Bernie has gotten the facts from the ones who think global warming is real. It’s nearly impossible to avoid them while it’s too easy to avoid the other side.

    • kayakbob

      I think Mr. Goldberg was being sarcastic, not copping out.

    • cmacrider

      Val: If all the FACTS had come out in a fair and balanced manner, the religious crusade for AGW would have died on the drawing board.

    • M. Shipley

      I personally care about the results of studies instead of worrying about some signed statement. Also included in there is curiosity about why a climate scientists would do something like “hide the decline” if their science was on the up and up.

  • Susan Salisbury

    “leave it to the scientists”? No. Not. Never. When people have their hands in my pocket, which they do through the government, it is my right, even my duty, to inquire. The problem is that true science is never certain. (Hence the resignation, not just by one but by several, eminent physicists from the American Physical Society. Real scientists are always skeptical. That is how science advances. You don’t have to be a musician to evaluate music and you don’t have to be a scientist to evaluate the results of scientific inquiry. You just have to understand what the scientific process is about. Science is about being able to predict the future based on hypothetical laws. I can prove the law of gravity by picking up a pen and letting go of it. I don’t have to be an expert to see the validity of claims about gravity. Similarly, when I see the data about global warming, I become more and more a skeptic because of the inability of the theories put forward by the global warming advocates to predict the future. If someone tells me, as the AGW advocates have, that snow is a thing of the past and then we have record breaking winter snow, as we did a few years back, I am going to be skeptical. If their theories become so convoluted that they can not be proven false, then I think that their theories are like religious claims, which also cannot be proven false. Falsifiability is an essential characteristic of a scientific theory. And, no, science does not operate by consensus and it never has. It operates by constantly examining and re-examining evidence. It doesn’t matter who or how many people believe in a theory. What matters is whether the evidence supports it. I didn’t make that up. Richard Feynman and many other real scientists have said the same thing.

  • ProfChuck

    Firstly, I am a scientist, albeit retired, and would first like to state that global warming and human causality are two very different things. Our ability to measure the thermal budget of the earth is still in its infancy. Basically, the primary source of heat for the Earth is the Sun. The Earth intercepts energy from the sun and then re-radiates energy back into space. This process is extremely complicated and is still not completely understood. In very simple terms a condition of thermal equilibrium is reached where the amount of energy radiated into space is equal to the amount of Solar energy absorbed. This process is complicated by a very large number of factors, all of which are difficult to model on a global scale. Issues such as atmospheric albedo, absorption spectra of the atmosphere, surface features, and the oceans acting as a thermal sink all factor into analysis of the thermal equilibrium analysis. The issue of the analysis of global scale warming or cooling is completely dependent on a detailed understanding of these phenomena and how they interact with one another. Atmospheric dynamics involves thousands of processes that interact with one another to varying degrees. Building a comprehensive computer model of this process is beyond the current state of the art of information processing technology. Determining to what extent human activity modifies these processes is not possible with available methods and equipment.

    I agree that climate change is a potentially serious problem but when “scientific findings” are such a close fit to a particular political agenda I am dubious to say the least.

    We have seen too many instances where scientific objectivity is for sale. We need to be very wary that Global Climate Change is not one of these instances.

  • Skeptic

    Scott- Not well stated at all. The problem is that you believe that because there is a community of scientists who for the most part agree (and I doubt the 97-98% statistic- I doubt that all scientists in the world were polled-but please feel free to correct me if that is wrong) that therefore they must be acting primarily out of an unfettered desire to get at the truth. No emotion on the part of the scientist, surely. Sadly, some of these scientists have even taken to falsifying information to make their case.

    The real question, Scott, is not whether we should trust scientists completely- we should trust no outside source completely when it comes to such serious issues. There is no such thing as incontrovertible truth- read some of Karl Popper and you’ll get a glimpse of what I mean. The basis of the global warming claims is statistical computer modeling, not actual lab experimentation that can be done over and over again in physical reality. Am I questioning the use of statistical modeling as a valid scientific method- yes, as far as anyone would cliam that it is incontrovertible proof.

    In short, there is no way for anyone to claim that global warming is caused by man- there are too many variables to isolate. To say that there is reason to suspect that the earth is warming due to manmade causes, but that we can’t truly prove it, would be a statement made with integrity. It may be a wise thing indeed to eliminate as many harmful emissions as possible because even though the likelihood of a catastrophe is very small but very deadly would at least be a reasonable point of view- just admit you’re not sure and you want to take precautions.

    Read Taleb, Popper and other clear thinkers and you’ll be less likely to hold the scientific establishment on a pedestal. Good people (scientists) can try their best but still be wrong or subsconsciously influenced Scott. Your supreme faith is misplaced.

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    STELLAR EVOLUTION SHAKEN and Global Warming debunked. Pure Science.
    The sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. The diameter of the sun is close to one million miles, so that this shrinkage of the sun goes unnoticed over hundreds or even thousands of years. All data examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, is continual. The Sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, since the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales. How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth 20 million B.C.
    One thing is certain. Some of the sun’s energy comes from its gravitational self-collapse. Therefore, not all of this energy comes from thermonuclear fusion. This discovery greatly alters all calculations on the evolution of the sun, because all of those calculations attribute practically 100% of the sun’s energy over the past 5 billion years to thermonuclear fusion. The discovery that the sun is shrinking may prove to be the downfall of the accepted theory of solar evolution. All accepted theories of the evolution of the stars are based on the assumption that thermonuclear fusion is the energy source for the stars. If this assumption is unjustified for our own star, the sun, it is unjustified for the other stars too. The entire theoretical description of the evolution of the universe may be at stake. With the stakes that high, it is no wonder that the experimental evidence for the shrinkage of the sun is “explained away” by evolutionists. Evolutionists claim that the sun probably undergoes temporary shrinkages and expansions as small fluctuating oscillations on its overall regular evolutionary development. They point to other cyclic solar occurrences such as the 11-year sunspot cycle on the surface of the sun. This claim is made in spite of the evidence that the shrinkage rate of the sun has remained essentially constant over the past 100 years when very accurate measurements have been made on the size of the sun. Less accurate astronomical records spanning the past 400 years indicate the shrinkage rate has remained the same for the past 400 years. SOLAR ENERGY
    The shrinkage of the sun greatly alters what we believe to be the energy source within the sun. The sun shrinks because of its own self-gravitational attraction. As it compresses itself, it heats itself. This heat is then liberated in the form of solar radiation, i.e., sunlight.
    Would a 2.5 feet per hour contraction of the solar surface be sufficient to liberate all of the energy that comes from the sun? A crude estimate can be made by assuming the interior of the sun is uniform. The known formula for the gravitational potential energy of two masses m and M a distance r apart is U = – GmM/r, where G = 6.6 x 10-11jm /kg2. The gravitational potential energy of the sun’s mass Ms interacting with its own mass Ms is U= – Gms2/R, where R is the radius of the sun. The solar power produced as the sun shrinks at the rate of v = R/t is5 P = U/t = (Gms2/R2) . (R/t) = GMs2v/R2. The mass of the sun is 2 x 1030kg, the radius of the sun is 7 x 108 m, and the 2.5 feet/hour rate of shrinkage in the radius of the sun is 2 x 10 -4 m/sec. in metric units. The power formula gives a potential solar power of 1 x 1029 watts. This potential gravitational power is hundreds of times more than the 4 x 1026 watts of power actually produced by the sun. This figure is an overestimate because the sun is actually far from uniform. The massive interior of the sun is protected by the outer layers of the sun. Only those low density outer layers are thought to contract. Even so, there is plenty of gravitational contraction energy potentially available to account for all or a large part of the sun’s energy.
    Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun. This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. Then Helmholtz’s explanation was discarded because it did not provide the vast time span demanded by the theory of organic evolution on the earth. The substitute theory was introduced by Bethe in the 1930′s precisely because thermonuclear fusion was the only known energy source that would last over the vast times required by evolution. Science may now be on the verge of disproving the substitute evolutionary model of the sun.
    The change in the size of the sun over the past 400 years is important in the study of origins. Over 100 thousand years these changes would have accumulated so much that life of any kind on the earth would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, all life on the earth must be less than 100 thousand years old. The sun, 20 million years ago, would have been so large that it would have engulfed the earth. The earth cannot be more than 20 million years old. Those dates as upper limits rule out any possibility of evolution requiring hundreds of millions of years. However, the tiny change that would have occurred in the sun during the Biblical time since creation would be so small as to go almost unnoticed. Thus, the changes in the sun are consistent with recent creation.
    The changes detected in the sun call into question the accepted thermonuclear fusion energy source for the sun. This, in turn, questions the entire theoretical structure upon which the evolutionary theory of astrophysics is built.
    Scientific proof that the earth is young and evolution is a fairy tale is based on the science of the Sun shrinking. This phenomenon trumps all else. The earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old based on the size of the Sun, It matters not what you or I believe only the facts matter and after 400 years observation the Sun is constantly getting smaller. This is science and I have not mentioned the Bible in this truism. The average Earth temperature is 59 degrees and the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. The average Temperature on Venus is 860 degrees and Venus is 67 million miles from the Sun. I realize that there are other issues that would change the temperature slightly on Venus but you get the point. One hundred thousand years ago the sun was twice the size it is today. Life on earth would be impossible. Six thousand years ago the sun would be 6% larger. With these facts how could any one believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. REFERENCES
    1 Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979.
    2 Ordway, Richard J., Earth Science and the Environment, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1974, p. 130. Fig. 5 – 23 on this page gives a good illustration of the accepted evolutionary time scale.
    3 Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978. All articles in this edition list the various evolutionary time scales.
    4 Halliday, David and Resnick, Robert, Fundamentals of Physics, New York; Wiley, 1974, Chapter 14.
    5 The exact formula must be derived layer by layer using integral calculus. The result is identical to the formula listed, except that it contains an additional factor. The additional factor is so close to unity that it makes little difference in an estimation.
    6 Lubkin, pg. 18.
    7 Poppy, Willard J. and Wilson, Leland L., Exploring the Physical Sciences, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973, P. 324.
    * Dr. Akridge earned his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in physics from Georgia Tech. He earned the Th.M. degree from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Akridge is an Assistant Professor of Physics at Oral Roberts University. He has written several articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in which he shows that the laws of physics support a recent creation. [Dr. Akridge and his wife, Anita, have two children, Floyd and Sheryl. They live in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

    • val binkowski

      WTF! Are you sure your on the right blog. Referencing Oral Roberts University and Creation Research Society tells me exactly where you bias is and that is not science. What a waste of words.

    • val binkowski

      On second thought, maybe I’m on the wrong site and you are on the conservative site that supports you BS…but it is still not science.

      • Neal Angel

        Referencing ORU & the CRS is no different than placing your faith in climate change orthodoxy. Same song, different verse…

  • Pingback: Goldberg: The Other Global Warming Story |

  • DOOM161

    The problem is that they came up with a theory and then found evidence to support it. That’s the exact opposite of science.

  • Tim Ned

    Just replaced all of my Windows in my house and received a nice check from the Feds. I want to personally thank all of you Global Warmers.

  • Bruce A.

    Back in meterology class we learned to call trends weather patterns. Of course this was before people like Al Gore, Jeffry Immelt, etc. & politically connected companies like GE discovered ways to make millions off this.

  • G. Daylan

    The “scientists” who study climate change are actually statisticians. There is no reproducible data for temperature change because the earth is constantly changing and the conditions under which the data is collected cannot be repeated. Therefore trends in temperature variation may be observed but the precise reasons for them are speculative at best. (La nina had to be created to explain incorrect predictions based on el nino.) “Scientists” claim that North America was once covered by a gigantic sheet of ice. That glacier (if it actually existed) must have melted due to climate change but what happened to the humans that caused it. Then there is the observed phenomenon of the “little ice age” that lasted several hundred years but no cogent explanation for it has been proffered. Statistics are useful in the evaluation of data but their predictive usefulness is often uncertain.

    An experiment that could be reproduced and would do a lot more to convince me could easily be performed. Two large, identical, air-tight containers could be constructed side-by-side and filled with air. The contents of one could be adjusted so that it contained air with a carbon dioxide concentration one percent higher than that of the control container. Temperature monitors in each container could be recorded over time to indicate whether or not an increase is actually found in the container with the higher carbon dioxide content.

  • AstroNerdBoy

    I liken the current Global Warming issue to be like the Galileo (the “Global Warming Deniers”) and the Catholic Church (the Progressive scientists who demand all accept their view of Global Warming), with Al Gore taking the role of the Pope.

  • Scott Reilly

    My goodness Mr Goldberg. As a champion of the cause of exposing bias in the media, this article is truly a let down.

    As you accurately say in the opening paragraph, you’re not a scientist. Nor am I. We are not in possession of the facts, the data or the means to interpret it. So obviously we need to trust the results that have been found by the people who do have the facts. Yet people refuse to do this and instead fall back on their own groundless opinions. Why?

    Consider this for a moment. Astronomers have proposed that there is a super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, around which all the plants, stars and space debris are orbiting. Do you have an opinion on the validity of this claim? Are there focus groups, think tanks and a general feeling among conservatives that black holes are made up to shock us into voting democratic? Do you hear TV and radio talk show hosts speaking with supreme confidence that black holes are a liberal conspiracy? Of course not. This is because we have no reason to doubt what astronomers are telling us. They spend their careers studying, carrying out research and have come to their conclusions. We accept the theory because they have the data, the knowledge and importantly, almost unanimously agree on it.

    Now, why won’t people accord the same level of respect to climate scientists? Change to subject from astronomy to global warming (or evolution for that matter), and suddenly people without any scientific background whatsoever start speaking as though they are experts.

    The very fact that you are referencing an article from the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper with a transparently conservative bias, doesn’t help your case either. If you want honest, accurate and bias-free interpretation of scientific works, then why bother looking in the mainstream press at all. Look in the scientific journals, Nature and Science come instantly to mind (the former being the largest and most important scientific publication in the world). Here you will get analysis about global warming, not form non-scientific, bias-ridden journalists, but from other meteorologists (They themselves, being human are not utterly free from bias, but certainly less so than journalists. The whole point of becoming a scientist is to learn and get close to the truth, whether you like the results or not).
    And it’s from these journals that the statistic that 97%-98% of scientists agree that global warming is happening and it is man-made comes from.

    And I think it’s also important to ask why so many ill-informed people choose not to accept this, even though they’re in no position to say so. And it’s largely this hair-brained notion that it is some kind of global, liberal conspiracy to increase taxes and create bigger governments. And this is shamefully touted by so many conservative politicians (with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman), themselves not experts or in a position to say whether it’s true or not, to frighten the electorate into thinking that unless the vote republican, the environmentalists will get their way and something as benign as a carbon tax will plunge the country into a totalitarian dictatorship. You spoke of “alarmism” in the media, which I think is fair to say. But there is similar such alarmism coming from conservatives on this issue.

    So in sum, I think it’s only rational to believe that man made global warming and evolution are true for the same reasons that we believe that black holes, anti-matter and bacteria exist. Because those who have the data say so.

    • Jim Laurie

      Wow! A denier-denier. A lie goes around the world a few times before the truth can puts it pants on. Truth will win out with a proper unbiased analysis of data.

      But, as long as humans are doing the analyzing, “unbiased” may be hard to acheive. So, following the money trail would seem appropiate, and damns the credibility of proponents.

      Since proponents personally profit, while opponents not only don’t profit but risk loss of reputation and position, I would tend to trust them to be less biased.

    • Rick Johnson

      And once the earth was flat, or so the educated, experts told all the unwashed masses of that era.

    • chuck.tatum

      For someone who admits as Bernie did, that you are not scientists, you sure appear to be passing yourself off as someone who knows the science behind man-made global warming.

      But what really galls me is your making the same correlation many others inaccurately do; global warming deniers = evolution deniers. This is not true. I understand and accept evolution. I do not believe global warming is caused to any significance by man, if in fact it really is happening at all.

      I appreciate science and yet realize science can often be wrong and fool the majority into incorrectly thinking something to be true. Science is always ready to accept a new truth thru falsifiability. Will you?

      • Scott Reilly

        No no, my point is exactly the opposite. As I said, I don’t know the science behind the theory and I don’t pretend to. That’s why I’m suggesting that we leave it to the scientists to analyse and interpret it. I’m not trying to pass myself off as someone who understands the science. But rather as someone who understands that other people do.

        Also, I think you misunderstood the comparison I made between global warming and evolutions sceptics. As I said, it’s irrational for somebody without any training in any scientific field to dismiss a theory, simply because it clashes with their worldview. Evolution and global warming are both perfect examples of this. In the case of evolution, people without any qualifications dismissing it because it threatens their belief that man was created by God. In the case of Global warming, people without any qualifications dismissing it for political reasons, in that it represents more taxes and regulations. Both involve non-scientists speaking with supreme confidence about subjects with which they have no expertise, for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific rigor or a real desire to get to the truth, but rather for their own political, religious or personal ends. So I think it’s a perfectly legitimate comparison.

        Also I have to ask in what do you feel qualified enough to say that you agree with evolution but reject man-made global warming? Are you a biologist or climate scientist? If not, how can you rationally think ” I’m not is possession of the facts, but I believe the vast majority of biologists when they say that evolution is true” but also think “I’m not in possession of the facts, but I don’t believe that vast majority of climate scientists when they say the man-made global warming is true”. Why trust one and not the other? If you’re honest, the reason might be your own biases. Perhaps you’re not deeply religious so the idea of man evolving over millions of years doesn’t offend or threaten your beliefs. But if you’re suspicious of government, or don’t want any extra taxes, or feel your small business is being strangled by increased regulation, then you might feel it’s in your best interests not to believe it

        I’m not in a position to say that either is true or false. Reading a couple of books and having a very general understanding of the issues doesn’t mean your opinion is worth anything. Uneducated opinions, mine and (presumably) yours don’t matter. It only matters what’s true. In science, matters is data, not rhetoric.

        So just to answer your question: yes, of course. I would readily and happily accept it if global warming turned out to be false. That would be ideal.

        • ron

          Scott, there ARE scientists that are at least as qualified as the pro-global warming scientists that are de-bunking or at least giving their opinions (just as the pro’s are) based on their studies that man is NOT the cause of global warming. As long as there is doubt, lets not panic. The earth goes through periods (cycles) of cold and warm.

    • val binkowski

      Very well stated Scott. Science works on a consensus and we who are not scientists have only the consensus to go by. If that consensus changes (and they can and do with more testing an data)then a new consensus arrives and we can only accept that. I have yet to see an op-ed consensus against AGW of any strength at all. Seeing 16 scientists sign a petition against AGW does not make a scientific consensus.

      • Jerika

        Science is NOT about consensus!!!!! It is about provable experiments. 1st you have a theory, then you do experiments to see if your theory actually works. Then you publish your information and other scientists try to replicate your results. If your results are good, then other scientists will achieve the same results you did. If other scientists cannot replicate your results then your theory needs more work. If you refuse to allow other scientists access to your work, raw data is critical here, then we’re just supposed to take your word for it. “Read my study and tell me if you think it works”, is NOT how science is supposed to happen. It doesn’t matter how many scientists READ your study and say, “Yeah, that sounds good”. What matters is how many can get the same results by EXPERIMENTATION!!! If you refuse to release your raw data so that others can try to achieve/disprove your theory then you are not committing science. PEER REVIEW IS NOT REAL SCIENCE. It’s just a way to keep others from trying to prove you wrong.

      • Bill Hurdle

        Sorry Mr. Binkowski – science does not work on “consensus”. It is based on “the scientific method” whereby a hypothesis is proven by experiment that reproduces the phenomena. The present “proof” of Carbon Dioxide Induced Global Warming is a curve fitting exercise that tries to relate two varibles from the incredibly complex process of heat transfer to the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun’s radiation.

      • kayakbob

        So, “science works on consensus”? Well, then these 17 scientists, pardon me – heretics, just came up with their own “consensus”. hmmm

        Then again, with deference to Mr. Goldberg – I am just an engineer, so what do I know?

      • stmichrick

        YOU DON’T HAVE A CONSENSUS EXCEPT WITH LEFT LEANING SCIENTISTS!!! The point is that those who dissent are being dismissed by news media. And they obviously have snookered you.

    • Manu

      “Consider this for a moment. Astronomers have proposed that there is a super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, around which all the plants, stars and space debris are orbiting. Do you have an opinion on the validity of this claim?”

      This is a fallacy, and irrelevant to this discussion. Are there supposed ‘experts’ and attendant politicians advocating that we spend trillions of dollars over the next decade ‘de-gravitating’ our economies via technologies that don’t work and will exacerbate our existing energy crisis? Are there anthropogenic general relativitists in our governments advocating massive increases in beaurocracy, regulations & taxes to counter this ‘threat’. No. There are not – so why bring up this entirely bogus argument?

      “So obviously we need to trust the results that have been found by the people who do have the facts. Yet people refuse to do this and instead fall back on their own groundless opinions. Why?”

      Err – for someone who evidently thinks he is up-to-date with this topic, you appear to have let both Climategate I and Climategate II pass you by completely. Do some research, then come back here and say again that the ‘experts’ know what they are talking about or, better, that they did not deliberately falsify their data or work together to kill the scientific/peer review process.

      “And it’s largely this hair-brained notion that it is some kind of global, liberal conspiracy to increase taxes and create bigger governments”

      Funny how every proposed ‘solution’ put forward by the ‘experts’ and our politicians somehow, completely accidentally, will result in bigger Government, higher taxes, less liberty and – shock! – massive subsidies for special interest groups, isn’t it?

      What makes all of this warmist propaganda even more laughable is that even if all Western nations did somehow achieve their carbon targets at astronomical expense, by the IPCC’s own numbers the effect on the overall climate would be neglible.

    • stmichrick

      Scott my friend
      You are casually dismissing the scientists with doubt in favor of the newly created discipline of climate science which, BTW, depends on the data of many older disciplines like physics, geology, meteorology and oceanography.

      As for myself, when I heard Al Gore say “‘the science is settled,” I knew we needed to doubt it. Let’s take geology, though. The evidence is that the earth surface temperature has flucuated many times over the millenia (pre-SUV times). How has driving a Chevy Suburban differentiated itself as a factor on earth temperature versus the pattern of cosmic forces on the earth over geologic time? You remember Carl Sagan…b-billlions and b-billlions of years.

      It boils down to ‘scale,’ my friend. And politics.
      Some folks just can’t believe man can act in his own self-interest without corrupting the masses and the earth. We just need big government run by 60’s-enlightened leftists to keep everything fair and healthy.

      Sorry, the secret’s out. The truth escaped the WSJ editorial page (consservative) to the front page (mildly liberal).

    • cmacrider

      Soooooooooo you think “Nature & Science” is an unbiased source on the AGW oops I mean Climatechange suject …… that says it all. You better get back to watching An Inconvenient Truth for the umpteenth time. The British High Court only found about 25 blatant scientific fallacies in it but its great stuff if you like science fiction.

    • Wil Burns

      Scott, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the other conservative pundits, say there is no Global Warming. That is good enough for me!

      • Glen Stambaugh

        Probably more reliable than your other sources,

    • Neal Angel

      “As you accurately say in the opening paragraph, you’re not a scientist. Nor am I. We are not in possession of the facts, the data or the means to interpret it. So obviously we need to trust the results that have been found by the people who do have the facts. Yet people refuse to do this and instead fall back on their own groundless opinions.”

      In your own unbiased opinion, right?