Home » Global Warming, Off Topic » The New York Times – Et tu, Brute?

The New York Times – Et tu, Brute?

The New York Times is giving lip service to a letter signed and sent by 100 scientists to the UN Global Warming conference in Bali. The letter essentially said that climate change is natural, unstoppable, and attempts to control climate change rather than adapt to it only serves to make the problem of adapting to it much more difficult as vast sums of time and money are diverted to attempting the impossible when the same resources could be productively employed in solvable problems. When what is perhaps the least conservative major newspaper in the world gives space to global warming “skeptics” and doesn’t add the seemingly obligatory condemnation of said skeptics to the report I think it’s a sign that the debate is rapidly changing in favor of the skeptics. I knew this would happen. Anthropogenic global warming is based on cherry picking data to fit a bogus climate model. It was only a matter of time before it collapsed because, unlike Darwinian fairy tales of mud to man evolution over billions of years, climate change does happen quickly enough to observe over practical lengths of time. For instance, there hasn’t been any net global warming in almost 10 years yet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased substantially over that time. The computer models of CO2′s effect as a greenhouse gas are simply and (now) demonstrably wrong.

Contrarians vs. Bali
December 14, 2007, 10:29 am
By John Tierney

We always need contrarians to challenge orthodoxy, so it’s good to see a few scientists raising questions about the established wisdom at the Bali conference on climate. But I’m such a contrarian myself that I have to quibble with them.

More than 100 scientists, including veterans of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and some prominent names like Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen and Reid Bryson, signed a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations arguing that the U.N. conference at Bali “is taking the world in entirely the wrong direction.” You can read the full text here. The letter warns that mandating drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions would be futile, costly and “constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.” The letter urges a focus on adaptation:

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

I understand the need for societies to become adaptable (and to be rich enough to deal with unexpected changes). I understand why trying to mandate cuts in emissions may turn out to be a futile strategy, if only because people won’t go along with the cuts. But I don’t understand why it’s impossible to stop climate change. Geoengineers have just started working on this problem, and already they’ve got some rough schemes that look affordable. Give them a couple decades . . .

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to The New York Times – Et tu, Brute?

  1. 100 signatories, and only one Steve. :-)

    Bob

  2. 100 signatories, and only one Steve.

    Approximately how many signatures would be required to reverse manmade climate change?

  3. Geoengineers have just started working on this problem, and already they’ve got some rough schemes that look affordable. Give them a couple decades . . .

    I would like to see them adjust the orbit of the earth around the sun a bit so we can get rid of that pesky extra day in our calendar every four years.

  4. Offtopic: How ’bout a discussion on this important topic on NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12.....ref=slogin

  5. As the resident conspiracy theorist. I feel it my duty to be the skeptics advocate of the skeptics of near term hope. :P

    . When what is perhaps the least conservative major newspaper in the world gives space to global warming “skeptics” and doesn’t add the seemingly obligatory condemnation of said skeptics to the report I think it’s a sign that the debate is rapidly changing in favor of the skeptics. I knew this would happen.

    As a conspiracy theorist and paradigm buster.. I think ti improtatn to wonder how such nonsense as man made global warming ever got off the ground? What si it’s ACTUAL origin? And..more importantly.. who benefits most?

    My inkling is that it is a globalist ploy to meld goverments into a more intertwined governmental system, and to create larger gap between the rich and poor. And placing more power in fewer hands that can be influenced by the international banking et.al.(?) complex.

    If such a conspiracy is occuring, to think that it would cave in so suddenly, while having money (from who??) to push it still harder, might be premature.

    Afterall, they have one Vice President that “somehow?????” recently won a Nobel Peace Prize(!?!?) helping to push the agenda.

    The argument against manmade global warming is so persuasive..that you have to really consider why such “nuttiness” can be sold to suhc a large portion of the people.

    Read the short peice of literature (fictional, conspiracy or other) “The Report from Iron Mountain”… and look at the trend since this fiction was printed. The author was, as far as I can determine, either incredibly insightful, or lying about it being fictional. etiher way, it is an intriguing piece of conspiracy literature.

  6. ps. I wonder if WmD could figure a probability analysis for the events in “The Report from Iron Mountain” to have unfolded into the real world, since the 1960′s, when it was first published. i jsut don’t knwo the expected mindsets of the 1960′s..what were people thinking about the future and war..etc..
    Event Example #1:
    The development of global peace keeping forces as a peaceful substitute for war, whereby industries could continue to profit from the global condition, and socio-political forces woudl maintatin their wartime stability in this quasi-peacetime transition.
    Event Example #2 The fabrication of a (false) environmental disaster threat (read global warming)… to accomplish the same.
    etc..

  7. The global warming hysteria is pretty funny. It would be funnier if it weren’t so dangerous.

    Check out this amazing list of things caused by global warming.

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Apparently global warming causes everything.

  8. I don’t know what your talking about dovecot, no offense, how on earth could you change the climate? There is no way to stop a cooling period or a warming one and tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, flooding and erosion are all part of natures path to sustaining life and balance. I really don’t see how you could warm or cool a climate and this is why I have been against the global warming delusion from the very beginning. I mean look at cars these days you cant even see the exhaust barely and humans don’t even live on 7 tenths of the planet cause its all water. Humans dot even live on 40% of the land. And to think an invisible gas in a tiny amount could warm the entire planet-

    You might as well believe in astrology because even astrology gets it right once in a while. This is the biggest problem with global warming- when the world is cooling they says its cause of CO2- when its warming they says its cause of CO2-

    The theory of global warming is ultimately non-falsifiable-

  9. From the Washington Times:

    “Year of global cooling”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....Y/10575140

  10. I tried to post a link to the news article, but apparently it filtered the comment w/ link. The news article was titled:

    “Year of global cooling”
    By David Deming
    December 19, 2007

    - Washington Times

    The title implies it all, but the last line summarzes it best:
    “Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.”

Leave a Reply