creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
9 Feb 2010
Does Judge Walker Have a Conflict?

In the circle of lawyers and judges I know, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is a giant. He is a brilliant jurist,… Read More.

7 Feb 2010
Holder's Premature Mirandization of Suspect

Republicans have been hitting the Obama administration for Attorney General Eric Holder's too-quick decision … Read More.

4 Feb 2010
Poizner Unhinged, Whitman Unavailable

At first, it seemed like a bonehead move. On Monday morning, the campaign for Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner'… Read More.

When the Warmest in History Isn't

Here's another reason why people don't trust newspapers. When science reporters write about, say, hormone therapy or drinking red wine, they report on studies that find that hormones or red wine can be good for you, as well as studies that suggest otherwise. Any science involving complex organisms is rarely black and white.

When it comes to global warming, newspapers play up stories that reinforce the prevalent the-sky-is-falling belief that global warming is human-caused and catastrophic. But if a study or scientist does not portend the end of the world as we know it, it rarely rates as news.

In that spirit, many papers (including The Chronicle) have reported on a UC San Diego science historian who reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles on global warming published between 1993 and 2003, and concluded, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Over 10 years, not one study challenged the orthodoxy — does that sound right to you? If that were true, it would strongly suggest that, despite conflicting evidence in this wide and changing world, no scientist dares challenge the politically correct position on the issue.

No wonder, David Bellamy — an Australian botanist who was involved in some 400 TV productions, only to see his TV career go south after he questioned global warming orthodoxy — wrote in The Australian last week, "It's not even science anymore; it's anti-science." Bellamy notes that official data show that "in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased." Exhibit B: Richard S. Lindzen, the MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, recently wrote, "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995."

Such findings rarely are reported, even as, Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee told me, "Scientists keep coming out of the woodwork" to challenge the so-called consensus. "It's almost like a bandwagon effect."

The Global Warming Petition Project urges Washington to reject the Kyoto international global warming pact as there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." So far, The Politico reports, more than 31,000 scientists have signed it.

The latest skirmish in the global warming war — barely reported in America — occurred after two bloggers found that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data wrongly cast this October as the warmest in recorded history.

It turns out that the mistake was due to an error that wrongly tapped September temperature records from Russia. Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph of London found the mistake "startling" in light of other contrary climate statistics, including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration findings of 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month.

In an e-mail, Goddard researcher Gavin Schmidt explained, "The incorrect analysis was online for less than 24 hours." (Thank bloggers Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Canadian computer analyst Steve McIntyre for catching the mistake.) The error occurred because a report "had the wrong month label attached. There is quality control at NOAA and GISS but this particular problem had not been noticed before and the existing QC procedures didn't catch it. These have now been amended."

As for the snowfall records and low temperatures cited by Booker, Schmidt chalked them up to "cherry picking" data. He added, "Far more important are the long-term trends."

Now, honest mistakes happen — even in high-powered, well-funded research facilities. Just last year — again thanks to the vigilance of Watts and McIntyre — Goddard had to reconfigure its findings and recognize 1934 — not 1998, as it had figured — as the hottest year on record in American history.

Alas, it is hard to see Goddard as objective when its director, James Hansen, testified in a London court in September in support of six eco-vandals. A jury then acquitted the six Greenpeace activists on charges of vandalizing a British coal-fired power plant based on the "lawful excuse" defense that their use of force would prevent greater damage to the environment after Hansen predicted the one Kingsnorth plant could push "400 species" into extinction.

Of course, he could be wrong.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment

Ma'am;... We dont have to believe in global warming, and we don't have to do anything about it...It is like the ice in your drink on a hot day... It will stay cold until the ice melts, as it is doing, and then it will get pissy warm and you won't want any part of it... Think of it this way... Until it gets too bad to bear, you will be fine.... If you own the world's most powerful military you can own any place where the climate remains decent... Famine and draught will kill off most of the world's population, so all you have to worry about is war; but I know you are not inclined to worry while worry is avoidable...So...I have to ask if you are married... You must have your own income... I'm married, but my wife is pretty smart, and actually the brains of the outfit, if you catch my drift...But if I could find two stupid women instead of one smart one I could double my wives and get twice as much for the begging I do now... And I am not trying to call you stupid just because you buy a lot of discredited energy industry propaganda... I just want to know if you like old fat guys even if they suspect your intelligence... Because, you know, what ever happens happens anyway, and we don't have to worry about climate change when we can have any spot on the planet; so the only reason we have to worry about it, is if we give a damn about humanity... And who are they???Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:37 PM

Widespread and repeated dissemination of false or overly biased information with the intent of convincing the masses to adopt a desired belief used to be called propaganda. Why not call the global warming hysteria what it is; propaganda? How can people today be so blind to methods used so destructively in the past?

Comment: #2
Posted by: Avanti
Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:51 AM

Re: Avanti;.... There is propaganda, but its value now a days is doubt... There is no such thing as the masses.... Are your parties made up of masses...Are your religious denominations masses???. It may be possible for the masses, as you call them, to cooperate for a certain end, but since they are in fact, all individuals, to GET them to do anything is like herding cats... They have no essential unity, and so cannot properly be concieved of, except as what they are: some gathering of people... Look at what it takes to get people out to vote, that apart from a great argument, some understanding of individual self interest must be brought to consciousness.... And it is on the point of individual self interst that the Global Warming debate is being made... The small fraction of scientist who go against the notion of global warming are doing so because that is where their money is... And the energy industry is opposed to the science, because that is where the money is for them... Nothing but the great mass of science, and the long term, hard sell, issue of environmental and human responsibility support the reduction of carbon emissions... The question I have is: what good propaganda might be in getting people to change long term patterns of behavior... Isn't it nearly impossible to change minds and behavior, and does that not always involve a rational and moral argument bent ultimately in changing every person's self perception??? Where would propaganda serve that end??? I think propaganda follows power, just as it did in the Catholic Church, in propagating the faith... People are conservative...They do not want to change, especially when it will cost more, and involve more effort, and thought, for a time beyond our own lives -which we are not inclined to want to consider... The money says status quo, and that is where the propaganda is... But again... They are not making the argument... The fossil fuel bunch should say: This is our world, and if global warming kills off 90% of the world's population, we have the ability to keep our own alive, and hold every part of the world that is fit to farm.... Global warming means climate change... Climates change all the time, and no one can get too attached to any real estate, but get attached to their lives, and be willing to kill others, and drive them into the desert to live with all the endangered species, -if they can live at all... Global warming is going to mean war and death... But, in the mean time; it means high profits and high life... People who worry about the future lose the moment... We only have one life; so let if be a Party... Let it be The Republican Party...They know the truth, and people deserve only the truth they can afford... Don't you agree???Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:40 AM

Well, Saunders, we can have scientists study whether the sky is blue or not too. I'd just as soon trust my own eyes. I don't know if October was the warmest month on record or not, but I sure am wondering what happened to autumn as we approach winter.

Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:51 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Feb. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2010
Chuck Norris
Chuck NorrisUpdated 9 Feb 2010
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 9 Feb 2010

1 Apr 2008 On Race, Rice and Obama

4 Feb 2010 Poizner Unhinged, Whitman Unavailable

6 Mar 2007 Do As I Say, Not As I Spew