The science of hyperbole

Take a few recent weather events with a dash of 'sky is falling' science and what do you get? An all time high in the level of global warming noise. Strangely, not all of the nonsense is coming from the far left.

Science says we ARE warming. There is consensus. Any climatologist or meteorologist worth their salt would not disagree based on the past 30 years of observational and satellite data. The problem has always been in the trigger for such warming. There is simply a lack of long-term quality data to support anything more than educated guesses regards causation. Ideally, scientists would like to have thousands of years of instrument or satellite data before making any wild assumptions, but it just ain't there.

Pointing that out doesn’t mean carbon isn’t helping to superheat the planet, it just means prudence suggests we have to be careful coming to conclusions based only on proxy data from tree rings and ice cores. After all, they don't call it ‘proxy’ for nothin'.

However, let's be fair here and point out obfuscations from the right when they occur. The Washington Times and other right-leaning news outlets seized on a recent story in the London Telegraph in which paleoclimatologist Bob Carter from the James Cook University in Australia that global warming stopped in 1998. In essence this gentleman is correct—there has been a leveling of global temperature since the late 90s. But take a look at the chart for yourself.

Looking at the graph I don’t think any reasonable person can say the recent leveling represents a conclusive end to global warming.

But enough conservative bashing, let's get back to picking on the left. The bothersome thing about all the warming mitigation strategies is they seem to be the exact same solutions the liberals would choose if global warming didn't exist and they ruled the world. A skeptical person might be skeptical.

Together with the media the left has largely set up a consensus wall around this issue, in effect crushing dissent. One of the champions of the cause, NY Times writer Paul Krugman, recently illustrated this:

Over time, the accumulation of evidence removed much of that uncertainty. Climate experts still aren't sure how much hotter the world will get, and how fast. But there's now an overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause. In 2004, an article in the journal Science that surveyed 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals found that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

This was passed from a friend, and I suppose it’s behind the Times Select firewall. I suppose you'll need to part with some jingle to read the rest of it. The point here is Krugman's attitude suggests there’s no need for any further research, everything is already settled. He tells us that global warming skeptics, roughly all 12 of them worldwide, were being propped up all along by that evil white guy with 3 chins who just golden parachuted out of Exxon-Mobil.

But since we used a chart to slap around the right, here's one to slap around Krugman. This by the way, was gleaned from proxy data, too. Take a look and see if you think our recent warming is out of line, geologically speaking. It certainly points out what one can do with a chart.

This story was long ago hijacked by politics and hyperbole, with left and right both displaying tunnel vision. Both are seeing trains. Legitimate global warming science should be more about right or wrong than left and right, but movies such as "the Day After Tomorrow" or skeptic web sites pretending warming isn't occurring does the common man no good.

ENVIRO UPDATE 4/20/06

Hillary on Bush's policies:

"The results are all around us," she says, citing "more greenhouse gases, global warming, rising seas, more violent storms like Katrina."

That's perhaps one of the most irresponsible statements ever made by a politician. That alone is reason enough NOT to vote for this woman for any elected office, any time.