Thursday, September 24, 2009

How the Times Covers Inconvenient Truths   [Jonah Goldberg]

If global warming turns out to be the dud some think it will, this article will make for fascinating reading one day. It's all about how the failure of global temperatures to continue rising is a terrible challenge for scientists trying to sustain a sense of crisis about global warming.

The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown. And some climate experts worry that it could hamper treaty negotiations and slow the progress of legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

But trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public — and to policy makers — can be frustrating, they say.

Now I'm open to the possibility that the explanation for the cool spell we're in is not a refutation of the general case for climate change. Climate is a complicated thing and we could be in a short cooling period in the middle of a long warming period. Or, we might not be. No need to rehash that whole argument here. But what I find absolutely galling is the failure of the Times or the scientists quoted to take seriously the possibility that the potential cooling period is an indictment of the tactics, rhetorical and otherwise, used by the alarmists. Ten years ago the models didn't predict any of what has transpired or appears to be transpiring. They undermined their own credibility. And now that they want to communicate "nuance" instead of fear — solely because the data forces them to — they're having a hard time of it. Well boo hoo for them.

Update: From a reader:

It is entirely possible that recent cooling is a statistical aberration.
 
Of course, it's just as possible that the warming in the 1990s was a similar aberration.
 
And it's remarkable that the Times even mentions tropical storms — I thought that serious scientists had admitted that the strength of any particular storm, or storm season, couldn't be related to global warming, due to all the statistical noise in the system.
 
The impact of observer bias on interpretation of anecdotes is well-known, which is why scientists insist on data.  It's amazing how often journalists and activists, who presumably believe in reasoning and science, as opposed to those knuckle-dragging religious types, don't display any skepticism or impartiality of their own.

09/24 03:47 PMShare