(hat tip: the Patriot Post US)
“Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. [The recent] Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It’s an object lesson of how viewing the world as ‘good guys vs. bad guys’ can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story...
As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as Newsweek did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.”
—Newsweek columnist Robert Samuelson
“There’s a reason why one should be extremely wary of the computer models that are cited by the endless doomsday predictions of Al Gore, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, and all the other advocates of ‘global warming.’ The reason is clouds. Computer models simply cannot provide for the constant variability of clouds, so they ignore them.
In a July issue of The Economist an article called ‘Grey-Sky thinking’ was subtitled, ‘Without understanding clouds, understanding the climate is hard. And clouds are the least understood part of the atmosphere.’
Since the increasingly rabid claims of Earth’s destruction from rising temperatures depend on computer modeling, how can they be regarded as accurate if they must largely exempt or deliberately manipulate the impact of clouds? How can you make predictions, whether it’s a week or a decade from now, if you haven’t a clue why clouds do what they do?”
—Alan Caruba
No comments:
Post a Comment