Posted on 05/29/2004 8:06:51 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid
I don't know how many of you receive the New York Times Book Review. I suppose it's limited to people who subscribe to the sunday edition of the NYT, which I'm sure doesn't include many FReepers, though I could be wrong about that.
Anyway, I was curious if any of you have seen the column on the last page of this weekend's Book Review (Chronicle: Environment), written by Verlyn Klinkenborg. I'll try to sumarrize it as neatly as I can without boring you to tears.
Klinkenborg's argument can basically be reduced to two main-though not very perceptive-thoughts:
1. We have a global warming crisis, which is caused by emissions created by humans beings.
2. Even though we're all aware of this crisis, we are either too indolent and/or callous to solve it.
I think that that his thesis can be boiled down to one paragraph:
To most scientists, global warming is a truly scary hypothesis. The evidence overwhelmingly shows, as predicted, that human behavior is altering the climate, with potentially catastrophic results. And yet it seems strangely difficult to scare or reason or argue Americans, the critical audience to reach, into recognizing the truth and acting on it.
Now, I don't want to get bogged down in technical arguments as to the merits or demerits of the case for global warming. Yes, it's been proven that there has been a slight increase in the mean temperature recorded over the past few years. I'm not here to debate whether or not this will have beneficial or negative consequences-or both-for our planet.
I'm simply soliciting your opinions regarding the sheer arrogance displayed by Klinkenborg in the assumptions and conclusions he arrives at during the course of this article.
He continually places the blame for global warming at the feet of the United States: "...the country with the highest emissions and the most excessive consumption, as well as enormous potential to produce innovative technologies-knows and seems to care the least about global warming.", while obscuring the responsibilities of other G-7, not to mention third world, nations.
For example, Klinkenborg never even raises the issue of China and India's own depletion of the Ozone Layer-which should concern him if he were consistent in his beliefs-during their drive to industrialize their respective countries.
Instead of asking the rhetorical question: "Why have Americans refused to face up to Global Warming?" I think Verlyn-and what kind of WASPish, preppie name is that anyway(?)-should ask himself why he could devote the equivalent of a two page article to this issue, and not bring up the fact that the United States is only part of the problem/solution and not the sole custodian of this planet?
2) I was just somewhat chagrined that they chose this particular forum to launch a partisan assault against the Bush Administration."
Sentence 2) is a direct contradiction of sentence 1).
I was surprised by the placement of this column, not by the fact that it was written and printed in the pages of The Times.
There's a link to the piece on this thread. Once you've read it, I think you'll agree that this did not belong in a section devoted to literary analysis.
Random thoughts, typed as fast as I can think 'em:
Whether global warming is valid or not, Kyoto was fatally flawed. Free passes for the worst polluters, sinks ignored even though they do make a difference, no adjustment for transportation related emissions in large vs. compact countries, etc, etc.
The greenie weenies never forget to point out that US greehouse emissions are high on a per capita basis, but they conveniently fail to note how low they are on a per unit production basis. In effect non-Americans are the ones who consume much of the production for which we take the blame.
Global weather is several orders of magnitude too complicated to be thoroughly understood by humans. Air pollution by smokestack industries, for example, is much more straightforward and easy to demonstrate causation.
While the human contribution may have some impact, you have to have a realistic view of how minute we and our activities are in relation to natural forces that have been at work for millenia.
Why was the UN research on Kyoto signed by POLITICAL scientists?
Why were alarmists in the 70's predicting a coming ice age?
The idea that "developing" nations, which are still in the process of industrialization, are somehow better stewards of the environment is ridiculous.
These people conveniently forget that if it weren't for the "green", fuel-efficient technologies developed by countries like the United States, and regions such as Western Europe, our globe would be in much worse shape than it is today.
Subterfuge and deception are fundamental tools of the propagandist. We laugh at the rag sheets printed in places like North Korea or the former Soviet Union where every aspect of life is politicized. (SNL did a great send up of this with "Bad Red Chinese Opera" back when SNL was actually funny). But what you noticed in the NYT is a manifestation of this same technique. It is to your credit that you see it and are annoyed. That is a hopeful sign. But make no mistake about the motivations or intentions of those who run the Times.
the nyt calls for rumsfeld and the president to resign, but notice that in the blair mess, the publishers of the nyt did not resign.
Excellent point...of course we only have "ozone hole" data above the Antarctic since the 1970's, so it's real probable that it occurred before that since Congress has been meeting since 1791 or so.
If you look carefully at the science involved, there is not a true "hole" in the ozone layer. It just thins in the Antarctic summertime. Funny that there is not a corresponding thinning over the North Pole in the Arctic summertime, since the concentration of the assorted Congresses (USA, EU, UK, France, etc) are in the Northern hemisphere, as are most of the sources of the gases related to the ozone layer depletion. I guess the theory is that the ozone-depleting gases run downhill towards the bottom of the Earth, or something.
The fact that his henchmen, Boyd and Raines, were sacked doesn't ameliorate the problem in the least.
As long Sulzberger, his sister, and their cronies wield the power of a veto over decisions made by the board of the Times, nothing will change.
This is a link to just one of her many articles refuting what the enviromental-fascists would like us to believe.
Oner of her best articles discusses how all models of man-caused global warming show that the heating would show up first in the upper atmosphere. Her point is that that isn't happening, hence huge cause for skeptiism on the environmentalists claims. I don't have al link to that article. Googling a bit will find it.
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=149
Who was the Danish scientist (Bjorn Lumberg? I know that ain't it) who used to work for GreenPeace and gradually became a skeptic?
It's the same reason why most of those foolish earthlings missed the spaceship that was following Hale-Bopp!
I think the only people left who are subscribing to the NYT is the diehard leftists and those who want the coupons. It's a dying paper.
You know that Heaven's Gate cult was onto something.
I mean, why else would they be living in Washington?
Or was it Oregon?
Whatever.
They're both seriously whacked.
See the NYT Newspaper Group, The New England Newspaper Group, The Regional Newspaper Group, the Broadcast Group and New York Times Digital.
They don't own media. They are the media!
Blair, Bragg, Muller, etc., have proven that The New York Times' real motto should be: "All the news that's fit to stint."
You were close. It's Bjorn Lomborg. His book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, is absolutely essential reading, and an essential reference manual, for anyone who wants to employ well researched, impeccably gathered hard facts with which to refute the environmentalist Cassandras.
He is really impressive, at least he comes across that way on television.
I watched him on "Now", when Moyers was moderating a discussion about different threats posed to the environment. I think this occurred during one of the myriad, useless global summits dealing with global warming.
I was struck by how easily he refuted his opponent's arguments, especially when they were debating the relative merits of government spending for anti-Global Warming research vs. inoculating millions of children with life saving vaccines.
Though, I wonder. If methane is so bad for the atmosphere, why do they let Teddy Kennedy roam free?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.