

Forget The Term Global Warming. Hello Global Weirding. - ddrouin
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html

======
brc
I'll round it up for Thomas: \- it's likely that the earth has seen
temperatures as high or higher as recently as 1000 years ago, with no human
input. The level of warming is not precendented in recent (geological) history
\- the rate of warming from 1979-2005 matches other rates of warming in the
instrumental record, so the rate of warming is not unprecedented. -there has
been no statistically significant warming since 1995 -the production of co2
and associated increase in the atmosphere has followed previous trends and
predictions \- sea ice loss and glacier loss may or may not be related to the
warming temperature, in many cases it is not clearly known (ie Himalayas) and
requires more study. In other cases it may be microclimate changes causing
snow loss (Kiliminjaro, deforestation) \- there is no statistically
significant increase in extreme weather events measured over the 20th century.
While there was an increase in insurance losses, this is due to more people
and property living in high risk areas. \- the early IPCC and other
predictions made in the late '80s and early '90s have failed to predict the
global average temperature \- the underpinning of the AGW theory is that the
earth has warmed since the mid 20th century, and scientists haven't been able
to find any other reason, so the assumption is that it is greenhouse gases
causing this, given they have gone from ~ 0.000035% to .000038% of the
atmosphere

Don't believe me though : these are the facts as I have read and understand
them, everyone reads and believes different things. Also see Richard Lindzens'
recent post to the Boston Globe
([http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/...](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/02/19/the_sound_of_alarm/))
for his views on this type of editorial - he sums this up in a much better way
than I could.

Finally, the 'in the pay of big oil and coal' is a tired meme and shows
political advocacy rather than a true discussion of the issues. Most of the
genuine research sceptics are self funded or in tenured university posts. Yes,
there are oil-funded research groups, but these do not provide the bulk of
sceptical views. The oil, gas and coal industries have donated millions to
climate science research, and AGW research has received billions from
governments. Like there is no shadowy conspiracy of climate scientists to
instate a communist world government, there is no shadowy network of big oil
funding for sceptics.

------
dantheman
Flagged: Pure politics -- contributes nothing but hearsay.

------
InclinedPlane
I live in a 2 bedroom apartment and drive a Corolla. Thomas Friedman lives
here:
[http://17.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr4dmdT1gb1qa45fzo1_500.gi...](http://17.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr4dmdT1gb1qa45fzo1_500.gif)

When Friedman's carbon footprint comes down to within an order of magnitude of
my own then I'll _consider_ what he has to say about the dangers of CO2
emissions to the world. Until then, I'll consider him just another blow hard
who enjoys feeling important about himself, can't resist telling the rest of
the world how to live, and doesn't even appear to take his own words
seriously.

