Daniel Henninger, som skrev artikeln Climategate: Science Is Dying, kommenterar:
Richard Lindzens WSJ-artikel i måndags, The Climate Science Isn't Settled, kan förresten rekommenderas. Bl a känslighet tas upp (positiv resp. negativ feedback). Lindzen avslutar:
"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example."
Klimat i media: DN, MA, VG1, VG2, TA, SvD, Politiken1, Politiken2
Andra bloggar om: samhälle, vetenskap, klimat, klimatpolitik, Climategate