Lorrie Goldstein is an associate editor at the Toronto Sun. Normally, the Toronto Sun affects my view of the world only when I use loose copies of the paper and a solution of 1 part vinegar to 3 parts water to wash my windows. Just the same, a recent article caught my eye. In an editorial titled "Debunking hot hysteria" Goldstein outlines five points which suggest that Global Warming is not nearly the crisis it's being made out to be. The byline reads "Political agendas, massive misinformation fueling climate debate." I couldn't agree more, however, in the case of his article, the author himself is the source of this misinformation.

Goldstein's original article text is available here: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/01/14/3362249-sun.html

Herein, I review Goldstein's five points:

Point 1:

Goldstein states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone through countless cycles of warming and cooling all of which had nothing to do with human influence, because we weren't even around. Yes, this is true, however, here Goldstein makes a point in favour of Global Warming rather than one against it.

Scientists have been able to extract about 400,000 years of climate data thanks to precious research done in Vostok, Antarctica. Scientists there took ice core samples and looked at the entrapped air bubbles which were samples of the climate at the time they were formed. Using this data scientists were able to look at CO2 concentration and various isotopes (special forms of well known atoms) to determine the atmospheric temperature.

This data is freely available for all to examine at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html and a telling graph of the past 400,000 years of history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png shows clearly that throughout this period, the concentration of CO2 has influenced global temperature.

So it is true that Global Warming has occurred countless eons before humans existed, however, it was always tied to the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Since no scientist or even Goldstein doubts that humans are dumping unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, Goldstein must then be forced to admit that humans are causing this latest Global Warming event.

Point 2:

Goldstein points out the difference between predicting the weather and predicting the climate. He says that alarmists are pointing to Katrina and the recent warm winter as clear evidence of Global Warming and such claims are irresponsible. He's quite right that such claims are irresponsible, however, no reputable scientists are making this claim. Scientists in the field are quite particular about mentioning that while no one weather event can conclusively be connected to Global Warming, humans have put an unprecedented amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and this will inevitably lead to Global Warming. The data in this regard (the unprecedented CO2 levels) is irrefutable. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Goldstein makes a tongue in cheek remark about scientists' inability to predict the weather suggesting that the general public might take climate predictions with a grain of salt. Goldstein is unaware of the law of large numbers. Weather is hard to predict, however, climate (long term weather), given enough data (supplied graciously by the Vostok Ice Core data) isn't. The model here is that Goldstein, an editor of the Toronto Sun, knows approximately how many people a day will read his newspaper reliably. He however does not know a name by name list of those people; so too is it with weather compared to climate. We may not know exactly on which days the rain will fall, however, if we live in a desert, we can reliably put an upper bound on the amount of rainfall.

Point 3:

In this section Goldstein points out that in the 1970's "Time, Newsweek and others ran stories predicting a possible new ice age. Oops." This is also a true statement; these periodicals did run such stories. However all those periodicals made a classic journalistic error of misquote by truncation. Below I will present two quotes from the 1974 proceedings of the National Science Board. The CAPITALIZED TEXT represents text that was omitted.

As quoted: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."

And now, the more complete quote, OMISSIONS CAPITALIZED: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE, OR EVEN LIKELY, THAN HUMAN INTERFERENCE HAS ALREADY ALTERED THE ENVIRONMENT SO MUCH THAT THE CLIMATIC PATTERN OF THE NEAR FUTURE WILL FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PATH. . . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_and_1972_National_Science_Board

As an editor of the Toronto Sun, Goldstein must be aware that a fundamental principle of journalism is to check the original source of a quote, not just the quoted version. Oops.

Further, these predictions were made before scientists had the data of the Vostok Ice Core samples. If you examine the data, you can see that the scientists were indeed correct that if there was no human intervention, we likely would have slipped (gradually) into another ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Point 4:

Goldstein attempts here to outline the state of the 'debate' about Global Warming. He makes comments about a debate that doesn't exist. That is, it hasn't existed for quite some time in scientific circles, and only exists in the court of public opinion financed by Exxon. The Vostok Ice core samples are the state of the debate. They show that our climate's mean temperature varies reliably with greenhouse gasses. That's it, there's no debate.

Point 5:

Goldstein suggests that it's alright to err on the side of caution and conserve fossil fuels, although he doesn't specify by how much. Goldstein seems to suggest that there is something to be concerned about, but as far as the Global Warming Alarm is concerned, we're free to hit the snooze button for an extra 9 years of well deserved rest.

Meanwhile, scientists are telling us that all of our civilization has flourished by the grace of an oasis in geological time; that is most of the time it's either much colder and/or much drier. Our scientists tell us that this balance is very delicate and easily shifted catastrophically in one direction or another. But we needn't worry ourselves about such alarms.

So go ahead; don't let those pesky scientists talk you out of your dream SUV. There's no need to worry so long as we have the scientific acumen of Goldstein on the watch. As he prosaically concludes: "... without greenhouse gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide, we'd all freeze to death." Beware of bathing in Goldstein's house, mind you, because he may very well apply similar logic by allowing unlimited use of the hot water tap because without it, baths and showers would be far too cold.

Articles Source - Free Articles

About the Author

Martin Winer is a Computer Scientist and Biologist holding degrees in both from York University