Impoverishing Climate Alarmism at the New York Times

I love to read NY Times columnist Gail Collins -- though I seldom agree with her, especially on matters of climate change [NYT March 27]. She has an angelic smile and a wonderful sense of humor; I wish I could write like that.

She also has a large devoted following who seems to agree with her alarms about an impending climate  disaster -- unless we start taxing all fossil fuels prontissimo.  Maybe that's what the White House has in mind; remember Obama's campaign promise to make electricity prices "sky-rocket."  Well, he seems to be on target.

So, Gail and fans, before we buy into your climate disaster, please explain to me why there has been no warming for more than a decade.  And all throughout, carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel  burning increased steadily, apparently with no discernible effect on temperatures -- according to the climate guru, Prof. Philip Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University, compiler of the UN's global surface temperature records (Daily Mail on Feb 25, 2010): See also his BBC interview.
OK, Gail and groupies; you won't talk  Well then: Can you explain why the Antarctic has been getting colder and gaining ice (2.1 trillion tons/yr) for the past 150 years? That sure doesn't look like the global warming predicted by all these sophisticated and very expensive computer models, now does it?  [Ref: " A synthesis of the Antarctic surface mass balance during the last 800 yr"  The Cryosphere, 7, 303-319, 2013, doi:1.5194/tc-7303-2013].   Why then should we trust these same models on future warming in 2100 if they are not validated by past observed temperatures?

Still not talking? Well then, do you think the sun (or cosmic rays), not CO2, might be responsible for the major warming of 20th century? [E Friis-Christensen, K Lassen - Science, 1991]   Even the UN's climate panel now finally admits that cosmic-ray changes can affect clouds - and climate:

"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays) or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; and Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties."   [IPCC-AR-5; second-order draft, Chapter 7, p.43]

So there you have it:

  • No scientific consensus on IPCC claims for human-caused global warming.
  • CO2 ineffective in controlling climate change-- solar activity and cosmic rays are the main agents.
  • Current climate models have not been validated - and cannot be relied on to predict future climate.
  • Also: CO2 is plant food. Higher levels benefit global agriculture and all living things. See

And you still want to burden US households with a carbon tax that goes nothing for the climate.  It not only raises the price of all energy fuels but also every essential consumer good; food, clothing, shelter -- even water?  How will they make ends meet?  Have you no compassion?

Keep smiling, Gail; you really look great!