It seems the Newsweek story regardng who is in denial about global warming was so bad even a Newsweek editor had to come out and publically tear it down. The story was all about how those of us who do not buy into Al Gore’s unscientific emotional tirades (probably because we have backgrounds in science and engineering and KNOW the data does not portray anything the earth has not experienced before while man roamed its face) should simply be ignored so the enlightened (read ‘gullible’) can get on with playing god and saving the planet. Before we get into what Samuelson said about his own magazine’s tripe, let me bring in one of many opposing scientific views on the matter:

A recent Newsweek magazine cover story on global warming contained significant errors and used outdated scientific material in its representation of global climate data collected by satellites, according to the scientists who maintain that dataset at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, who created and maintain the global temperature dataset, are available to answer questions about how instruments aboard NOAA satellites collect temperature data, and about the accuracy of that data. The most recent monthly update of global temperatures shows a warming trend of about 0.25° Fahrenheit per decade (about 0.14 C) since satellites started collecting the data in late 1978.

…

“There were also at least two major Newsweek errors relating to research that helped us correct an error caused by degrading orbits. First, that research (which was done by scientists and not by ‘engineers’) did not prove the satellite data are wrong while the surface data are accurate. It did help us correct a problem we had noticed but whose cause we had not identified. That is how the scientific process works. The resulting corrections, rather than being major, were rather minimal and were within our previously published margin of error.”

And it did not help Newsweek to have another scientist working for NASA address a truly unprofessional computational error in his data that changed the hottest year in the last 100 years from 1998 to 1934. If the Earth is not seeing much of a change from 1934 to today after the enormous increase in C02 production in the intervening time – not to mention the population explosion and increased burning of fossil fuels – then the global warming canard surrounding CO2 as the driver behind Global Warming is pretty much busted.

The population increases from 1934 to 2007 are very large. The world’s population was 1.65 billion in 1900, 2.52 billion in 1950 and is now around 6.1 billion (see reference here). Assuming 1934 was well over halfway to the 1950 number (though WW II would do a lot to reduce this number) let’s just assume 2.2 billion for 1934. The fact is the world’s population has nearly tripled in that time and yet there is very little change in the earth’s temperature since then (the five warmest years in the now corrected data were prior to WW II). This is the science – deny at your own risk of losing credibility.

It seems even Newsweek cannot deny the fallacy of their own cover story in the light of real science:

If you missed NEWSWEEK’s story, here’s the gist. A “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.” This “denial machine” has obstructed action against global warming and is still “running at full throttle.” The story’s thrust: discredit the “denial machine,” and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

Fundamentally misleading because it is fundamentally wrong. Here is what else is said about the motives behind the story:

We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism.

Presumably this is AFTER someone interviewed the authors and editors responsible for pasting garbage across a defunct and failing magazine. Even in this attempt to correct their ways, they failed the basic science:

Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. With present policies, it projected that carbon-dioxide emissions (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.

All of the IEA and IPPC models are fantasies. And CO2 is NOT a ‘main greenhouse gas’ – water vapor accounts for something over 90% of the green house effect, CO2 around 3.5%. No one can confuse 3.5% with ‘major’ – or at least they shouldn’t.

The fact is the science is not clear, but it does not show a massive increase yet. The Global Warming (GW) fanatics’ data have been proven wrong time and time again under the light of peer review. The dire predictions of pending doom that have eminated from the GW crowd for the last 20 years have never once come true. With a track record such as this it is more likely they GW is wrong instead of right (since they have not once been right). A true journalist would be reporting on the discrepencies between the two camps, not trying to bury one side’s views.