My respect to the "multi Pulitzer Prize winning author" already hit the rock bottom after his histrionics re the much hated Internet and the bloggers. So nothing much changed in this respect when I read the op-ed column titled Global Weirding Is Here. The message conveyed by the article, however, is another matter.
In the article Mr Friedman offers free advice, sketching the way that in his opinion the most distinguished scientist communities should take to put an end to the dissent on the GW subject:
In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.I am not a sixth grader and happen to know that scientific papers usually don't look the way the author desires, but this is not that important. It's the following text that is of note: Mr Friedman has already prepared the (four points) conclusions for the "50-page report". Not that I've noticed any formal scientific titles in Friedman's bio, but he is, probably, a brilliant autodidact, judging by the way he dispenses instructions to the above listed scientific centers. Smashing, that...
But this, in fact, is not my main point, it's just a bit of background to show the level of self-importance to which our august journo has elevated himself. This post is, actually, about another tirade from the same article:
The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes.The sleight of hand in this quote is a bit crude by NYT standards, but still quite amazing. Apples vs oranges is nothing to Tom, when he so deftly pitches the "climate-science community" as a united single-minded group against the all-powerful economic and political foes - also united and single-minded group, all bad, of course.
And why should any indoctrinated in GW belief reader analyze that quote, instead of swallowing as a whole something he/she believes in? Of course, one-dimensional "truth" that Friedman dispenses doesn't need complications like mentioning many a scientist challenging the science behind some of the global warming theories. Or mentioning the green industries that are eagerly clamoring for federal handouts that will run into uncounted (yet) billions. Or political undercurrents, where for some reason that still escapes me (or not), the split between the pro- and anti-GW theory occurred precisely along the political divide...
Not that it should be of interest to anyone, but the author of this post is sitting on the fence where the GW theory is concerned, preferring to let the scientists do their work*. The glaring bias and pompous buffoonish preaching like these of Tom Friedman can hardly change my point of view.
As for Friedman's outrage that "the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,”", what can I say: at least someone is having fun on account of a man that tried to frighten me by 20 feet waves.
(*) It was quite a disappointment for me to see the Friedman's article in question appearing in the column "Calls to action" (the pro-GW theory side of that site). As if it is really contributing something.