Steamboat Springs In the interest of balance, I offer a counterpoint to the recent column by Paul Krugman titled "Empire of Carbon." Mr. Krugman is a recent Nobel Laureate in economics, but his knowledge of the physical sciences seems to be the partisan political dogma regarding climate change.
He has bought into the view that carbon dioxide is a polutant responsible for global warming. He is not aware of the fact that global average temperature has been dropping for almost 10 years now while carbon dioxide continues to rise. This also happened for 40 years in the mid-20th century, and recent time resolution of ice core data going back many thousands of years shows that increases in carbon dioxide followed increases in temperature, not the reverse. This is expected because CO2 is in dynamic equilibrium with both the biosphere and the oceans.
Mr. Krugman mentioned "junk science" when referring to the work supporting a view that opposes his. The real junk science is the mathematical modeling work that drives the conclusions of the politically active forces in climate change. A very prominent climate scientist, David Evans, of Australia, who favored Mr. Krugman's view for a long time recently changed his mind because some of the critical aspects of the models have been proved wrong, thus invalidating the models in his judgment. This and many other examples of world-class scientists who argue against anthropogenic climate change show that the word "consensus" is either misunderstood or it is a deliberate deception.
Mr. Krugman obviously has no exposure to the scientific literature in this field or he would know that. Evidence continues to grow that the variations in solar intensity are the primary driver of climate change. The Earth warms as the output of the sun increases and vice versa. This effect is seen in other planets of the solar system, as well - Mars, for example.
The saga continues.
Dr. Henry R. Savage