http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/10/global-warming-folly-charles-krauthammer

"Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer recently wrote an opinion piece that was published by many media outlets including The Washington Post, claiming that President Obama's Climate Action Plan is a "folly."

In fact, the real follies lie in Krauthammer's arguments.

Krauthammer's article begins in a schizophrenic manner, claiming that "Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil" a climate action plan, but then admitting that this "doesn't mean there is no global warming." Indeed it does not. In fact, over the past 16 years, the planet has accumulated an amount of heat equivalent to about 2 billion Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations.

Krauthammer objects to the President's comment that "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," because we don't understand everything about the Earth's climate, like exactly why surface temperatures have warmed relatively slowly over the past 16 years (though we do have a good idea)."

Why do we have to listen to 'commentators', not to the scientists who know about these things?

That was great article by Krauthammer and the main jist of the article was that Obama's policies will damage America's interests and do little to improve the environment. It was not really about whether global warming is real, or not.

I’m not against a global pact to reduce CO2. Indeed, I favor it. But in the absence of one — and there is no chance of getting one in the foreseeable future — there is no point in America committing economic suicide to no effect on climate change, the reversing of which, after all, is the alleged point of the exercise.

For a president to propose this with such aggressive certainty is incomprehensible. It is the starkest of examples of belief that is impervious to evidence. And the word for that is faith, not science. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-04/opinions/40369711_1_warming-climate-change-global-temperatures

Chuckle!

All hail Dr. Krauthammer.

This is exactly the problem on this side of the Atlantic.

The unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have gone overboard on this matter, forcing unattainable limits to carbon emissions on the member countries.

And a couple of days ago the woman in charge of this farce was on UK TV (Sunday politics programme) telling us that she was going to force up the price of carbon credits, as they were being traded at far too low a price at the moment, thus allowing European manufacturers to 'pollute' at very little cost. When it was pointed out that her ideas would price much of European manufacture out of the market, she said that that did not matter, she would go forward with her ideas and force Europe to comply.

Currently energy in Europe, especially the UK, is between 20% and 25% overpriced due to the subsidies already in place for 'green' energy - which in the UK only contributes 2% of consumable energy - and this idiot woman's ideas will probably put an end to what manufactories we still possess. These fascist greenies must be reined-in. They may have some correct facts on their side, but their interpretations of those facts and the solutions they propose are in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Who should we listen to, those who do, or those who talk? (Admittedly, those who talk are usually easier to understand!)

Americans seem wedded to their commentators (Krauthammer being one). Britons are less keen on commentators.... but we do seem to allow ourselves to be pushed around by Eurocrats.

Fascist greenies... there's a nice oxymoron for you!

Chuckle!

Another genius retort.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Let's imagine for a minute that a planet similar to Earth could be observed to the extent that it's climate history could be plotted going back billions of years. Now supposing such a planet was in recent times emerging from a period of cold climate, an ice age if you like. Perhaps if a central line was drawn on a graph of the planet's entire climate history showing the demarcation between cold periods and warm periods it would just be signaling a switch over to a warm period.

Supposing the amount of warming on this planet over the last 16 years was equal to the heat of 2 billion Hiroshima bombs.

Now what if this planet was not inhabited by any intelligent life form emitting CO2 over and above the effect of respiration? I'm not denying man has a bearing on the Earth's climate, but how significant this is in comparison to normal temperature fluctuations is the question nobody seems to address, it's almost as if asking this question denies any man made effect on our climate.

I'm not denying man has a bearing on the Earth's climate, but how significant this is in comparison to normal temperature fluctuations is the question nobody seems to address, it's almost as if asking this question denies any man made effect on our climate.

That is exactly how I feel. I am sort of an agnostic when it comes to global warming.

Let's imagine for a minute that a planet similar to Earth could be observed to the extent that it's climate history could be plotted going back billions of years. Now supposing such a planet was in recent times emerging from a period of cold climate, an ice age if you like. Perhaps if a central line was drawn on a graph of the planet's entire climate history showing the demarcation between cold periods and warm periods it would just be signaling a switch over to a warm period.

Supposing the amount of warming on this planet over the last 16 years was equal to the heat of 2 billion Hiroshima bombs.

Now what if this planet was not inhabited by any intelligent life form emitting CO2 over and above the effect of respiration? I'm not denying man has a bearing on the Earth's climate, but how significant this is in comparison to normal temperature fluctuations is the question nobody seems to address, it's almost as if asking this question denies any man made effect on our climate.

It's easy to ask the question but it's a question which can't be answered. We can say two things though.

1. The rate of increase (most notably shown by the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets) appears to be unusually fast.

2. 7 billion or more people emitting unnatural amounts of CO2 would seem likely to have a significant effect compared with no people at all.

Since we don't have, and by definition cannot have, base data to compare figures with, climate change can only be a hypothesis.... but it seems to be a pretty sensible hypothesis.

According to wiki Krauthammer is qualified as an MD and as a psychiatrist. His qualifications for giving valid scientific opinions on global warning are?...

Read the original article. He did not give advice on global warming.He gave advice on not damaging the American economy.

So he's an economist?

Charles Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician. He knows a lot about many subjects. His column is syndicated to more than 350 newspapers and media outlets.

Is he an economist?

Thankfully no.

“Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.”
― John Kenneth Galbraith

Is he an economist?

He's a know-all, Sustento.

Thankfully no.

“Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.”

― John Kenneth Galbraith

Actually his first degree was in political science and economics at Mcgill in Canada. He then went on to study politics at Oxford in the UK.