Charles Krauthammer is a “global warming agnostic”, he doesn’t know if global warming is real or not. In his essay, Carbon Chastity, he argues that the global warming debate should not be closed yet, and we need to do more objective research on it. He also asserts we should use nuclear power until more research is done and doesn’t believe the government should put limits on our energy consumption.
Krauthammer’s tone is sarcastic throughout. There are several instances when he “bad mouths” people and it doesn’t contribute to a meaningful argument or help to develop his point. He accuses the “compliant scientists” and “opportunistic politicians” of having a hidden agenda. He implies the “intellectual left” failed at both communism and socialism so now they push environmentalism as a way to control people. Almost everyone is in agreement that more research needs to be done and all research should be objective and reliable. He implies the research being done now isn’t.
He argues predictions about climate change are based on assumptions about complex planetary systems in which scientists don’t completely understand. Meteorology and other similar sciences have become quite accurate. Scientists aren’t just taking a shot in the dark when they create the models about planetary systems which are used to demonstrate the effects of global warming. Of course, it’s not 100% accurate, but nothing ever is. The models do change as we make new discoveries but they are not “inherently” flawed, as Krauthammer claims. He goes on to argue, “The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.” Scientists only predict these things are likely to happen, not that they definitely will and not that they will all at the same time. All predictions can’t be speculative just because of the improbability of multiple events.
... began in the 1880's. As for the cause of global warming, scientists generally believe that both the combustion of fossil fuels and ... to be the most powerful hurricane on modern record. Further research on the area’s weather patterns where the hurricane occurred ... species. And if the drastic temperature fluctuation in the water doesn’t devastate the fish population, the pollution content will. Salinity ...
Krauthammer mentions a Newsweek cover story that declares the debate about global warming over but doesn’t expand on it. He compares the story declaring the debate is over to declaring Newton’s laws of motion being overthrown. These two issues are not analogous; it’s like comparing apples to oranges. Maybe the debate shouldn’t be closed but we do have some evidence about global warming’s legitimacy.
Krauthammer’s alternative is to use nuclear power until more research is done on global warming. He states, “The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.” How can he be so certain nuclear power is safe for the environment if he isn’t convinced about global warming? Doesn’t more research need to be done on it too?