Polar opposites

Background: Time Magazine is a certified member of the global warming hysteria mob. Their stories on climate change are frequently one-sided and biased rather than objective news reports. When dealing with global warming, there are 4 questions that need to be dealt with (courtesy of Jay Richards of the Action Institute):

(1) Is the planet warming?

(2) If the planet is warming, is human activity (like CO2 emissions) causing it?

(3) If the planet is warming, is it bad overall?

(4) If the planet is warming, we’re causing it, and it’s bad, would the policies commonly advocated (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, legislative restrictions on CO2 emissions) make any difference and, if so, would their cost exceed their benefit?

Right now, the answer to number 1 appears to be yes (but it's not conclusive). The answer to number 2 is far from conclusive. The answers to 3 and 4 need to be seriously discussed. Unfortunately, Time doesn't positively contribute to the debate.

At the same time that the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported record minimums for ice in the Arctic, they reported near record highs for sea ice around Antarctica. Given that the sub-headline for your Arctic cover story read “As global warming shrinks the ice to record lows…”, I wonder what headline you will use for any future stories on Antarctica.

Even though scientists acknowledge that both poles are complex ecosystems and attempting to assign causes to their changing environment is fraught with difficulty, Time apparently knows better than the scientists.

[Letter to the Editor - Time Magazine. Submitted 09/25/2007.]