It would be a great surprise if an article in The New Yorker about climate change wasn’t condescending toward those who question global warming alarmism. And this piece by Elizabeth Kolbert was no surprise.

In fact, it was exactly what you’d expect: pretentious, self-congratulating, and glossing over the real issues.  Ms. Kolbert pretends that what fuels doubts about climate change are just leaked emails (which she suggests show only that climate change scientists were frustrated with critics and frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests) and the error in the IPCC report stating that the Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035.

Yet as Ms. Kolbert surely knows, there’s much more to it than that. Here are just a few points of debate that Ms. Kolbert could have included in her article, but choose not to, instead trying to make doubts appear frivolous, as if it is just page 493 in the IPCC report that is under dispute.

The IPCC and many climate scientists are reluctant to discuss it, but many believe that the climate was warmer during medieval times than it is today.  If so, that suggests that it’s certainly possible that the modern warming trend isn’t the result of an increase in carbon in the atmosphere. It could be just a natural occurrence.

And as was revealed, in part, by the climategate emails, there are lots of serious questions about the data that underlie the models use by IPCC about temperature changes. Foremost, much of the original temperature data has been lost or destroyed.  Many scientists argue that changes in the environment and the use of land surrounding weather stations may have contributed to perceived warming.  And if scientists are so sure that man is causing global warming, why are they so reluctant to share their data or to consider the alternative theories?

And there are real alternative theories about what drives changes in temperatures. Some scientists contend that changes in the sun’s activity are primarily responsible for warming and cooling trends. Cloud cover isn’t fully accounted for in IPCC models, and has a significant impact on the atmosphere.

And while Ms. Kolbert writes, “No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax.” It seems impossible that she could not be aware of the billions and billions of dollars that are at stake in this debate and just how much these universities and scientists have to gain or lose from the outcome of he debate about global warming alarmism.

The New Yorker may be the premiere vehicle for liberal pretensions, but it’s certainly not for balanced discussion of any policy issue.