No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

You may have seen the letter in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, written (purportedly) by sixteen “scientists” who somehow think the Global Warming consensus is something they can dispute.

Which, of course, they can.

In response, I’m forced to wonder: has anybody ever written an anti-fisking? If not, then witness this TrogloPundit first. The letter begins:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.

Well, that depends on your definition of “oft-repeated.” And “nearly.” And “demand.” And “dramatic.” And “true.”

In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Oh, they’re distinguished all right. And soon they’ll be “distinguished” by their ostracism.

“In the (American Physical Society) APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

What is this guy, some kind of mono-universal zealot?

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization…

…mainly waged by Ted Danson…

…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Oh. Facts, huh? You say you’ve got facts. Well, fine, let’s hear some of these supposed “facts.”

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.

Ah. Well. Um…

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us…

…we know! Humans cause global warming!

…and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.

Hey pal, I’m an environmentalist. I hate plants.

This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today.

No, that can’t possibly be true. The megastorms would have killed everything off. Didn’t you see “The Day After Tomorrow?” That gave me chills.

Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ah-hah! So you admit the CO2 is changing things!

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message…

…well, they’re still young…

…they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted–or worse. They have good reason to worry.

Damn tootin’.

In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position.

Because he’s a heretic, duh.

Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Dammit.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue?

Because they’d already had stationery printed?

There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Money? There’s money? You didn’t say anything about…oh, um…heh. Joking. It’s all about the scientific consensus.

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many…

…what’ve you got against the alarm industry?

…providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

Like plants in a high CO2 environment. Ha.

Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet…

Hey. Money’s green. Green, get it? As in environmental? Do the math, if you can.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently…

Ugh. I hate that more than plants.

…at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

“Not justified economically?” Didn’t you just say there was lots of money in global warming alarmism? Isn’t that economic justification?

You’re contradicting yourself there, Poindexter.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

Well, the longer we go without controls, the longer our political allies can make an issue of it…yeah, I guess that would work out okay.

This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now.

Dude, shut up. We’re not forcing the controls on the poor countries. Just the United…uh, I mean, just the developed… uh… the high-polluting parts of the world.

Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment.

Ah, “investment.” How much did the Koch brothers pay you to slip that little word in there?

And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

Ah hah! So you admit it may be a good thing!

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data.

Hey! You’re trying to horn in on our money!

The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history.

Exactly. Sheesh, don’t you want to stop it from complicating human life? And we can only do that by taking control of “ever-changing nature.” Mankind has to control nature, that’s the whole point of the environmental movement!

However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Mmmm, no, we don’t like those words. “Critical review.” Not like.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment…

Oh, so you arrogant humans think you can control nature now, do you?

…but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Well, thanks. There go our luxurious vacation homes.

(Posted by The TrogloPundit)

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend