Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy

By 16 concerned scientists (see end of article)

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

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the 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?”

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

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Read the rest at the Wall Street Journal

70 Responses to Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming

  1. Rob N. Hood January 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    Gotta watch out for this BO guy! What a radical so and so…!

    And yes, Obama did mention the words climate change in his State of the Union address. He said he realizes the two political parties may not be ready “to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change,” but that Congress needs at the very least to “set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.”

    The need for energy efficiency was not overlooked, with Obama saying that we need to “help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.”

    OMG.

  2. Ian January 27, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    And what if the deniers side is wrong? either side could be wrong. Is it now prudent to take action? At the very least we’re no longer dependent on despotic reigems in the Middle East for our energy needs

    • Dan McGrath January 31, 2012 at 10:21 am #

      There’s a theory that television and radio transmissions from earth will eventually reach a potentially alien civilization and telegraph our location, which could result in invasion by a vastly superior civilization and end life on Earth as we know it. The solution is simple. Curb radio emissions. We should stop all broadcasts immediately! Now, the people who think that could be wrong, but wouldn’t it be prudent to take action?

      • Rob N. Hood February 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

        Wow, another gratuitous, spurious, and intellectually insulting note from the fearless leader himself. That kind of $#*& may work on rightys but some of us have brains that work.

  3. Rob N. Hood January 29, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    That is not surprising, especially for the WSJ. What many Rightys fail to realise or don’t wish to feign ignorance of is the definite right-leaning nature of 95%-99% of the media. This is only logical too, since that many are corporate owned, many by very large corporations with direct ties to the military industrial complex.

  4. Rob N. Hood January 29, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    Stated that wrong above. should read “wish to feign ignorance” not “don’t wish”. Sorry- need more coffee this AM.

  5. renewable guy January 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/two_incontrovertible_things_an.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

    It’s interesting how a weak science team such as put together by WSJ can have the media impact. Bad science has a place and even a demand.

  6. Rob N. Hood January 30, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    It’s called mainstream propaganda. Been that way a long time, only now it’s entirely pervasive. You don’t know who to believe- but see even that outlook is a win for them, in fact, that is the main thrust behind all the “science” being financed from shadowy groups. They don’t even need to capture hears and minds- they win even by simply creating doubt. This is used for everything that they want control over, not jus this issue, of course. Even NPR has been “under-written” by large corporations forever, but now they are paying the price because they are now forced to comply with the moneyed interests more than they used to. It’s a sad state of affairs and only hastens the seemingly unavoidable downfall of this country.

  7. renewable guy January 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projections_cfMainstreamSkeptics.gif

    THis graph is pretty powerful in comparing skeptic projections to the IPCC and other mainstream scientists. A really glaring difference of how far off skeptic projections are form the observed temperature record.

  8. Rob N. Hood January 30, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Good job R.G. I am too lazy to perform such a useful function. Lazy smart-alecky liberal… However, the people on this site are convinced that the IPCC (and other “mainstream” scientists) are involved in a massive and diabolical hoax, that is of course, ultimately created to further some kind of socialist/communist agenda. The UN (yawn) is also a supposed important partner in this world-wide plan to enslave mankind. Funny thing is I/we already feel enslaved don’t we? Maybe it’s working!!!

  9. Joe January 31, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    Uuhh, read their recent report. It is minus 80 degrees in Alaska. Mini Ice age coming after 15 years of no increrase, eh? Yes, “smart alecky liberal, ” Your words not mine.

  10. Rob N. Hood January 31, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    Yes, my words. I am not afraid to face reality even when it ivolves myself. Know thyself, and to yourself be true, etc. More people need to do that. but they’d rather live in a state of denial and artificial superiority. With regard to the extreme cold in Alaska, I recall that there have been several if not more studies that in addition to describing global warming ALSO predicted extremes in certain areas of the world, as a result, some of which was colder temps, for example in Europe. This would involve I believe the disasterous change in the normal flow of the Gulf stream, as a direct result of the warming of ocean waters. Is the above a precurser to that? I don’t know, and neither do you.

  11. Rob N. Hood January 31, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    And thus the term climate change. Which more accurately described the above theory.

  12. Rob N. Hood February 2, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Significant climate change could be apocryphal. Is it something we can mitigate? Maybe. Are we really going to try? Not really. So calm down, the you- know-what will hit the fan just as you wish. Gins will come in handy, and those with the primal instincts will use them, and might even enjoy themselves.

  13. Rob N. Hood February 2, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    guns… gin won’t hurt then either, although the guns might.

  14. Eric February 2, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    You know, there’s alot of posts here about how Global Warming is “happening”. This in the face of data being released recently showing NO NET RISE IN GLOBAL TEMPS IN 15 YEARS. Nasa admitting the fudge data sets on sea level rise by adding 30mm per year in land mass expansion THEY CAN’T BACK UP WITH REAL MEASUREMENTS. Ongoing lawsuits about how various climate researchers quashed dissenting research. Nasa probe data showing large scale heat escape from the atmosphere that climate models can’t cope with. Nasa admitting that their data on arctic sea ice loss being innacruate by some 25% PER YEAR for at least 10 years. Data sets showing sea levels DROPPING for several years and revised data sets showing NO NET INCREASE IN SEA LEVELS since 1930.

    Every data set being used to back up global warming is either debunked, shown to have been fudged, or showing contradictory evidence.

    So, tell me, how can you still buy this snake oil?

  15. Joe February 2, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    Ever heard of El Nino and La Nina? Been around for thousands of years. Suggest you research before you preach and make your liberal statement.

  16. Rob N. Hood February 3, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Yes I have oh wise sir. When do you remember a winter like this one? I don’t and I’m 50 years old.

  17. Joe February 4, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Numerous my friend and I’m 65.

  18. Rob N. Hood February 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Numerous- really? This was the 8th warmest one since 1881. It seemed even more than that to me. So you’d have to be MUCH older to have experienced too many warmer ones Oh Venerable Sage. Exaggerate much?

  19. Joe February 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    You will never know where I have been over 65 years. Siberia perhaps?

  20. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    I never asked, nor do I care, nor would I believe you if you told me. Here’s a better come back re: my post above: What?! Only the 8th warmest? It would be in the top 3 for sure if global warming was true…! (This seems to me would be much better than the nonsense you posted).

  21. Rob N. Hood February 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    And comrade… if you had been in Siberia I would have known it.

  22. Joe February 7, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    I’m sure you would. The USA is getting that way since “Our Leader.”

  23. Rob N. Hood February 7, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    Only in your feverish mind. Stop watching Fox, it is melting your brain.

  24. Joe February 7, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    I watch MSNBS for amusement. Rachael Maddow, is that her name?, is a stretch. Not even a game show can identify her. I assume excellent ratings? Mine and three others?

  25. Rob N. Hood February 8, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Maddow is only full of logic and reason. Perhaps you need to listen a little closer, or without that huge chip of bias on your shoulder. Nah, forget it. You cannot teach some people logic and reason, it’s a brain thing. And I’m not here to “enlighten” you (although that would be nice) I am here to (try) and keep you people honest, but mainly to point out your hypocrisy. As I’ve said before hypocrisy is one of the first big hurdles to get over, on the journey towards enlightenment. Plus I just flat out like making extremists like you guys mad. And it’s not that hard, although again I give Neil some credit for improving on his anger issue- or maybe I’ve just worn him down and he’s too tired of the angst.

  26. Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    “The life of the people must be freed form the asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism, as it must be from unmanly and prudish refusal to face facts… The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of sustaining the race.”
    Adolph Hitler; Mein Kampf, 1924

  27. Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Sounds a little like Ron Paul…

    • Dan McGrath February 9, 2012 at 10:54 am #

      Not really. I don’t think he’d say the right to personal freedom comes second to anything.

      • Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

        That’s not what I’ve been hearing. Get the wax out brother.

  28. Bob Muldhoon February 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Man made climate change is a hoax. True science shows the earth going through cycles based on the wobble of the earth and of the cycles of the sun. To think man can change the natural climate change that has occured throughout known history is really a pathetic attempt at control by the liberal establishment and the continued funding of research money by the scientific community. If offered more money then they are getting from research grants to prove man made global warming is a hoax, every single scientist would jump on the band wagon. Its about the money folks.

  29. Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    What about the money on the other side? There’s MUCH more there than any and all Leftys, Liberals, and Environmentalists combined, by a factor of 1000 (minimally of course). OIL. Oil is King, and will be till the last drop is squeezed out of the last pile of shale. Nothing has or will stand in its way. It helps fund sites like these, way in the background as to be plausibly deniable. Is it intelligent to ignore that gorilla in the playpen? Does that make any sense at all?

  30. Rob N. Hood February 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    “He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.”
    John Randolph

  31. Joe February 10, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    Hood guy, you hate oil ok? Anyone that does is corrupt right? Man, after reading your post let me know what you been smokin’

  32. Rob N. Hood February 10, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    If I didn’t think you were being serious you’d be hilarious. Maybe you should smoke something.

  33. Joe February 10, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    Bad for the health similiar to reading your nonsensical posts. They cause high blood pressure in an average person.

  34. Rob N. Hood February 11, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    Here’s an example of logic and reason, and it’s also the truth. No, I do not hate oil, and no nor do I think anyone who doesn’t (I had to correct that part of your post) is corrupt. I realize this was a typo on your part but it in fact made your post “nonsensical.” Another example of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is NOT a good thing…

  35. Rob N. Hood February 11, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    It is also an example of how most people approach reality- in a non-black-and-white manner. You all continually try to paint anyone you disagree with in such a shallow way, and it makes you appear foolish.

  36. Rob N. Hood February 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    P.S. there are few things more worthy to hate than oil however. If for no other reason than the lives lost in Iraq for it, and because if/when WWWIII occurs it will be because of oil.

  37. Joe February 12, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    WWWIII will be lack thereof. Period.

  38. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    Huh?

  39. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    Since the end of the cold war there had been plenty of time to put a new potential enemy in place, and September 11th was not a new idea.
    As Zibigniew Brzezinski had written in 1997, the ‘immediate’ task was to develop and simultaneously control a ‘direct external threat’ to manufacture an attack ‘like a new Pearl Harbor.’ That required a credible (at least in the public mind) and well-developed enemy.

    As Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard shows, the need for such an event had
    already been acknowledged in 1997 — conveniently, just as al Qaeda and the
    Taliban were emerging as world and regional players. Operation Northwoods,
    declassified in the late 1990s, had been planned in 1962.

    The need for the same kind of attack was mentioned by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in its September 2000 report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. But should have been called “Rebuilding Our Bank Accounts”.

    “Such an attack would then provide a pretext for massive sequential military intervention to secure the energy supplies of the Middle East and the lesser (but terribly important) oil-bearing regions including West Africa, Venezuela, Colombia, certain portions of the Southwest Pacific, and any other region with smaller but more readily accessible reserves.”

  40. Joe February 13, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    You will not have an oil supply period. Do you not understand?

  41. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    No, Joe I really don’t so please elaborate. You are not being clear. Unless what you are saying is that the lack of oil (end of oil) will cause WWIII. If so, that is illogical, and nonsensical. Because that is exactly where we are at NOW. There’s not a lack, yet. But the elite rich bastards see it coming. They aren’t stupid. So please explain yourself.

  42. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    Where is old Joe when he is asked simple things? He seems to demand from others but disappears when others ask of him…

  43. Joe February 15, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Mr. Hood, trust me. You take oil out of the equation in America you have a major problem and I seriously mean a major problem and that is an understatement. Look at the Iran crisis brewing. The world lives off oil, not just this country but the entire global economy. Do you live in a cave? Based upon your posts I assume that you do not have a “Man Cave?” No pun intended. I didn’t disappear but I assume you will when oil is no longer available and there is chaos in the streets in front of your house looking for the product that drives us as well as our economy that drives employment, gives you a job and security at home at night. Only time will tell won’t it. Suggest you be ready. I sincerely believe you will rethink your position if it happens. Point to ponder? I assume you will. Ponder your next negative statement that is. Have a good evening.

  44. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    Uhh, Joe: You are making MY argument, in your predictably disrespectful post above… Do you not see that? Wow…

  45. Rob N. Hood February 22, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    I’m guessing Joe is on a vacation. Probably needs it, CEO is stressful work. Me, I got no vacation time or money. Just two jobs is all.

  46. Rob N. Hood February 24, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    Perhaps an NRA convention…;-)

  47. JM February 24, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    I tend to lean toward the point of view of non global warming. However, I recently heard a radio program where they discussed glacier melting, rising sea levels, and reduced ocean plankton as more evidence of warming. I was not aware of this evidence and before I believe them, I’d like to know if anyone has any comments to give me food for thought.

  48. Rob N Hood February 25, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    You won’t have to wait long… you might be better off researching this yourself.

  49. Rob N. Hood February 26, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    But you see JM… our resident expert, Neil, is a contrarian, especially when it comes to me. So alluding that he’ll jump at the chance to educate you, it appears just out of spite he won’t. But now that I’ve said this….??

  50. Rob N. Hood March 3, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    oops, scared him off I guess. The elusive and wary beast.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority