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.
Yes, Neil is elusive but mostly accurate in his posted/researched statements and suggest Jm makes sure that Neil is reviewed on occasion.
Elusive when it suits him. Same as you.
In my occupation it suits me well.
I’m lucky I don’t need a suit.
Elusive and mysterious… ooohhh. Homeland Security could use you, probably.
Oh, and Neil is “mostly accurate”??!!! Uh oh, I guess poor Old Neil may need you to clarify that a bit…
Neil can speak for himself and needs no interpretation. And you?
I need you to interpret me, haven’t you noticed? Oh- you were too busy interpreting for Neil, and for me.
Ask “Barry” for me. He may even call me to have a “Beer?”
And a what now? Seem’stame you alweady mayhve had one-tomany!
I don’t drink strong liquid libations. Gator-aid and coffee keeps me going. And you? Seems like you had a few, eh?
It was Bush who drank the beer. Obama drinks lattes, remember?
And when it wasn’t beer he was consuming it was cocaine. Or both at the same time. Before teetolling, of course. Wonder if he drinks again now?