Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong ( Author is an Ecconomist....his science ???)

nybooks.com ^ | March 22, 2012 | William D. Nordhaus

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. Because the economic questions involved have received relatively little attention, I have been writing a nontechnical book for people who would like to see how market-based approaches could be used to formulate policy on climate change. When I showed an early draft to colleagues, their response was that I had left out the arguments of skeptics about climate change, and I accordingly addressed this at length.

But one of the difficulties I found in examining the views of climate skeptics is that they are scattered widely in blogs, talks, and pamphlets. Then, I saw an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012, by a group of sixteen scientists, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” This is useful because it contains many of the standard criticisms in a succinct statement. The basic message of the article is that the globe is not warming, that dissident voices are being suppressed, and that delaying policies to slow climate change for fifty years will have no serious economic or environment consequences.

My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.¹ I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments to the BH article....on CO2 as a pollutant:

*******************************EXCERPT****************************

Richard Tol's greatest contribution to mankind? Concluding that CO2 is a pollutant.

Somehow I am convinced that Tol doesn't think himself as holding that hot potato.

New Zealand wants to reduce greenhouse gases because its sheep fart too much globe to take. Australia? Well, I don't know why they want their carbon tax. Britain wants to be a world leader in reducing emissions. Among all however, the United States has the stupidest reason to 'regulate CO2'. Carbon di-oxide is a pollutant

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Shub

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments....chasing the "CO2 is a pollutant":

************************************EXCERPT********************************************

Since William Norhaus depends for his defintion of "pollutant" on US law, does this not mean that elsewhere in the world, where there is no such definition, carbon dioxide is entirely innocent? Maybe another serious case for extradition?

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM | Mike Post

[Rufusthered]

It’s truly a bummer when the AGW economics book you’re writing is scheduled to be published just as the fad is deflating. Check for it on the remainder shelves - or as required reading at your local leftist university.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Poor timing on his part....can piled up books be considered a “POLLUTANT”?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments:

*****************************EXCERPT*******************************************

It is a curious pollutant without which life on Earth would come to a sudden and (almost) absolute end.

Feb 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM | Jit

[Vaduz]

Climate change experts often state they may not always be right but by God they are never wrong.

[wita]

So, merchants of doubt are we? Name calling attempt at winning the debate.

The remedy though full of uncertainties needs to be implemented right now. Another indicator of bad juju.

Follow the money really got tied up in knots. I wasn’t impressed.

Lastly, I wonder what scientist actually believes man might have the ability to change the climate? I suggest the same scientist who believes man has caused the change in the first place.

[peeps36]

CO2 is a pollutant because US law and economic theories say it is. I think he forgot to ask the scientist for their input. He must get his legal and investment advice from scientist.

[wbill]

yep. On reflection, stopping the flow of O2 WOULD dramatically reduce the aging process in humans. So, the author was correct in a technical, academic sort of way.

It's still drivel. :-)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments regarding CO2:

*****************************************EXCERPT*****************************

William Nordhaus is stepping deeper into chemistry than he realises. I could easily construct many more castles in the air that he would be uncomfortable with.

For example:The tortuous reasoning that CO2 is a pollutant can also be used to claim that oxygen (O2) is a pollutant. Ozone (O3) is synthesized from O2 in the atmosphere by sunlight. Ground level ozone is also produced. Ground level Ozone is, quite rightly, described as harmful to humans and other life forms at concentrations much lower than CO2. Photosynthesis by vegetation produces oxygen, which produces ozone. Ergo plants are harmful to the environment.

Unless, that is, William Nordhaus would like to describe sunlight as the pollutant. I really would enjoy seeing an attempt to paint the sun as being harmful to the environment.

Feb 29, 2012 at 3:40 PM | michael hart

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the Commetss:

*****************************************EXCERPT********************************

It is interesting that when economists, physicists, engineers, geologists, meteorologists, etc. write sketpical articles about the AGW consensus, the first rationale to dismiss them is that they are not climate scientists.
Yet here the NYT is giving a whole column to an economist to defend the consensus as if he is the most credible person in the world.
His claim of warming is not quantified.
And of course his infantile definition of CO2 as a pollutant is not challenged, his claim of human climate influence is unquantified, and by use of the red herring of financial gain- instead of the real motives for academics, peer recognition and social capital- are ignored.
And his graphics are of the most extreme- and frankly misleading sort, and produced by the people who are benefiting from them.

Feb 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM | hunter