Beam me to Planet Gore !
***************************************************************
Economist William Nordhaus takes a pop at the sixteen concerned scientists, in the latest skirmish kicked off by their Wall Street Journal editorial.
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:
- Is the planet in fact warming?
- Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
- Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
- Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
- Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
- Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?
It's going to be getting cold.
Author is knowledgable (or thinks he is) on one topic, and assumes that transfers to all other topics.
Too bad so many will bother listening.
for an issue that is supposed to be the cause the human civilization as we know it is "increasing important" the right adjectives? Should he use language like "immediate life threatening events" ?
Good to see that global warming debate is officially “not settled”. The position for the warmist’s is in retreat from “they are all either fruit cakes or energy company dupes” to “we understand their arguments but we are still right and we have the following logical fallacies to support our position”.
Next stop will be the deconstruction of each logical fallacy used to support the alarmists agenda until the entire structure collapses.
The author completely mischaracterizes the skeptic case. Skeptics do not dispute that warming has occurred. The only issue is whether positive feedback causes warming to occur in response to CO2 in an amount far greater than the response predicted by actual lab experiments. Nothing in the article about that. Yet the positive feedbacks are the entire argument.
Then, I love this: (1) He complains that the big money in climate change doesn’t help the AGW professors. They work for the IPCC for free (aren’t they great). Then read footnote 1: “The author is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University. He has received support for research on the economics of climate change during the last decade from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation.”
Climate change experts often state they may not always be right but by God they are never wrong.
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.