No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the 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.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, 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. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. 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.


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, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. 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. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

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

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. 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. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

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

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. 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. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

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. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

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

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.




One thing that has always bothered me is a lack of critical discussion on my side. Why won't Al Gore debate one of these guy's in a public forum. Articles like this just feed the mistrust. I found it interesting and thought Torch would enjoy it. I'm still solidly in the other camp though, but I always enjoy reading from the other side.

(01-27-2012 10:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One thing that has always bothered me is a lack of critical discussion on my side. Why won't Al Gore debate one of these guy's in a public forum. Articles like this just feed the mistrust. I found it interesting and thought Torch would enjoy it. I'm still solidly in the other camp though, but I always enjoy reading from the other side.

Thanks Mach. You should dig deeper into why you are "solidly in the other camp." It's a profound question, affecting one's philosophy and attitude toward education and epistomology.

Socrates said, "An unexamined life isn't worth living." This is an important area of one's life to examine.

(01-27-2012 10:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One thing that has always bothered me is a lack of critical discussion on my side. Why won't Al Gore debate one of these guy's in a public forum.

Maybe he's afraid he'd lose that debate.

(01-27-2012 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-27-2012 10:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One thing that has always bothered me is a lack of critical discussion on my side. Why won't Al Gore debate one of these guy's in a public forum.

Maybe he's afraid he'd lose that debate.

Maybe he'd be asked how much he profits from global warming. Or why he doesn't practice what he preaches.

Oh right, the 98% of the climate scientists saying there is manmade climate change are in a conspiracy to get rich, but the right wing climate deniers are in it for the truth. And millions from Exxon Mobil and Koch bros-funded right wing think tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Quote:In one of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change,[34] a 1998 proposal (later posted online by Greenpeace)[35] was circulated among U.S. opponents of a treaty to fight global warming, including both industry and conservative political groups, in an effort to influence public perception of the extent of the problem. Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"[36]

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[37] Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."[9]

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[5][38] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[39]

ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, said that ExxonMobil's funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses. Gantt said, "The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions." [40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Quote:A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".[49][50]

Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."[169]

The Greenpeace research project ExxonSecrets, and George Monbiot writing in The Guardian, as well as various academics,[170][171] have linked several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism.[172] Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.[173]

On 2 February 2007, The Guardian stated[174][175] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters[176] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process", specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.[177][178][unreliable source?][179]

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air',[180] that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue". In 2006 Exxon said that it was no longer going to fund these groups[181] though that statement has been challenged by Greenpeace.[182]

I'm shocked it took four whole replies before the Koch Bros. were invoked in the thread.

(01-27-2012 05:58 PM)Max Power Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Quote:A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".[49][50]

OK, but science is not decided by popular vote. It's decided by data. Max, as a point of reference, several of the models in the Global Warming Projections chart you posted are already wrong. Not to say there's no warming, but that it's not nearly as steep, so far, as several of those curves (if not all - it's hard to tell at this scale with so much noise) suggest.

Torch's posts got me reading (and listening to) his guy Warren Meyer (Coyote Blog). He makes very well reasoned and very well researched arguments, from a non-hysterical viewpoint. I especially appreciate that he sticks to what he knows and avoids issuing opinions on topics beyond his expertise. And his primary point is not to deny global warming, or even to deny that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but that the catastrophic predictions are not warranted by the CO2 contributed by humans. He points out that the alarmist position requires us to believe that there are accelerating factors beyond what CO2 alone will do to temperatures (which would increase about 1 degree C by 2100), and those acceleration factors are much less well supported or understood. He also points out that while climate "change" is now in vogue, there are no credible theories that connect CO2 to anything other than warming. His writing is worth examining, regardless of your position on the matter.

Sure it's outside my expertise. I don't need any expertise though to call out the authors of the original article for being disingenuous by accusing the non-deniers of being in it for the money when millions have been given to climate deniers and their groups.

Sure there have been times in the past where the consensus was proven wrong. I wouldn't count on it though. Speaking as a non scientist, just from your post I can tell you this guy is admitting there will be a full degree increase by the end of this century attributable at least in part to our increased CO2 emissions, which alarms me as it should you considering we've been within a 2 degree range for the past 10,000 years. I don't know if I'd even classify him as a denier.

Again, I'm no expert, but when 98% of scientists say something will happen and it could carry with it disastrous consequences, and we can do something about it, but it might cost some big corporations some of their profits, I know which side I'm on.

As for why Al Gore doesn't debate deniers, the answer is probably that it will legitimize their position, which is their goal. It's why George W. didn't debate the 9/11 truthers, the ADL president doesn't debate Holocaust deniers and Obama didn't acknowledge the Birthers (for as long as he could anyway).

(01-27-2012 07:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sure it's outside my expertise. I don't need any expertise though to call out the authors of the original article for being disingenuous by accusing the non-deniers of being in it for the money when millions have been given to climate deniers and their groups.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to challenge your level of expertise or criticize you for making a point. I was pointing out my appreciation that, as an engineer looking at this subject, Meyer is making arguments only on the subject matter where his expertise applies. I'm not a fan of "Biologist X" making his opinion public on the matter, just because he's semi-prominent in his field. And your point about hypocrisy in funding of studies is legitimate. It's there on both sides and clear that the subject has been politicized in both directions.

Quote:Sure there have been times in the past where the consensus was proven wrong. I wouldn't count on it though. Speaking as a non scientist, just from your post I can tell you this guy is admitting there will be a full degree increase by the end of this century attributable at least in part to our increased CO2 emissions, which alarms me as it should you considering we've been within a 2 degree range for the past 10,000 years. I don't know if I'd even classify him as a denier.

Meyer actually takes issue with the term "denier" in that most legitimate critics of Catastrophic AGW would be more accurately called skeptics. As far as the one degree is concerned, it's more nuanced than what I wrote above and I won't be able to do it much justice here but, essentially, he's arguing that the AGW contribution is not significant enough to warrant the cost of the changes proposed by the alarmists.

(01-27-2012 07:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Again, I'm no expert, but when 98% of scientists say something will happen and it could carry with it disastrous consequences, and we can do something about it, but it might cost some big corporations some of their profits, I know which side I'm on.

Yeah, your view on this was not hard to predict.

To me it's not about costing "some" of their profits. We see discussion of risk on this board all the time. Risk is a quantitative discussion. I'm comfortable saying there is a cost that should be borne by corporations to reduce the levels of contaminants they produce. But there is a point where that reduction is so expensive that the relative benefit of the reduction will begin to decline. I have no idea what those curves look like for CO2, but I know they exist, at least in concept.

ETA: I'm no fan of science votes, but I'd be interested to know if the 98% agree that BOTH CO2 contributes to warming, AND that there are accelerating factors that will multiply warming by 4x-10x. Because that second part is on much shakier ground scientifically...

(01-27-2012 07:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Again, I'm no expert, but when 98% of scientists say something will happen and it could carry with it disastrous consequences, and we can do something about it, but it might cost some big corporations some of their profits, I know which side I'm on.

And what can we do about it?

No, you're no expert, you're a moron. A perfect example of modern "education."

(01-27-2012 06:44 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  I'm shocked it took four whole replies before the Koch Bros. were invoked in the thread.

And big oil. Mach get's credit for staying neutral and just presenting the article.