The Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 27, 2012
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.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui: The Wall Street Journal
+++++
Read more here/Leia mais aqui: The Wall Street Journal
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
A Grande Mídia tupiniquim vive uma relação incestuosa com a Nomenklatura científica, e nada publica questionando os atuais mandarins da Akademia. Eu sinto nojo e dá vontade de vomitar em cima de muitos editores de ciência:
1. Por não ouvir o outro lado (não é mesmo Folha de São Paulo?).
2. Pela falta objetividade jornalística em se sujeitar aos press releases das publicações de divulgação científica sem análise crítica.
3. Pela falta de jornalismo científico investigativo que não aceita de bate pronto o que o cientista diz, mas vai atrás de vozes dissonantes (sim, a ciência avança por causa de dissidentes e críticos dos paradigmas).
4. Pela desonestidade flagrante em escamotear dos leitores a existência e peso acadêmicos desses dissidentes da hipótese apocalíptica (não seria política? ou de interesses financeiros escusos de alguns proponentes como Al Gore et al???) do aquecimento global.
5. Por ser uma imprensa covarde!!!
A Grande Mídia tupiniquim vive uma relação incestuosa com a Nomenklatura científica, e nada publica questionando os atuais mandarins da Akademia. Eu sinto nojo e dá vontade de vomitar em cima de muitos editores de ciência:
1. Por não ouvir o outro lado (não é mesmo Folha de São Paulo?).
2. Pela falta objetividade jornalística em se sujeitar aos press releases das publicações de divulgação científica sem análise crítica.
3. Pela falta de jornalismo científico investigativo que não aceita de bate pronto o que o cientista diz, mas vai atrás de vozes dissonantes (sim, a ciência avança por causa de dissidentes e críticos dos paradigmas).
4. Pela desonestidade flagrante em escamotear dos leitores a existência e peso acadêmicos desses dissidentes da hipótese apocalíptica (não seria política? ou de interesses financeiros escusos de alguns proponentes como Al Gore et al???) do aquecimento global.
5. Por ser uma imprensa covarde!!!
