Saturday, January 28, 2012

WSJ Global Warming Op-Ed Article

I concur with this op-ed piece.


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.
There is no urgency to global warming. We should do nothing more than continue to improve our understanding of climate science and predictability.

As I have discussed before, the bigger threat may be world cooling. Here is another new and peer-reviewed paper saying the burning of fossil fuels will lead to another ice age. 

3 comments:

  1. Here's an excellent rebuttal:

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/two_incontrovertible_things_an.php

    "The Wall Street Journal has published one of the most offensive, untruthful, twisted reviews of what scientists think of climate change; the WSJ Lies about the facts and twists the story to accommodate the needs of head-in-the-sand industrialists and 1%ers; The most compelling part of their argument, according to them, is that the editorial has been signed by 16 scientists."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some more interesting reading:

    http://roygrubb.tumblr.com/post/16581690077/the-16-concerned-scientists-who-they-are

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the comments, anonymous. However, these folks, in the aggregate, are at least as qualified at the IPCC members and the "scientists" polled by the AAAS.

    ReplyDelete