You might have already read of the controversial opinion article in the Wall Street Journal. First I've posted part of the article and a link to read the rest. Followed by an article disputing the Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
Just another shoot in the war between those who believe in global warming and those that don't.
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.
Signing Global Warming's Certificate of Death
By Alan Caruba
The sixteen names of the scientists who jointly signed the article in The Wall Street Journal, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" on January 27th are mostly unknown to the general public. Perhaps the best known would be Harrison H. Schmidt, a former Apollo 17 astronaut and U.S. Senator. Others might recognize Burt Rutan, an aerospace engineer and designer of Voyager and SpaceShip One.
Moreover, not only were the signers distinguished scientists, but they came from places like Paris, France and Cambridge, England, Jerusalem, Israel, and Geneva, Switzerland. Mostly climatologists and meteorologists, some were physicists and astrophysicists. Antonio Zichichi, one signer, is president of the World Federation of Scientists. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the combined credentials of these men represent some of the best minds on planet Earth in their respective fields.
What brought them together? On the surface it was just another of the countless articles that have been published over the years as scientists of real merit and courage took on the juggernaut of those for whom global warming had become a vast flow of government and foundation funding.
The effort was to "prove" that carbon dioxide (CO2) was building up in the atmosphere and would soon incinerate Earth by trapping the heat from the sun. It had not done that in the 5.4 billion years of the Earth's existence, but the "warmists" claims came day after day and year after year. They permeated every aspect of society and you can go into any school in America and find textbooks still selling this garbage.
Until, that is, 2009 when thousands of emails between the small clique of scientists working for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were leaked on the Internet and it became clear that even they knew the Earth had entered a cooling cycle around 1998. The challenges to their bogus computer "models" were coming like cannon balls against their academic castles in America and England.
Starting in 2008, The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based 27-year-old, non-profit research organization, sponsored four international conferences on climate change, attracting the top scientists and world leaders courageous enough to speak out against the global warming hoax. The momentum of opposition began to build against those who, from the late 1980s had warned that, in Al Gore's words, "the world has caught a fever."
The Wall Street Journal article said, in the plainest language, that candidates for public office "in any contemporary democracy…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, scientists had been signing petitions opposing the global warming hoax for a very long time. The problem was that the mainstream media either paid them no attention or dismissed them as "skeptics" and "deniers".
With a light touch, the Wall Street Journal article noted that "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over ten years now." It wasn't as if the warmists did not know it. It was more like they regarded it as a problem to be solved by changing references to global warming to "climate change."
No comments:
Post a Comment