Slashdot Mirror
Don't Worry About Global Warming, Say 16 Scientists in the WSJ
An anonymous reader writes "According to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, there's 'no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy'. From the article: '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.'"
One thing I've been trying to do is figure out how much money is spent on each side of the global warming debate. Of course, Exxon has billions in revenue, but they only spend a small portion of that on global warming. But how much is spent on each side?
The best sources I can come up with (things like this and this) suggest that hundreds of millions are spent on one side, and billions on the other.
I'd really like to find better numbers, though. If anyone has any, please let me know.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well other costs are that Global Warming fundamentalists take such an extreme stance it becomes politicized, propagandized, and a is a new Religion. They have just as much cognitive dissonance as any jihadi or crusader.
There are far more scientists who say there is no such thing as man-made global warming than there are who say there is. The indisputable fact remains: Earth has warmed in the past, it has also cooled. It's natural. The Sahara desert was once teaming with wildlife and forests. Climates change. It's normal and there's nothing we can do one way or the other to affect it.
Ok, just so I am clear - day-to-day weather changes don't tell me anything about global anthropogenic climate, unless it seems warmer than usual? And when it's *cooler* than normal, that means either nothing (if it published in a "right wing" source), or it's ALSO proof that there is global anthropogenic climate change (if it's in a left wing echo chamber), right?
Sorry if I seem a little confused, I just want to understand the scientific method a little better.
The National Academy of Scientists is as 'objective' as any other political organization. No amount of hand waving changes the fact that they push a political agenda. Every organization does. That's what they band together to do. Even organizations that don't start out that way get 'stacked' over time and become political advocacy groups in the end.
Not that it matters. We're supposed to go all glassy-eyed because these are 'Scientists' we are talking about. The fact that almost none of them are Climate Scientists doesn't mean anything.