No need to panic about global warming

 

There is no convincing scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonization" of the world economy.

Candidates for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider that after all to do with "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists urgently need to take decisive action to stop global warming is not true. In fact there are many — and the number is growing — outstanding scientists and engineers who do not agree with the fact that decisive action needed to combat global warming.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly renounced his membership in the American Physical Society (APS). His letter there begins:

"I am not to renew my membership because I can not put up with the following statement [policy APS]:" The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is happening. Unless serious measures are taken, there will be significant alterations in physical and environmental earth systems, social systems, hovering threat to the security and health. We must now begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. " In APS, you can safely discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and the behavior of the multi-universe, why the statement about global warming is incontrovertible? "

Despite the ongoing campaign for decades to create an international opinion that the increase in the "pollution" of carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, including many very well-known, agreed Dr. Ivar Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is that more and more dialed stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming in the past 10 years. This is known "poteplitelnomu establishment", what can be seen easily by reading published in the 2009 "Climategate" email climatologist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact that we can not explain the lack of warming at the moment, it's ridiculous, but we can not" . But the lack of warming upsets only those who believe the results of computer simulation, where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify weak influence CO2.

The lack of warming in the past 10 years, and a much lower level for the last 22 years compared with that predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that computer models vastly exaggerate the harm caused by an additional CO2. Faced with this embarrassment, those who raised the alarm at the coming warming, now arranged drums, accusing the excess CO2 no longer warming, and the appearance of extreme weather conditions, although in our chaotic climate, there is nothing unusual.

In fact, CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2
is a colorless, odorless gas exhaled by each of us, at high concentrations, and is a key component of the life cycle of the biosphere. Plants useful high CO2, in greenhouses often increase its concentration in the three or four times to ensure better growth of plants. This is not surprising, as plant and animal life evolved in the concentration of CO2
about 10 times higher than it is now. Improved varieties, the use of chemical fertilizers have greatly increased crop yields in the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly occurred because of the 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 theory of global warming, they do not publicly talk about it, fearing for his future career or even something worse. They have good reason for concern. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, chief editor of Climate Research, dared to publish an article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate change on the last thousand years. International poteplitelny establishment quickly organized a campaign to ensure that Dr. de Freitas was removed from the editorial work and dismissed from the university. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas managed to retain the ability to continue to work at the university.

This is not the way in which science should go, but we know him. For example, in a terrible time in the Soviet Union destroyed Trofim Lysenko biology. Soviet biologists involved in genetics, which Lysenko believed bourgeois pseudoscience, deprived of work. Many of them were sent to the gulag and some were sentenced to death.

Why so much passion about global warming, and why the problem has become so unpleasant that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever out a few months ago, refused to meet the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from the description of the research problem? There are several reasons, but is beginning to ask the old question: "Cui bono?" ["Who benefits?"]. Or, in the modern version: "Follow the money."

Climate alarmism is very useful to many, providing government funding for research, and allows for the growth of the government bureaucracy. Alarmism also allows government to justify raising taxes by taxpayers subsidize those companies that understand how the political system, and to attract large 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 that they have been provided.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have carefully and independently engaged in climate science, we have prepared a message to any candidate for public office:

There is no convincing scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonization" of the world economy. Even if we accept the IPCC exaggerated climate forecasts, aggressive policies to control greenhouse gas emissions vybrosoya not economically justified.

A recent study of the different policy options, performed at Yale University economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the maximum benefits against the costs reached a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth without any control greenhouse gas emissions. This would be particularly useful for the less developed parts of the world who would like to get the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy, now enjoyed by the developed countries. Many other policy options will have negative consequences in terms of return on investment. And it is likely that an increase in CO2 and the associated modest warming that may occur, will bring overall benefits the planet.

If elected officials will have to "do something" with the climate, we recommend a non-scientists that improve our understanding of climate change through the use of well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, as well as in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which makes life difficult for people 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 the environment, but it makes no sense to go back to the expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but insolvent, claims to be "irrefutable" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, one of the founders of the "Journal of Forecasting" and "International Journal of Forecasting"
Jan Breslow, Head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, Member of the American Physical Society
David Edward, member of the National Academy of Technology and the National Academy of Sciences
William Hepper, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge, UK
William Koninmant, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
James McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Technical University of Virginia
Rodney Nichols, former president and chief executive officer of the New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of the Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Henk Tennekes, former director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

Source: perevodika.ru.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: