Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong  

Posted by Big Gav in

The New York Review Of Book has an article by William Nordhaus on global warming - Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong.

The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. Because the economic questions involved have received relatively little attention, I have been writing a nontechnical book for people who would like to see how market-based approaches could be used to formulate policy on climate change. When I showed an early draft to colleagues, their response was that I had left out the arguments of skeptics about climate change, and I accordingly addressed this at length.

But one of the difficulties I found in examining the views of climate skeptics is that they are scattered widely in blogs, talks, and pamphlets. Then, I saw an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012, by a group of sixteen scientists, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” This is useful because it contains many of the standard criticisms in a succinct statement. The basic message of the article is that the globe is not warming, that dissident voices are being suppressed, and that delaying policies to slow climate change for fifty years will have no serious economic or environment consequences.

My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.1 I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:

• Is the planet in fact warming?
• Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
• Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
• Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
• Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
• Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

As I will indicate below, on each of these questions, the sixteen scientists provide incorrect or misleading answers. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, they have muddied the waters. I will describe their mistakes and explain the findings of current climate science and economics. ...

0 comments

Post a Comment

Ads

Ads

Statistics


referer referrer referers referrers http_referer

Locations of visitors to this page

Ads

Books

Followers

News

Loading...

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (515) global warming (314) peak oil (272) solar power (268) electric vehicles (168) wind power (144) smart grids (138) geothermal energy (133) ocean energy (129) csp (128) tidal power (118) solar thermal power (116) coal seam gas (113) nuclear power (109) iraq (106) oil (105) geothermal power (100) green buildings (99) china (98) renewable energy (92) lng (91) agriculture (81) natural gas (73) smart meters (72) solar pv (71) energy storage (70) oil price (70) biofuel (69) energy efficiency (59) uk (59) wave power (56) electricity grid (52) google (49) food prices (48) big brother (46) coal (46) internet (45) bicycle (40) thin film solar (39) ocean power (37) biomimicry (36) new zealand (34) air transport (33) shale gas (33) water (33) algae (32) canada (32) scotland (32) credit crunch (31) politics (31) queensland (31) bioplastic (30) concentrating solar power (30) surveillance (30) population (27) resource wars (26) batteries (25) california (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) geoengineering (25) saudi arabia (25) cogeneration (24) ctl (23) drought (23) offshore wind power (23) bruce sterling (22) economics (22) woodside (22) arctic ice (20) coal to liquids (20) iraq oil law (20) origin energy (19) ultracapacitor (19) brightsource (18) indonesia (18) rail transport (18) santos (18) ausra (17) carbon tax (17) lithium (17) ucg (16) buckminster fuller (15) collapse (15) exxon (15) limits to growth (15) mapping (15) psychology (15) concentrating solar thermal power (14) geodynamics (14) iceland (14) michael klare (14) biodiesel (13) carbon emissions (13) cellulosic ethanol (13) distributed manufacturing (13) electric bikes (13) ethanol (13) fertiliser (13) investment (13) kenya (13) tesla (13) ambient energy (12) atlantis (12) cities (12) matthew simmons (12) public transport (12) victoria (12) al gore (11) biochar (11) brazil (11) energy policy (11) shale oil (11) texas (11) bees (10) desertec (10) fabber (10) goldman sachs (10) hybrid car (10) internet of things (10) terra preta (10) tinfoil (10) volt (10) alaska (9) amory lovins (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) cradle to cradle (9) esolar (9) gazprom (9) gtl (9) pge (9) severn estuary (9) sweden (9) toyota (9) afghanistan (8) big oil (8) bucky fuller (8) chile (8) eroei (8) fuel cells (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) lithium ion batteries (8) methane hydrates (8) otec (8) relocalisation (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) antarctica (7) arrow energy (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) distributed generation (7) fish (7) floating offshore wind power (7) four day week (7) methane (7) nanosolar (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) bolivia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) jatropha (6) jeremy leggett (6) local currencies (6) natural gas pipelines (6) nigeria (6) pentland firth (6) somalia (6) stirling engine (6) t boone pickens (6) chp (5) futurism (5) ocean acidification (5) saul griffith (5) varanus island (5) airborne wind turbines (4) garbage (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) scenario planning (4) space based solar power (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) global energy grid (2) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)