- This topic is empty.
- 9 March 2012 at 4:16 am #3620
Exellent article by economist William D Nordhaus debunks various claims made by global warming deniers, and shows there is cause for great concern, and ample reasons for taking actions (which will not devastate our economy). Includes:Quote:The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.
the IPCC report concluded: “No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the twentieth century.”
the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.
The idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.
The big money in climate change involves firms, industries, and individuals who worry that their economic interests will be harmed by policies to slow climate change. The attacks on the science of global warming are reminiscent of the well-documented resistance by cigarette companies to scientific findings on the dangers of smoking.25 May 2012 at 2:17 pm #4858
ars technica has useful article that takes to task claims that scientists are supporting global warming concerns because they make money doing so.
Includes:Quote:The truth of the matter is that the US has been funding climate science for decades. It's why we have things like a record of CO2 levels that goes back to the 1950s, temperature records that span over a century, and a detailed history of periods like the ice ages. People didn't just suddenly start studying this stuff in 1990—and much of the work from before that date was funded by the government.
There has never been any sudden boom in government funding for climate research that is luring people onto the research track, much less inducing them to support the consensus view. If anything, many years of flat funding would provide an incentive for people to look to getting out of the field.6 August 2012 at 2:11 pm #4869
op-ed in Los Angeles Times rebuts some emails from global warming skeptics; includes:Quote:The East Anglia researchers didn’t cook the books. Any suggestions otherwise are based on taking fragments of emails completely out of context.
Climate scientists have made no definitive claim that hurricanes, cyclones or tornadoes would have gotten more frequent or more powerful
"for parity" also writes: "To date, I don't believe that there have been any peer reviewed scientific studies that actually confirm any global climate change — or regional — caused by CO2."
Response: To date, no peer-reviewed scientific study has definitively confirmed that any single case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. The causal evidence that puts warnings on cigarette packages is based mainly on statistics and on a scientifically plausible chain of biological events. As to climate change, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers linking CO2 and global warming; you can find them synthesized in every IPCC report. Forparity’s assertion doesn’t pass the laugh test.
the list of predictions that have been vindicated is quite extensive.
"justwrite3" has thoughtfully pointed to this useful list.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.