Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong ( Author is an Ecconomist....his science ???)

nybooks.com ^ | March 22, 2012 | William D. Nordhaus

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments to the BH article....on CO2 as a pollutant:

*******************************EXCERPT****************************

Richard Tol's greatest contribution to mankind? Concluding that CO2 is a pollutant.

Somehow I am convinced that Tol doesn't think himself as holding that hot potato.

New Zealand wants to reduce greenhouse gases because its sheep fart too much globe to take. Australia? Well, I don't know why they want their carbon tax. Britain wants to be a world leader in reducing emissions. Among all however, the United States has the stupidest reason to 'regulate CO2'. Carbon di-oxide is a pollutant

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Shub

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments....chasing the "CO2 is a pollutant":

************************************EXCERPT********************************************

Since William Norhaus depends for his defintion of "pollutant" on US law, does this not mean that elsewhere in the world, where there is no such definition, carbon dioxide is entirely innocent? Maybe another serious case for extradition?

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM | Mike Post

[Rufusthered]

It’s truly a bummer when the AGW economics book you’re writing is scheduled to be published just as the fad is deflating. Check for it on the remainder shelves - or as required reading at your local leftist university.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Poor timing on his part....can piled up books be considered a “POLLUTANT”?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments:

*****************************EXCERPT*******************************************

It is a curious pollutant without which life on Earth would come to a sudden and (almost) absolute end.

Feb 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM | Jit

[Vaduz]

Climate change experts often state they may not always be right but by God they are never wrong.

[wita]

So, merchants of doubt are we? Name calling attempt at winning the debate.

The remedy though full of uncertainties needs to be implemented right now. Another indicator of bad juju.

Follow the money really got tied up in knots. I wasn’t impressed.

Lastly, I wonder what scientist actually believes man might have the ability to change the climate? I suggest the same scientist who believes man has caused the change in the first place.

[peeps36]

CO2 is a pollutant because US law and economic theories say it is. I think he forgot to ask the scientist for their input. He must get his legal and investment advice from scientist.

[wbill]

yep. On reflection, stopping the flow of O2 WOULD dramatically reduce the aging process in humans. So, the author was correct in a technical, academic sort of way.

It's still drivel. :-)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments regarding CO2:

*****************************************EXCERPT*****************************

William Nordhaus is stepping deeper into chemistry than he realises. I could easily construct many more castles in the air that he would be uncomfortable with.

For example:The tortuous reasoning that CO2 is a pollutant can also be used to claim that oxygen (O2) is a pollutant. Ozone (O3) is synthesized from O2 in the atmosphere by sunlight. Ground level ozone is also produced. Ground level Ozone is, quite rightly, described as harmful to humans and other life forms at concentrations much lower than CO2. Photosynthesis by vegetation produces oxygen, which produces ozone. Ergo plants are harmful to the environment.

Unless, that is, William Nordhaus would like to describe sunlight as the pollutant. I really would enjoy seeing an attempt to paint the sun as being harmful to the environment.

Feb 29, 2012 at 3:40 PM | michael hart

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the Commetss:

*****************************************EXCERPT********************************

It is interesting that when economists, physicists, engineers, geologists, meteorologists, etc. write sketpical articles about the AGW consensus, the first rationale to dismiss them is that they are not climate scientists.
Yet here the NYT is giving a whole column to an economist to defend the consensus as if he is the most credible person in the world.
His claim of warming is not quantified.
And of course his infantile definition of CO2 as a pollutant is not challenged, his claim of human climate influence is unquantified, and by use of the red herring of financial gain- instead of the real motives for academics, peer recognition and social capital- are ignored.
And his graphics are of the most extreme- and frankly misleading sort, and produced by the people who are benefiting from them.

Feb 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM | hunter