Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong ( Author is an Ecconomist....his science ???)
nybooks.com ^ | March 22, 2012 | William D. Nordhaus

Posted on 02/29/2012 8:18:58 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

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:

(Excerpt) Read more at nybooks.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 02/29/2012 8:19:10 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
From the Bishop Hill Blog:

Nordhaus and the sixteen

***************************************************************

Economist William Nordhaus takes a pop at the sixteen concerned scientists, in the latest skirmish kicked off by their Wall Street Journal editorial.

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:


2 posted on 02/29/2012 8:24:10 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Defendingliberty; TenthAmendmentChampion; SolitaryMan; ...
Thanx for the ping !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 02/29/2012 8:24:28 AM PST by steelyourfaith (Expel the Occupy White House squatters !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the comments to the Bishop Hill article :

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

CO2 is a pollutant because I say it is.
Oh, really? On the basis that Nordhaus argues from every species on earth has been polluting by its very existence since it first developed lungs.
And the day that the EPA actually becomes an independent objective scientific body will for sure be the day that pigs take to the skies.
And I agree with mac.

Feb 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

4 posted on 02/29/2012 8:30:23 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
More from BH comments:

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

Surely question 2 should be quantified - i.e. "How much of an important factor are human influences warming?" with a subsidiary question "Of the human influences, how much is due to CO2?".

Unfortunately Nordhaus quotes the IPCC as saying "“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.” which says in other words human influence is >0

Feb 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndyL

5 posted on 02/29/2012 8:35:08 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

It's going to be getting cold.

6 posted on 02/29/2012 8:38:19 AM PST by ILS21R (Never give up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
More:

*************************************EXCERPTS**********************************

A typical warmist exhortation.

Starts with convincing and undisputed scientific arguments, but rapidly drifts into mass production of straw men like "Lysenko" and "Madison Avenue".

I stopped reading at 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.

No honest person could have written that.

Feb 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

7 posted on 02/29/2012 8:40:25 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
More:

******************************EXCERPTS*******************************************

Mike Jackson, James Lovelock has been trying to reframe the production of CO2 from living processes as "pollution" for some time.

His argument is that lower forms of life unknowingly and blindly "pollute", whereas we should recognise that the very act of our existence is pollution (and presumably should be curbed).

As the BBC repeats:

"When bacteria started releasing it as a waste gas, a billion or more years ago, it was the worst pollution incident in the history of the planet."


Link to audio here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00d43dw


Skip to Lovelock's contribution at 08:30.


We must ignore the specialisation and diversity that this event prompted of course; statis is the only option, change is always counterproductive and evil

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermrsean2k

8 posted on 02/29/2012 8:43:38 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Meh, common mistake.

Author is knowledgable (or thinks he is) on one topic, and assumes that transfers to all other topics.

Too bad so many will bother listening.

9 posted on 02/29/2012 8:50:31 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The threat of climate change is an increasingly important issue,

for an issue that is supposed to be the cause the human civilization as we know it is "increasing important" the right adjectives? Should he use language like "immediate life threatening events" ?

10 posted on 02/29/2012 8:54:53 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill
From the link at post #8:

Thin Air

******************************snip********************************

We not only live in the air, we live because of it. Air is about much more than breathing. It is a transformer and a protector, though ultimately also a poison. It wraps our planet in a blanket of warmth. It brings us wind, rain and fire. It sustains our bodies and at the same time it burns them up, slowly, from the inside. In this episode, Gabrielle Walker investigates the good side - and the bad - of two components of air: carbon dioxide and oxygen.

Carbon dioxide makes up a tiny fraction of 1% of air, yet it at once protects, transforms and threatens life on Earth. Carbon dioxide is infamous for its contribution to the greenhouse effect that is causing global warming. But without it we would both freeze and starve. It is also the basis of everything we eat. The mass of all plants and hence, the creatures that feed on them comes from carbon dioxide. Billions of years ago, as the young Sun began to warm, bacteria and primitive algae began their insulating blanket, fossilising the air as limestone, coal and chalk. Now we are releasing that carbon to the air again, double-glazing the global greenhouse.

The greatest transformer in air is oxygen. It is the giver and taker of life. Without it living things cannot be vigorous - or larger than a pinhead. Yet it is also the bringer of death. When bacteria started releasing it as a waste gas, a billion or more years ago, it was the worst pollution incident in the history of the planet. Life was forced to hide or evolve. Even though we have adapted to depend on oxygen, we are playing with fire. In a slow and mostly controlled way, oxygen burns up the food we eat. It also chars the genes, molecules and cells within us, bringing about ageing and, ultimately death.

11 posted on 02/29/2012 8:55:12 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ILS21R
It's going to be getting cold.

Hotter (just in time to be reported before the 2016 elections). High sunspot numbers indicate greater solar activity (which may have some effect on Earth temperature)

12 posted on 02/29/2012 8:56:26 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don't understand it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I don’t know....but see #11.


13 posted on 02/29/2012 8:58:59 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Is the planet in fact warming?

Is the SUN, the source of all energy on our planet, increasing it's output?

Are human influences an important contributor to warming?

Important, yes, but Major, no. We can mess up the lower 200 feet of our atmosphere, in a localized area, like LA, but we have proven we can also clean it up.

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

Have another drink of Coke. Then tell me.

Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?

Only through fear can the masses be driven to find a savior, which then allows the 'leaders' to rape and pillage in exchange for offering a solution, no matter the merits of the solution.

Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?

They have been put in a position where one gains financing based on the ability to lie for those who control the purse strings. That many have succumbed doesn't seem surprising.

Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

Up to a point. Given enough time, I suppose we could develop more heat protective skins, and learn to breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2, but.... the Earth is fairly self-regulatory about the contents and condition of the atmosphere, so the only thing that might change is that plants will grow better (more food produced...oh my).

14 posted on 02/29/2012 8:59:43 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Good to see that global warming debate is officially “not settled”. The position for the warmist’s is in retreat from “they are all either fruit cakes or energy company dupes” to “we understand their arguments but we are still right and we have the following logical fallacies to support our position”.

Next stop will be the deconstruction of each logical fallacy used to support the alarmists agenda until the entire structure collapses.


15 posted on 02/29/2012 9:02:27 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
oxygen burns up the food we eat. It also chars the genes, molecules and cells within us, bringing about ageing and ultimately death.

I suppose that we should all stop breathing immediately and see how that works out for us? whatta bunch of drivel.

16 posted on 02/29/2012 9:03:32 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
More from the comments to the BH article:

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

* Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

As evidence that it is, Nordhaus quotes the US Clean Air Act:

The US Clean Air Act defined an air pollutant as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive…substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” In a 2007 decision on this question, the Supreme Court ruled clearly on the question: “Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt ‘physical [and] chemical…substance[s] which [are] emitted into…the ambient air.’

It seems that by the US Clean Air definition of a pollutant, the biggest pollutant of all is oxygen, which most certainly is "a substance which is emitted into the ambient air."

I await Nordhaus's suggestions for ridding the planet of this troublesome pollutant.

Feb 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottie

17 posted on 02/29/2012 9:04:20 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The author completely mischaracterizes the skeptic case. Skeptics do not dispute that warming has occurred. The only issue is whether positive feedback causes warming to occur in response to CO2 in an amount far greater than the response predicted by actual lab experiments. Nothing in the article about that. Yet the positive feedbacks are the entire argument.

Then, I love this: (1) He complains that the big money in climate change doesn’t help the AGW professors. They work for the IPCC for free (aren’t they great). Then read footnote 1: “The author is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University. He has received support for research on the economics of climate change during the last decade from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation.”


18 posted on 02/29/2012 9:06:01 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill

But it is the BBC pushing the Drivel.....


19 posted on 02/29/2012 9:08:46 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

Geez....he is working off of Public money.


20 posted on 02/29/2012 9:14:25 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All
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 | Unregistered CommenterShub

21 posted on 02/29/2012 9:19:32 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
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 | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

22 posted on 02/29/2012 9:24:57 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


23 posted on 02/29/2012 9:25:05 AM PST by Rufusthered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rufusthered
Poor timing on his part....can piled up books be considered a “POLLUTANT”?
24 posted on 02/29/2012 9:29:04 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All
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 | Unregistered CommenterJit

25 posted on 02/29/2012 9:31:01 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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


26 posted on 02/29/2012 9:31:21 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


27 posted on 02/29/2012 10:01:55 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


28 posted on 02/29/2012 10:02:23 AM PST by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
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. :-)

29 posted on 02/29/2012 10:02:51 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
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 | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

30 posted on 02/29/2012 10:12:31 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
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 | Unregistered Commenterhunter

31 posted on 02/29/2012 10:17:25 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson