Burt Rutan and Climate Change. In early , The Wall Street Journal published a letter supposedly from 16 scientists saying there was no need to worry about. Elbert Leander “Burt” Rutan Credentials B.S. Aeronautical Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. the New York Academy of Sciences;; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, The first myth in the article is the well-worn “global warming stopped.
|Published (Last):||26 December 2015|
|PDF File Size:||9.24 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.13 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Relative to the alternative inaction and trying to adapt to the damaging consequnces of climate changeCO2 limits will help the economy. After making globql number of unsubstantiated and false assertions about the “growing number” of climate “skeptics,” the letter then lays out what they see as the evidence supporting their fake skepticism.
German Institute for Economic Research and Watkiss et al.
Burt Rutan | DeSmogBlog
T he liberal media and an overwhelming majority of scientists would have us believe that there is no real debate about climate change. Although he tends to be quite conservative about the costs of glibal change relative to other economists, Nordhaus still supports putting a price on carbon emissions. It also has sections on climate adaptation and scientific consensus.
You need to be logged in to post a comment. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.
The first myth in the article is the well-worn ” global warming gurt in [insert year] “. Perhaps the greatest doubter of climate change is Senator and Environment and Public Works Committee chair Jim Inhofe, who makes his case not with data or evidence but with conviction, true grit and Holocaust analogies.
The lack of expertise and numerous conflicts of interest aside, let’s evaluate their arguments on their own merits or more accurately, lack thereof. New York University survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions. New York University survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions The article references work by economist William Nordhaus to try and justify climate inaction.
The article references work by economist William Nordhaus to try and justify climate inaction. Why do they get to be considered experts while the rest of us are treated as anything less? Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them ” luminaries ” and ” prominent scientists “, the list is actually quite underwhelming. The global increase of CO2 is a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail.
Not-So-Missing Heat The second myth is that Kevin Trenberth’s quote-mined comment ” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t ” is an admission that global warming stopped. The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness. To gloss over these complexities with the simplistic “CO2 is plant food” argument is an insult to the readers’ intelligence.
As usual, the article is little more than a regurgitation of a number of climate myths we have debunked at Skeptical Science.
It’s also worth noting that National Academy of Science members truly prominent scientists signed an opposite letterurging action to address climate change. Aside from continuing to misunderstand that the “missing earming is about having an inadequate global climate observational network mainly because we don’t have good measurements of deep ocean heatobservational data have demonstrated that water vaporand likely cloudsare indeed positive feedbacks.
Its alarmists can use it to destroy US global competitiveness through Cap and Trade taxes. Gish Gallop of Fake Facts After making a number of unsubstantiated and false assertions about the “growing number” of climate “skeptics,” the letter then lays out what they see as the evidence supporting their fake skepticism.
Link fixed tmac57 at Brian’s even tempered issue focused approach is a thing of beauty. Written for the ” Global Warming Policy Gloabl “. Dwyer’s Climate Change Presentation: I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings. What makes these skeptical renegade scientists so valuable is that they are driven by ulterior motives — mostly greed — and not a pro-science agenda.
And if not now, then when?
Know-it-all scientists and their followers all share an extreme, elitist, pro-science, pro-reason bias, which clouds their judgment and threatens the very fabric of our democracy. In reality, because its emissions endanger public health and welfare through its impacts on climate change, by definition CO2 is a pollutant according to the US Clean Air Act. What this country does not need is another Gestapo bureaucracy like the EPA BEST land-only surface temperature data green with linear trends applied to the timeframes totototototo blueand to red.
To that I say: If you have a 1. It stands as a living testament to how even a successful, driven and intelligent man can be so violently ravaged by the onset of Dunning-Kruger disease in its advanced stages.
Hobbies • Global Warming
I was unaware that Butr held those views. Order by newest oldest recommendations. That was very disappointing to say the least. It would not surprise me if it did.
He claimed to present data that proved global warming was false. The post has been revised accordingly. It kind of reminds me