16 Scientist openly contest that climate science is “incontrovertible”
In an open letter, published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27th, 16 mainstream scientist, including Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever openly contested the so-called settled science of global warming. In this letter, the 16 scientists dispute the notion that global warming, as defined and defended by the UN’s IPCC, is an ongoing, human-caused threat to ecological stability.
Their letter points out that for the past decade, there has been no discernible global warming and quotes Climategate emails from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporter and climate scientist Trenberth that clearly state climate scientists “can’t account for the lack of warming.” They move on to note that the warming detected since the IPCC began publishing climate related projections (over 20 years) has been far less than predicted by climate models. This muted warming, they claim, has led AGW supporters to switch focus from warming, to climate change, and then to “extreme weather” events, allowing anything “unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”
They note that the issue of climate change has become dangerous for dissenting views and describe how so-called skeptics have been harassed and treated as outsiders in the scientific realm. They contend that when seeking the reasons for this unscientific behavior, one should start with the “old question, ‘cui bono?’ Or … follow the money,” meaning that there is money available for climate research that follows the established orthodoxy. Research which breaks from that line of thought does not help in expanding budgets, so it is discouraged.
They wrap up their letter by stating plainly, “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”
They also offer advice to potential candidates for electoral office, suggesting that the best path forward would be to allow energy use and economic growth to continue unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls for the next fifty years. This policy path would give ample time for developing economies to flourish and citizens of those economies to enjoy better living conditions and medical care.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
Read the full letter and see the names of the 16 signatories on the Wall Street Journal website.