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):||2 December 2008|
|PDF File Size:||19.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.62 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Topics Environment Climate change: This is why there is a consensus among economists with expertise in climate that we should put a price on carbon emissions Figure 4.
The article references work by economist William Nordhaus to try and justify climate inaction. Moreover, why should we care what these few self-proclaimed “distinguished scientists and engineers” think we should do about climate change?
Inhofe also sews doubt about climate change through creativity, imagination, and excellent use of props. In this case, the fake skeptics have inserted “the last 10 years. Brian’s even tempered issue focused approach is a thing of beauty. It also ignores the other adverse impacts of increasing CO2, like ocean acidification. Byron Smith at Dwyer’s Climate Change Presentation: That was very disappointing to glonal the least.
To gloss over these complexities with the simplistic “CO2 is plant food” argument is warmin insult to the readers’ intelligence. Loading comments… Trouble loading? What makes these skeptical renegade scientists so valuable is that they are driven by ulterior motives — mostly greed — and not a pro-science agenda. 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 rutzn see as the evidence supporting their fake skepticism.
As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the climate science consensusa group of scientists who are also climate “skeptics” have published an opinion-editorial op-edtrying to make the case against taking action to address climate change. This particular myth is primarily based on ignoring the fact that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have a tremendous cost, much greater than the cost of action Figure 3.
When we actually listen to what Nordhaus has to saythe picture looks very different:. CCC is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic.
Its alarmists can use it to destroy US global competitiveness through Cap and Trade taxes. Why do they get to be considered experts while the rest of us are treated as anything less?
While it’s true that in a controlled setting like a greenhouse, increased CO2 levels will generally improve plant growth, the global climate is not so simple.
Relative to the alternative inaction and trying to adapt to the damaging consequnces of climate changeCO2 limits will help the economy. It kind of reminds me 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. Dwyer has a PhD is in Organic Chemistry. Aside from continuing to misunderstand that the “missing heat” 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.
What this country does not need is another Gestapo bureaucracy like the EPA Shaviv has published some research on galactic cosmic rays, and Kininmonth and Tennekes published a couple of climate-related papers in the s although most of Tennekes’ research as been in aeronautics. Inhofe sees a lot of similarities between those who worry about the threat posed by climate change and those who worry about the threat posed by Jewish people:.
The lack of expertise and numerous conflicts of interest aside, let’s evaluate their arguments on their own merits or more accurately, lack thereof. If he could have supported them in a factual way he might have come off better,but in the end he appeared to be simply parroting the denier party line. The earnest, cherubic face of Greta Thunberg preaching common sense to the UN climate talks in Katowice was a memorable sight.
Publicity for the programme states that global warming is ‘a lie’ and ‘the biggest scam of modern times. 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.
John Hartz at The “concerned scientists” then follow with the myth that CO2 limits will harm the economy. Commenters other than Angliss provide Rutan with a great deal of supplementary information demonstrating that many of his claims are indefensible – and in his responses to them in comments which are not found in the summary post linked at 52 he ducks, weaves and gallops with the best of them.
Burt Rutan and Climate Change
In reality, the quote simply referred to the fact that while the planet is warming, we do not have adequate global monitoring to determine where all the heat is going. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U. However, recent research by Loeb et al.
Dr Michaels is so passionate and committed to his work, he has a habit of deleting or distorting data. If we boil down this op-ed to globla basics, we’re left with a letter signed by only two scientists with peer-reviewed climate research publications in the past three decades, which exhibits a serious lack of understanding of basic climate concepts, and which simply regurgitates a Gish Gallop of long-worn climate myths.
Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them warmming luminaries ” and ” prominent scientists “, the list is actually quite underwhelming. Get DeSmog News and Alerts. It also has sections on climate adaptation and scientific consensus. The op-ed then repeats the old “CO2 isn’t a pollutant” myth.
Login via the left margin or if you’re new, register here. Media Matters reported on the 16 scientists who signed the Op-Ed, and found that most of them have not published any research in the area of climate science. Although he tends to be quite conservative about the costs of climate change relative to other economists, Nordhaus still supports putting a price on carbon emissions.
Burt Rutan on Climate Change
Apparently these “concerned scientists” don’t think very highly of their audience. 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.
The film showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, warmingg others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The Consensus Project Website.
These are apparently the best and brightest the climate denialists can come up with these days?