Monday, 30 January 2012

It's not just me

It's also:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting

Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

They express the same opinion that I have been putting forward now for years. The do so by way of an open letter to the Wall Street Journal under the title No Need to Panic About Global Warming in which they point out that:

  • the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true
  • large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share [these] opinions
  • [there has been a] lack of global warming for well over 10 years now
  • computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause
  • CO2 is not a pollutant
  • This is not the way science is supposed to work
  • Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow
  • 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.
  • Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls
  • The Nordhaus recommendation would principally help the third world 
I have nothing to add.

(With thanks to Albert for the link)


  1. I suspect they are right and in fact a consensus is emerging that the IPCC has a model that exaggerates the global warming effect. So we can agree.

    I hate to point out that many of them are experts in related fields and are 'former'. These ones probably have shorter necks too.

  2. Granted, but some are climate experts, and we have to wonder why some are "former" given the experiences of Dr de Freitas and Ivar Giaever.

  3. I think the "former" stuff is particularly irrelevant. Even if all the "former" people are simply retired, the facts (as I understand them) are that the best evidence against MMGW is the evidence that the earth has not warmed for the last 10-15 years. So even if (which I think v. unlikely) the "former" nature of these chaps means they are not up to date with the latest evidence, that hardly counts in favour of MMGW.