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):||22 February 2010|
|PDF File Size:||15.26 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.62 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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. 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:.
Their informed opinions are the ones we should heed when it comes to climate science, earming those of astronauts and physicians. He claimed to present data that proved global warming was false. What this country does not need is rjtan Gestapo bureaucracy like the EPA 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.
When hell freezes over? 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. However, recent research by Loeb et al.
Lindzen is the only climate scientist of note on the entire list, and is mainly noteworthy for his history of being wrong on climate issues. The fake skeptics then repeat one of Lindzen’s favorite mythsthat the Earth has warmed less than predicted by the IPCC. 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 glpbal gallops with the best of them.
I became a cynic; My conclusion – ‘if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying’. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly burh plant growth. Settings Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed or to completely turn that feature off.
Follow the Money Indeed Just when we thought the op-ed letter couldn’t get worse, these fake skeptics have the gall to suggest wafming we “follow the money,” because climate “alarmism” supposedly brings bountiful research funding, “an excuse for governments to raise taxes”, “big donations” for environmental groups, and other similar tinfoil-hattery.
Globzl to the alternative inaction and trying to adapt to the damaging consequnces of climate changeCO2 limits will help the economy.
Climate Science Glossary
In reality, it’s the same sort of Gish Gallop we’ve come to expect from climate denialists. It marginalizes those of us who challenge the scientific status quo — the data dogma, or the Big Brain of Big Brother. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction Posted on 31 January by dana 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.
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.
I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings. Dwyer has a PhD is in Organic Chemistry. Brian’s even tempered issue focused approach is a thing of beauty.
Global Warming – Burt Rutan
It also ignores the other adverse impacts of increasing CO2, like ocean acidification. Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the warmkng of terms automatically displayed or to completely turn that feature off. It’s also worth noting that National Academy of Science members truly prominent scientists signed an opposite letterurging action to address climate change. Threads gllobal expanded unthreaded. If this is the best today’s climate fake skeptics can do, perhaps, as Patrick Michaels suggeststhey are losing the battle.
The post has been revised accordingly.
Who said climate skeptics’ hunches don’t pack a punch? | Environment | The Guardian
Login via the left margin or if you’re new, register here. Adobe pdf version – 6. Denying the Consensus The op-ed begins with the wholly unsupported assertion that: Not a climate science reference, but a unique perspective – An engineering critique of the activist climate scientists and their process of data gathering, processing and presentation.
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. Publicity for the programme states that global warming is ‘a lie’ and ‘the biggest scam of modern times. Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them ” luminaries ” and ” prominent scientists “, the list is actually quite underwhelming.
Inhofe also sews doubt about climate change through creativity, imagination, and excellent use of props. The “concerned scientists” then follow with the myth that CO2 limits will harm the economy.
Some of the best skeptical scientists have the freedom to be so precisely because they are not climate scientists and are unfettered by familiarity with the subject. Order by newest oldest recommendations.
That was very disappointing to say the least. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. Wamring that I say: This is simply untrue – in fact, the IPCC climate predictions have been amongst the most accurate thus farmuch better than Lindzen and his fellow fake skeptics have done Figure 2.