No Need to Panic About Global Warming

From: online.wsj.com...

"A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

This is mainly about allowing the scientific method to be used and not prohibiting debate and honest skepticism. Note that this same thing happened with the concept of 'Cold Fusion' which was determined to be heresy by the same APS. Questioning the dogma that anthropogenic CO2 is a GCC culprit is slowly being accepted as scientists remember how to do science. Hopefully, we have passed the age of witch hunts and heretic burnings. It is my opinion that 'Climategate' has loosened the muzzles on those who wish to do science and not memorize the little red book of climate change. The entire article at the link was signed by:
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, U.K.; 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.

For some reason or another, there are people out there who, for whatever reason, will simply not be satisfied until they are scrubbing carbon out of the atmosphere by the kiloton per hour or blocking out the sun.

Of course - there's a bit of a fallacy in the whole "scientists agree global warming is occurring."

Most climate scientists hold that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. Only 14% of surveyed scientists hold that an ideal climate is below the temperature of our current (and these are IPCC climate scientists who review the IPCC documents).

Link to document

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree
Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase
is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess.

Among survey respondents, then, there’s no consensus on desirability of 1-degree Celsius
of global warming ─ twice the level of warming that occurred during the 20th century.

When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than
the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

Which leads us to the question of: "what makes us think we need to try and install planetary climate control systems?"

It seems to me that if there is global warming, it is part of the natural cycle and not man-made. The scientific community is being hijacked in order to push the carbon tax scam.

Of course, this begs the question: If scientists can be hijacked into supporting something like this, what else are they being forced to support that they preach as dogma, but know darned well is not? For me, medical doctors and the FDA are the first ones that come to mind.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

Of course, this begs the question: If scientists can be hijacked into supporting something like this, what else are they being forced to support that they preach as dogma, but know darned well is not? For me, medical doctors and the FDA are the first ones that come to mind.

Indeed, the very institutions that are designed to protect the citizens, are actually operating against us. Corporatism at its finest.