Climate Crisis? Scientific American Article Says “Chill Out”

Finally, scientists are saying what should have been obvious, that climate alarmists have ignored the ingenuity of the human species, and their unique ability to cope and conquer.

A persuasive article just published in Scientific American takes on the scientific and political orthodoxy. The uppity scientists featured in it say that not only can we survive and thrive in a changing world, we have proved over centuries of technological progress that we can take advantage of the opportunities such changes present.

Here are two excerpts:

In his Breakthrough essay, Pinker spells out a key assumption of ecomodernism. Industrialization “has been good for humanity. It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts.”

Boisvert comments: “A headline like ‘Despite climate change, rising food production will save millions of lives’ isn’t great click-bait, but it would give a truer picture of a future under global warming.” He adds: “Global warming won’t wipe us out or even stall our progress, it will just marginally slow ordinary economic development that will still outpace the negative effects of warming and make life steadily better in the future, under every climate scenario.”

The climate dogma of recent decades has held favor with political elites around the world, as they cleverly and cynically took advantage of the political opportunities provided by these projections of doom. How convenient. So convenient, in fact, that they offered to pay for more, and more and more.

And scientists looking for funding have been more than willing to suspend disbelief and pad their budgets. For a price, they’ll tell their contractors what they want and need to hear. It has not been a case of scientists doing science, but an alarming example of scientists doing the bidding of their fellow ideologues…the ones also holding the purse strings.

Climate alarmists are actually using “science” to make an economic and political argument, not a scientific one. They have used the “settled science” claim as cover for their true intentions. They profess certainty that technology has caused a crisis. They claim scientists agree with political elites that the world is in trouble if we don’t dramatically alter the way we do things.

This contrived consensus has sucked in countless concerned citizens. Sadly it seems, many citizens who respect and revere science and technology have fallen in line, curiously unquestioning and disturbingly dismissive of those who are simply suspicious of methods and motives.

It’s as if civilization has never figured anything out, never conquered a challenge, never advanced beyond burning things just to stay warm and roast a goat.

But the tide seems to be turning. Now, this article in Scientific American has given voice to respected scientists who present a more realistic and hopeful scenario of the future. And these are scientists who are accepted within their community, having not previously been saddled with the dreaded “climate denier” moniker.

That should happen soon. Expect them to be thrown under the bus by politicians and scientific grant grabbers. They all have too much to lose to stay silent and open their minds. But, when some scientists dare to speak up, others are encouraged and emboldened to join them. While politicians and bureaucrats are resistant to criticism and questioning, the scientific community is supposed to ask how and wonder why. Can they really continue to accept theories as fact? Or will their sense of duty to the scientific method force them to speak up?

Cracks in the dam of climate consensus have begun to appear. As more scientists and politicians garner the courage to tell it like it is, perhaps the rising tide of group-think will recede, revealing the bright forecast that doomsayers dutifully denied and cleverly concealed.

Every climate model has been wrong. Seemingly all have erred on the side of exaggeration. To this day, every predicted date of calamity has passed without even a whimper. The prophets of doom have missed on every doomsday prediction so far. Their settled science has been unsettling to say the least.

These are facts. But climate alarmists only offer newly revised theories and computer models, based on their own numbers , adjusted “for accuracy”. Trust their expertise, they say.

Common sense says go with the facts.

________________________________________

Links to Related NoBull Cause articles:

Climate Alarmists Pass Gas While the World Burns

How To Lie With Statistics: Science Itself Exposes The Global Warming Data Hoax

Is the CO2 Bubble About to Burst?

Two Benefits of Global Warming: Cheaper Veggies and Hotter Women

In case you missed this link in the article:

Scientific American Article – Click Here

E6F938D8-665A-4F9B-9D81-F7763E79EF07

0C0506CD-65A0-48BE-A91F-487AC72566E4

image

8FC74086-8248-461F-B92C-CFE2389152A1

3 thoughts on “Climate Crisis? Scientific American Article Says “Chill Out”

  1. RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.

    But with such great personal, professional and capital investment in this failed premise, like the man with only a hammer, assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.

    Over 10,500 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.

    Step right up, bring science, I did.

    https://principia-scientific.org/climate-science-what-doesnt-work-and-why/
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/19972-Space-Hot-or-Cold-and-RGHE
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T

    Like

      1. How’s this for heavy? I post graphic on my LinkedIn page.

        https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6384689028054212608

        .K-T and assorted clone diagrams of atmospheric power flux balances include a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop of about 330 W/m^2 which violates three basic laws of thermodynamics: 1) energy created out of thin air, 2) energy moving (i.e. heat) from cold to hot without added work, and 3) 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping.

        One possible defense of this critique is that USCRN and SURFRAD data actually measure and thereby prove the existence of this up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop. Although in many instances the net 333 W/m^2 of up/down/”back” LWIR power flux loop exceeds by over twice the downwelling solar power flux, a rather obvious violation of conservation of energy.

        And just why is that?

        Per Apogee SI-100 series radiometer Owner’s Manual page 15. “Although the ε (emissivity) of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”

        Emissivity, ε, is the ratio of the actual radiation from a surface and the maximum S-B BB radiation at the surface’s temperature. Consider an example from the K-T diagram: 63 W/m^2 / 396 W/m^2 = 0.16 = ε. In fact, 63 W/m^2 & 289 K & 0.16 together fit just fine in a GB version of the S-B equation. What no longer fits is the 330 W/m^2 GHG loop which vanishes back into the mathematical thin air from whence it came.

        “Their staff is too long. They are digging in the wrong place.”

        “There is no spoon.”

        And

        Up/down/”back” GHG radiation of RGHE theory simply:
        Does
        Not
        Exist.

        Which also explains why the scientific justification of RGHE is so contentious.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s