Full disclosure: I have absolutely no
academic background in "climate science" and cannot comment
on the validity of the various models and their underlying
theories. But I do know something about research methods.
The gold standard of science is replicability, not
"consensus." When the developers of models release their
data so it can be replicated by independent researchers, I
will pay attention. It is IMO, scientific malpractice to not
make their data available to the larger science community. A
second issue, it seems to me, is rent seeking behavior by
scientists whose livelihood is based on government largess
in the form of grants. A third issue: it may well be that a
warming climate may have benefits that outweigh the costs of
mitigating the assumed negative effects of warming. Bjorn
Lindstrom has made this case quite eloquently. I am still
waiting for scientists to tell me what the ideal temperature
of the planet is. Not only the ideal temperature of the
planet, but I would like the global warmists to tell us what
year in "recorded" history that temperature occurred.
Remember that the ideal temperature must have occurred in
the past. Otherwise, why is there such a commotion about the
temperatures going higher. This 'all-too-carefully-written'
assessment won't move the needle of public opinion in any
discernible way and it scarcely educates. Remember this:
CO2, existing in far greater amounts in pre-industrial
times, has not, repeat HAS NOT, been shown to be harmful in
ANY way! It IS essential to all life, we cannot survive
without it. Further, only with the use of demonstrably
inaccurate computer-model ('guesses') does it (CO2) play a
role in forcing global surface temperatures. Scientific
recognition of these facts is growing at a significant pace
and needs to be advertised much more widely. Little
understood fact: The core motivation behind this frenzy has
been mounted by the 'anti-capitalism' movement.
Until humans came along, CO2 hasn't
existed in greater amounts than about 280 ppm (currently 400
ppm) at any time going back hundreds of thousands of years.
CO2 is essential for the entire life cycle on Earth as we
know it now, sure. That doesn't mean that higher amounts of
it will be great. In fact, it is harmful at high enough
concentrations, just ask any astronaut, or watch the movie
Apollo 13. (We'd be a very, very long way from reaching
those concentrations, but it is still clearly false to say
that it isn't harmful in "ANY way!") The greenhouse effect
was first proposed about 200 years ago, and Svante Arrhenius
did the first calculations of the effect of doubling CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere more than 100 years ago. He
thought it would be a good thing, over all, but he also
thought it would take thousands of years to accomplish. What
needs to be advertised much more widely is that it is the
'free-market' true believers that need to think more
critically. For the record, I believe in free markets, just
not as a virtually religious ideology that would blind me to
facts and conclusions that might contradict the policies a
pure pro-business, pro-growth mindset would lead one to
think are the best. Nuclear is in slow retreat, and its cost
stubbornly refuses to fall.
Add "in the
US" to the end of that sentence. France is doing fine. China
and Russia are banging out nuclear power plants as fast as
they can. What is stopping it in the US is that few to none
are willing to put up with 20 years of costly litigation,
with a distinct possibility of losing in the end. You see,
the French don't waste time and money on litigation. If they
need more power, they just build it. They have a time-proven
design, and they just stamp them out cookie cutter fashion.
The French had 7 nuclear incidents over the last 35 years,
resulting in one death. Far, far more people die extracting
and transporting coal and oil. The incidents were contained,
and life goes on. The authors are wrong on nuclear power.
Not surprising given Mr. Ridley's coal interest.