“Wouldn’t it be nice if we could scientifically determine the cumulative costs or benefits that result over the next three hundred years from our choices in the present? It may be nice, but it is impossible. ” “Because [mainstream climate] models produced such wildly different results depending on the projections and assumptions baked in the mathematical cake, economist Robert Pindyck concluded after an extensive review of such models that they are so badly flawed as to make them virtually … [Read more...]
Can Anything Good Come from CO2?
As much of America remains frigid, media headlines shout far and wide that catastrophic man-made climate change is to blame. But is it true? What are the basic facts about climate that people need to know? Four questions can aid in the understanding of this complicated topic. First, is the Earth warming? Second, if it is, what is causing the warming? Third, assuming that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, what is the cost of mitigating its impact? And fourth, if CO2 has little or … [Read more...]
Freeman Dyson’s brief case against dangerous CO2-driven warming
At a lecture at Boston University a few years ago, Freeman Dyson, one of the world's top physicists, who replaced Albert Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, put very simply one of the most basic arguments against the notion that CO2-driven global warming is likely to be disastrous: In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant, because the transport of radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. … [Read more...]
A Global Warming Red Team Warning: Do NOT Strive for Consensus with the Blue Team
Now that the idea of a global warming Red Team approach to help determine what our energy policy should be is gaining traction, it is important that we understand what that means to some of us who have been advocating it for over 10 years — and also what it doesn’t mean. The Red Team approach has been used for many years in private industry, DoD, and the intelligence community to examine very costly decisions and programs in a purposely adversarial way…to ask, what if we are wrong about a … [Read more...]
Poison for the Mind: The Nation on CO2 and Global Warming
What’s “a far more deadly gas” than the Sarin that Syrian President Bashar al Assad used to kill his own citizens—prompting President Trump to respond with a missile attack? Carbon dioxide. Or so says The Nation. According to “The Other Poison Gas Killing Syrians: Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” by University of Michigan Professor of History Juan Cole, “If Trump and his cronies really cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn’t be trying to spew ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.” We … [Read more...]
Trump’s Rollback of EPA Overreach: What No One is Talking About
President Trump’s actions yesterday (March 28) to rein in the EPA on a number of fronts involves the usual tension between environment and prosperity. Trump has rightly asserted that we can have both a relatively clean environment and prosperity, but this falls on deaf ears in the environmental community. His actions are painted as Republican’s desire to harm your children, because a more polluted environment is claimed to be worse for human health and welfare than achieving a cleaner … [Read more...]
Caring for Creation: A Book of Good Intentions but Poor Science
As an evangelical Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet. We should strive to reduce pollution to protect human health and the natural environment. We should explore new alternative energy sources, always seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms. We should prioritize providing electricity for the 1.2 billion people who don’t have it—and consequently suffer high rates of disease and premature death. For these and many other reasons I applaud Mitch Hescox and … [Read more...]
Blog: Caring for Creation: A Book of Good Intentions but Poor Science
As an evangelical Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet. We should strive to reduce pollution to protect human health and the natural environment. We should explore new alternative energy sources, always seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms. We should prioritize providing electricity for the 1.2 billion people who don’t have it—and consequently suffer high rates of disease and premature death. For these and many other reasons I applaud Mitch Hescox and … [Read more...]
The Trump Climate Dump: Why It Doesn’t Matter if Even 100% of Scientists Agree on Global Warming
Given current technologies, it makes no sense to destroy $100 Trillion in wealth this century for an unmeasurable reduction in warming. The more efficiently we can do those things, the greater humanity prospers. Affordable energy is part of that efficiency. Everything humans do requires energy. Everything. But when human prosperity suffers, people die. So, can it really be called “anti-science” that the moment Trump was inaugurated, the White House deleted all references to climate … [Read more...]
Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science
By Dr. Roy Spencer In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming. I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the … [Read more...]
