[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] WSJ, The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Yep, it looks like the alarmists are set for a fall. Not a moment
too soon in my opinion. The reputation of science unfortunately
will also be tarnished in the process. As will all the good efforts
to tread more lightly on the earth that climbed on the CC band wagon to
further their cause. I was never comfortable with touting nuclear
as a way to combat climate change for that reason. What a
misdirection of attention and a waste of resources this has
At 07:58 PM 02/12/2009, JERRY CUTTLER wrote:
This article appeared in the
National Post / Financial Post today on Page FP15.
I've met this professor and heard him speak at the U of T. He's a
very knowledgeable and capable scientist.
The Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 30, 2009, 7:44 P.M.
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the
prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the
globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing.
Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the
last dozen years or so—it does little thathat can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general
support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees
Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data
is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge
such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the
emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU)
that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to
maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on ...
Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.91/2541 - Release Date: