Even
with the Kyoto Protocol due to expire at the end of this year, Obama
persists in giving highest priority to climate change policy if
re-elected. Does the U.S. really want to lead the world in committing
economic suicide? It pays to look at the rapidly disappearing
scientific rationale for trying to mitigate a putative future global
warming.
In an essay "Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong" in the New York Review of Books of Feb. 22, 2012, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus attempts to counter the arguments of a group of 16 prominent scientists who published an essay, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27, 2012.
Two crucial points may have been overlooked in the debate:
So I will simply try to address questions Prof. Nordhaus posed in his NYRB essay, to which I responded in a (Aug. 16) letter in the NYRB. I wanted my response to reach NYRB readers, typically liberal academics, lawyers, and teachers.
In an essay "Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong" in the New York Review of Books of Feb. 22, 2012, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus attempts to counter the arguments of a group of 16 prominent scientists who published an essay, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27, 2012.
Two crucial points may have been overlooked in the debate:
**Evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is problematic.
**A modest warming is likely to be beneficial -- not damaging.
First, some background: I have known Bill Nordhaus for about 40 years; he certainly is no wild-eyed alarmist, but rather a highly respected specialist in environmental economics.
Through his association with the U.N. climate-science panel, he is
familiar with the main arguments supporting the IPCC's contention that
human activities, mainly rising carbon dioxide levels from energy
generation, have been responsible for much of past warming. He does not
question this IPCC claim; however, I have no reason to believe that he
supports any of the drastic CO2-mitigation schemes -- be they
carbon sequestration or alternative "green" energy projects -- or that
he has illusions about the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol or similar
measures of international control. **A modest warming is likely to be beneficial -- not damaging.
So I will simply try to address questions Prof. Nordhaus posed in his NYRB essay, to which I responded in a (Aug. 16) letter in the NYRB. I wanted my response to reach NYRB readers, typically liberal academics, lawyers, and teachers.
No comments:
Post a Comment