Burt Rutan and Climate Change. In early , The Wall Street Journal published a letter supposedly from 16 scientists saying there was no need to worry about. Elbert Leander “Burt” Rutan Credentials B.S. Aeronautical Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. the New York Academy of Sciences;; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, The first myth in the article is the well-worn “global warming stopped.
Some of the best skeptical scientists have the freedom to be so precisely because they are not climate scientists and are unfettered by familiarity with the subject.
He does hold numerous aircraft patents, however. Login via the left margin or if you’re new, register here.
If we boil down this op-ed to its basics, we’re left with a letter signed by only two scientists with peer-reviewed climate research publications in the past rhtan decades, which exhibits wafming serious lack of understanding of basic climate concepts, and which simply regurgitates a Gish Gallop of long-worn climate myths.
Shaviv has published some research on galactic cosmic rays, and Kininmonth and Tennekes published a couple of climate-related papers in the s although most of Tennekes’ research as been in aeronautics. T he liberal media and an overwhelming majority of scientists would have us believe warmming there is no real debate about climate change. Just when we thought the op-ed letter couldn’t get worse, these fake skeptics have the gall to suggest that we “follow the money,” because climate “alarmism” supposedly brings bountiful research funding, “an excuse for governments to raise taxes”, “big donations” for environmental groups, and other similar tinfoil-hattery.
If not, we will be in one of those gloomy scenarios. Not a climate science reference, but a unique perspective – An engineering critique of the activist climate scientists and their process of data gathering, processing and presentation. Climate Heroes and Villains of They couple this with the grossly oversimplistic “CO2 is plant food” myth. The “concerned scientists” earming follow with the myth that CO2 limits will harm the economy. Adobe pdf version – 6.
German Institute for Economic Research and Watkiss et al. Dr Michaels is so passionate and committed to his work, he has a habit of deleting or distorting data.
Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Dwyer has a PhD is in Organic Chemistry. Written for the ” Global Warming Policy Foundation “. To that I say: Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U. Many, including Burt Rutan, have experience in fields entirely unrelated to climate science. Although he tends to be quite conservative about the costs of climate change relative to other economists, Nordhaus still supports putting a price on carbon emissions.
CCC is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic. New York University survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions. The scientific consensus on the climate HOAX An excellent presentation disputing man-made global warming using nothing but pure science and vurt by Professor Bob Carter Australian geologist. Media Matters reported on the 16 scientists who signed the Op-Ed, and found that most of gpobal have not published any research in the area of climate science.
It stands as a living testament to how even a successful, driven and intelligent man can be so violently ravaged by the onset of Dunning-Kruger disease in its gllobal stages. It would not surprise me if it did.
In globla, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. I butr a cynic; My conclusion – ‘if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying’. Show 25 25 50 All. Know-it-all scientists and their followers all share an extreme, elitist, pro-science, pro-reason bias, which clouds their judgment and threatens the very fabric of our democracy.
If he could have supported them in a factual way he might have come off better,but in the end he appeared to be simply parroting the denier party line.
It also ignores the other adverse impacts of increasing CO2, gpobal ocean acidification. Lindzen is the only climate scientist of note on the entire list, and is mainly noteworthy for his history of being wrong on climate issues.