Things have improved a little bit in the attitude of the media to the climate debate.
Click here if you don't see a proper video above.
This is what Princeton physicist Prof Will Happer was allowed to point out on TV – and it wasn't even Fox News! ;-)
400 ppm of CO2 is nothing special, 1,000 ppm of CO2 would be beneficial for the productivity of agriculture – which has already gone up a little bit, thanks to the slightly increased CO2 levels. The Earth has seen concentrations as high as 4,000 ppm or higher. It wasn't during the era of humans – but the era of humans is a tiny fraction of the Earth's history and when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm, our primate ancestors – whose physiology and climatic preferences don't really differ from ours – were already alive.
Moreover, he was allowed to clarify that if the questions were neutrally enough asked, about a half of the scientists would be on his side.
Burn, baby, burn.
Via Bishop Hill.
Less optimistically, the media are full of the claims by "citizen scientists" around John Cook who claim that 97% of the relevant papers support the "global warming consensus". It's bizarre. I participated in the survey and in my random sample, there were 50% of papers that supported the consensus only.
Moreover, Cook promised me to send me the results but I was never sent them. For too many reasons, I just don't believe that Cook et al. possess elementary human honesty.
Click here if you don't see a proper video above.
This is what Princeton physicist Prof Will Happer was allowed to point out on TV – and it wasn't even Fox News! ;-)
400 ppm of CO2 is nothing special, 1,000 ppm of CO2 would be beneficial for the productivity of agriculture – which has already gone up a little bit, thanks to the slightly increased CO2 levels. The Earth has seen concentrations as high as 4,000 ppm or higher. It wasn't during the era of humans – but the era of humans is a tiny fraction of the Earth's history and when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm, our primate ancestors – whose physiology and climatic preferences don't really differ from ours – were already alive.
Moreover, he was allowed to clarify that if the questions were neutrally enough asked, about a half of the scientists would be on his side.
Burn, baby, burn.
Via Bishop Hill.
Less optimistically, the media are full of the claims by "citizen scientists" around John Cook who claim that 97% of the relevant papers support the "global warming consensus". It's bizarre. I participated in the survey and in my random sample, there were 50% of papers that supported the consensus only.
Moreover, Cook promised me to send me the results but I was never sent them. For too many reasons, I just don't believe that Cook et al. possess elementary human honesty.
William Happer on CNBC
![William Happer on CNBC]()
Reviewed by DAL
on
May 17, 2013
Rating:
No comments: