Rendering week 9: "No Need to panic About Global Warming”" - the article from The Wall Street Journal

The article which was published in “The Wall Street Journal” called “No Need to panic About Global Warming”. It reports at length that “there’s no compelling argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy”.

Speaking of the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming, it is necessary to note that it’s not true. Besides they do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

It’s necessary to emphasize that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama declared: “We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now”. But there is a question: is the evidence of global warming incontrovertible? The most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming.

There is every reason to believe that large number of scientists share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. It’s very likely that the reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Analyzing the situation, the author gives us an email, called “Climategate”, of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth. There is a general feeling to believe is that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”.

It’s an open secret that the lack of warming for more that a decade suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Also the fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant but a colorless and odorless gas and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle.

The other example of scientist is Dr. Shris de Freits who dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. Finally, as a result of his work, he was removed from his editorial job (he was the editor of the journal Climate Research), but was able to keep his university job.

It’s necessary to point out that the issue become so vexing because there is so much passion about global warming. Anyway a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” or its modern counterpart “Follow the money”. There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy.

There are a lot of comments on that economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. We can see a so-called proverb in the article: the better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature. It’s necessary to note that much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

As you see from the first paragraph of my rendering you can understand that there is no author of the article. But I have to say, that it has been signed by 16 scientists:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

According to their thought the author gives his/her personal opinion concerning this problem in the last paragraph – every candidate should support rational measure to protect and improve our environment. Though it makes no sense, there are lots of very expensive programs.