Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Economics

I’m the only Indian who has signed the European Climate Declaration September 26, 2019

There is no climate emergency

See the declaration at PDF document (also on my server – and this). A report on this: There is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts

A video:

European Climate Declaration September 26, 2019


There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggera- tions in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassion- ately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic..

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more fre- quent. However, CO2 -mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

Our advice to political leaders is
that science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the climate system, while politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by prioritizing adaptation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies.




The undersigned:

1. Rob Lemeire, Publicist on Environmental and Climate Issues, ECD Ambassador
2. Eric Blondeel, retired Civil Engineer.
3. Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp
4. Christophe de Brouwer, MD, Honorary Professor of Environmental and Industrial Toxicology, Former President of the School of Public Health at the Université Libre de Bruxelles
5. Christian Dierick, Lead Expert, Energy Technology Solutions
6. Ferdinand Engelbeen, Former chemical process automation engineer, Akzo Nobel Chemicals
7. Samuel Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics at the Free University of Brussels
8. Georges Geuskens, Emertitus Professor of Chemistry, Free University of Brussels and Expert Publicist on Climate Science
9. Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Law, author of several books
10. Jan Jacobs, Science Journalist Specializing in Climate and Energy Transition
11. Raymond Koch, Retired Research director at Lab. Plasma Physics, RMA Brussels and Fellow Lecturer at UMons.
12. Henri A. Masson, Emeritus Professor Dynamic System Analysis and Data Mining, University of Antwerp
13. Ferdinand Meeus, Retired Research Scientist, IPCC expert Reviewer AR6
14. Jean Meeus, Retired Meteorologist, Brussels Airport, Author of the Best Seller Astronomical Algorithms
15. Ernest Mund, Honorary Research Director, FNRS, Nuclear Engineering
16. Bart Ooghe, Geologist & Geophysicist, Independent Scientist
17. Jozef Verhulst, Author
18. Jean van Vliet, Retired Specialist in Space Weather
19. Appo van der Wiel, Senior Development Engineer

1. Václav Klaus, Former President of the Czech Republic, Professor of Economics, Founder of the Václav Klaus Institute

1. Bjarne Andresen, Professor of Physics, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
2. Peter Kjær Poulsen, Metering engineer, Denmark
3. Johannes Krüger, Emeritus Professor, dr.scient, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen
4. Niels Schrøder, Geophysist/Geologist, Associate Professor Institute of Nature and Environment, Roskilde University, Denmark

1. Benoît Rittaud, Associate professor of Mathematics at University of Paris-Nord, President of the French Association des climato-réalistes. ECD Ambassador
2. Jean-Charles Abbé, former research director at CNRS, labs director (Strasbourg, Nantes) in Radiochemistry, expert at NATO and IAEA
3. Bertrand Aliot, Environmentalist
4. Charles Aubourg, full professor at the University of Pau, geophysicist.
5. Hervé Azoulay, Engineer (CNAM), Specialist of Networks and Systemics, External Speaker at Universities (France, Switzerland, China), CEO and President of several Associations
6. Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Ingénieur ENSEM, publicist on climate issues
7. Bernard Beauzamy, university professor (ret.), chairman and CEO, Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (Paris).
8. Jean-Claude Bernier, emeritus professor (university of Strasbourg), former director of the Institute of Chemistry of the CNRS.

9. Pierre Beslu, former searcher and head of department in the french Nuclear Energy Commission (CEA).
10. Michel Bouillet, PhD Human Geography, Emeritus Professor, Former Associate Researcher at the MMSH (Aix-en-Provence)
11. Christian Buson, PhD in agronomy, director of research in a company (impact studies in environmental issues, sewage treatment).
12. Sylvie Brunel, full professor at Sorbonne University, geographer and economist, former president of the humanitarian organization Action against Hunger (Action contre la faim).
13. Jean-Louis Butré, professional engineer, head of laboratory at Grenoble Nuclear Research Center, Chief executive officer or the Pharmacie Centrale de France, President of Axens, President of the Fédération Environnement Durable and the European Platform Against Windfarms, Knight of the National Order of Merit.
14. Bernard Capai, Retired Chemistry Engineer, Specialist of Industrial Processes avoiding the use of carcinogenic solvents
15. Patrick de Casanove, Doctor of Medicine, Chairman of the Cercle Frédéric Bastiat
16. Philippe Catier, Medical Doctor
17. Pascal Chondroyannis, Forest Engineer, Retired Director of the National Alpine Botanical Conservatory (2008-2013)
18. Philippe Colomban, CNRS Research Professor, Former Head of Laboratory at Université Piere-et-Marie Curie, Expert in Hydrogen-based Energy Storage
19. Jacques Colombani, Former Research Director retired from ORSTOM-IRD, numerous Studies in Hydrology and Climatology and Specialist in Fluid Mechanics. Member of the Board of ORSTOM for twenty years.
20. Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences, former director of the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris
21. Pierre Darriulat, Professor of Physics, Member of the French Academy of Sciences
22. Gérard Douet, PhD in Nuclear Physics, Retired Engineer at CERN, Technical Manager on Digital Transmission and Video Encoding
23. Hubert Dulieu, Emeritus Professor Applied Ecology, Formerly Senior Researcher in the CNRS, President of the National Scientific Research Committee, Vegetal Biology Section (XXVII)
24. Bruno Durieux, economist, former Minister of Health and of Foreign Trade, ancient administrator of the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE).
25. Max Falque, International Consultant in Environmental Policy
26. Patrick Fischer, Associate Professor in Applied Mathematics, University of Bordeaux
27. François Gauchenot, governance specialist, founder of Saint George Institute.
28. Christian Gérondeau, former advisor of several French Prime Ministers. Former responsible for the road traffic safety policy for France and the European Union.
29. Francois Gervais, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Material Sciences, University of Tours.
30. Philippe Giraudin, Ecole Polytechnique Paris, Geographic Sciences
31. Bernard Grandchamp, Agronomic Engineer and Environment & Plant Defense Expert, Managing Director of Famoux Chateaux Viticoles in Bordeaux
32. Gilles Granereau, Former meteorologist, currently project manager environment and tourism in a public institution. Worked on coastal risks, marine erosion, sand dune fixation, hydraulics, forest management, botany.
33. Maximilian Hasler, Associate Professor in Mathematics, University of French West Indies
34. Claude Jobin, Retired A&M Engineer Specialized in Microwave Communication
35. Alexandre Krivitzki, Psychoanalyst, Member of the International Psychoanalytical Association
36. Roger Lainé, Retired Geological Engineer
37. Philippe de Larminat, Professor at École Centrale de Nantes, specialist of business process modeling.
38. René Laversanne, Former researcher at the CNRS, 16 patents.

39. Christian Marchal, astronomer and mathematician, former research director at the French National Office for Aerospace Studies and Research, former professor at the Observatory of Paris (1980-93), former assistant professor at Polytechnic School (1981-92).
40. Patrick Mellett, architect and CEO.
41. Marc le Menn, Head of Metrology-Chemistry Oceanography Lab, Brest.
42. Jacques-Marie Moranne, Retired Engineer (Ecole Centrale de Lille), Specialist in Air and Water Purification, Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
43. Cédric Moro, geographer on natural hazards management, co-founder of Visov, an NGO in Civil defense
44. Philippe Morvan, Engineer ENSTA and Génie Maritime, specialist in software development
45. Charles Naville, R&D Exploration Geophysicist, IFP Energies Nouvelles
46. Rémy Prud’homme, Emeritus Professor in Economics at University of Paris-Est, Former Deputy Director Environment, Directorate of OECD
47. Isabelle Rivals, Associate professor in Statistics at ESPCI Paris
48. Betrand Rouffiange, Doctor of Medicine, Specialized in Radiology48.
49. Jean Rouquerol, Emeritus Research Director at CNRS Marseille, Expert in Gas Adsorption and Calorimetry
50. François Simonet, Former Director for planning and foresight in a State Agency for water and aquatic ecosystems management.
51. Marcel Terrier, Engineer ENSAEM in risk management, teacher at École des Mines.
52. Étienne Vernaz, former Director of Research of CEA (Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique) in France, Professor at INSTN (Institut National des Sciences et Techniques Nucléaires).
53. Camille Veyres, Retired Engineer at École des Mines, Specialist in Telecommunications and Broadband Networks
54. Brigitte Van Vliet-Lanoë, geoscientist, Emeritus Research Director (CNRS, Université de Bretagne Occidentale), stratigraphy and paleoenvironments, Quaternary and Holocene.
55. Théa Vogt, retired CNRS searcher, géomorphology, Quaternary palaeoenvironments, soil and desertification remote sensing
56. Henri Voron, Retired Civil Chief Engineer, Specialized in Water Management

1. Fritz Vahrenholt, Professor (I.R.) am Institut für Technische und Makromolekulare Chemie der Universität Hamburg; ECD Ambassador
2. H.J. Bandelt, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, University of Hamburg
3. Dietrich Bannert, Professor Honoris Causa, University of Marburg
4. Lars Birlenbach, Dr. in Chemistry, University of Siegen
5. Klaus Döhler, Professor of Pharma sciences, University of Hannover
6. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, Emeritus Professor Geology, University of Paderborn
7. Hermann Harde, Emeritus Professor of Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut Schmidt-University, Hamburg
8. Werner Kirstein, Emeritus Professor of Climatology, University of Leipzig
9. Stefan Kröpelin, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Free University of Berlin and University of Cologne, Specialized in Climate Change of the Sahara
10. Ulrich Kutschera, Professor of Plant Physiology &Evolutionary Biology at the University of Kassel, Germany, and Visiting Scientist in Stanford USA
11. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Professor of Operations Research (i.R.) HTW of Saarland, Saarbrücken
12. Lothar W. Meyer, Emeritus Professor of Material Engineering, Chemnitz University of Technology, Saxony Entrepreneur ‘Nordmetall GmbH’, Member of the Board of ‘Vernunftkraft Niedersachsen’
13. Carl-Otto Weiss, Emeritus Professor in Non-linear Physics, Advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy, Former President of the German Meteorological Institute, Braunschweig

1. Jim O’Brien, Chair, Irish Climate Science Forum, Expert Reviewer IPCC AR6, ECD Ambassador
2. Tom Baldwin, Electrical Engineer, Specialist in Power System Security
3. Dr Anthony D. Barry, Honorary Fellow, Irish Academy of Engineering
4. Tony J. Carey, BA (Natural Sciences), Clare College, Cambridge
5. David Horgan, MA (Cambridge), MBA (Harvard), Resource Company Director
6. Seamus Hughes, BAgricSc, Specialist in Genetics
7. Ultan Murphy, B.Sc(Hons) Chemistry, Industry Science Professional
8. Owen O’Brien, Business Founder and Entrepreneur, MBA, DBA
9. J. Philip O’Kane, Emeritus Professor, School of Engineering, University College Cork
10. Peter O’Neill, Retired, School of Engineering, University College Dublin, Expert Reviewer of IPCC AR6
11. Fintan Ryan, Retired Senior Airline Captain, Fellow Royal Aeronautical Society
12. Dr. Brian N. Sweeney, Founding Chairman of Science Foundation Ireland
13. Sean Tangney, Business Entrepreneur, Former Technical Director, CRH plc
14. David Thompson, BAgricSc, MA, Animal Nutritionist
15. Dr. Edward Walsh, Former Chairman, Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation; Former Director, Energy Research Group, Virginia Tech, USA

1. Uberto Crescenti, Professore Emerito di Geologia Applicata, Università di Chieti- Pescara, già Magnifico Rettore e Presidente della Società Geologica Italiana.
2. Giuliano Panza, Professore di Sismologia, Università di Trieste, Accademico dei Lincei e dell’Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze, detta dei XL, vincitore nel 2018 del Premio Internazionale dell’American Geophysical Union.
3. Alberto Prestininzi, Professore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Roma La Sapienza, già Scientific Editor in Chief della rivista internazionale Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment e Direttore del Centro di Ricerca Previsione e Controllo Rischi Geologici (CERI), Sapienza Università di Roma; ED Ambassador
4. Franco Prodi, Professore di Fisica dell’Atmosfera, Università di Ferrara.
5. Franco Battaglia, Professore di Chimica Fisica, Università di Modena; Movimento Galileo 2001.
6. Mario Giaccio, Professore di Tecnologia ed Economia delle Fonti di Energia, Università di Chieti-Pescara, già Preside della Facoltà di Economia.
7. Enrico Miccadei, Professore di Geografia Fisica e Geomorfologia, Università di Chieti- Pescara.
8. Nicola Scafetta, Professore di Fisica dell’Atmosfera e Oceanografia, Università di Napoli.
9. Antonino Zichichi, Professore Emerito di Fisica, Università di Bologna, Fondatore e Presidente del Centro di Cultura Scientifica Ettore Majorana di Erice.
10. Renato Angelo Ricci, Professore Emerito di Fisica, Università di Padova, già Presidente della Società Italiana di Fisica e della Società Europea di Fisica; Movimento Galileo 2001.
11. Aurelio Misiti, Professore di Ingegneria sanitaria-Ambientale, Università di Roma La Sapienza, già Preside della Facoltà di Ingegneria, già Presidente del Consiglio Superiore ai Lavori Pubblici.
12. Antonio Brambati, Professore di Sedimentologia, Università di Trieste, Responsabile Progetto Paleoclima-mare del PNRA, già Presidente Commissione Nazionale di Oceanografia.
13. Cesare Barbieri, Professore Emerito di Astronomia, Università di Padova.
14. Sergio Bartalucci, Fisico, Presidente Associazione Scienziati e Tecnologi per la Ricerca Italiana.
15. Antonio Bianchini, Professore di Astronomia, Università di Padova.
16. Paolo Bonifazi, Astrofisico, ex Direttore dell’Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) dell’Istituto Nazionale Astrofisica (INAF).

17. Francesca Bozzano, Professore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Roma La Sapienza, Direttore del Centro di Ricerca Previsione, Prevenzione e Controllo Rischi Geologici (CERI).
18. Marcello Buccolini, Professore di Geomorfologia, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
19. Paolo Budetta, Professore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Napoli.
20. Monia Calista, Ricercatore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
21. Giovanni Carboni, Professore di Fisica, Università di Roma Tor Vergata; Movimento Galileo 2001.
22. Franco Casali, Professore di Fisica, Università di Bologna e Accademia delle Scienze di Bologna.
23. Giuliano Ceradelli, Ingegnere e climatologo, ALDAI.
24. Augusta Vittoria Cerutti, membro del Comitato Glaciologico Italiano.
25. Domenico Corradini, Professore di Geologia Storica, Università di Modena.
26. Fulvio Crisciani, Professore di Fluidodinamica Geofisica, Università di Trieste e Istituto Scienze Marine, Cnr, Trieste.
27. Carlo Esposito, Professore di Telerilevamento, Università di Roma La Sapienza.
28. Antonio Mario Federico, Professore di Geotecnica, Politecnico di Bari.
29. Mario Floris, Professore di Telerilevamento, Università di Padova.
30. Gianni Fochi, Chimico, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa; giornalista scientifico.
31. Mario Gaeta, Professore di Vulcanologia, Università di Roma La Sapienza.
32. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow della American Geophysical Union, Professore di Metodi Numerici, Università di Padova.
33. Rinaldo Genevois, Professore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Padova.
34. Carlo Lombardi, Professore di Impianti nucleari, Politecnico di Milano.
35. Luigi Marino, Geologo, Direttore del Centro di Ricerca Previsione, Prevenzione e Controllo Rischi Geologici (CERI)
36. Salvatore Martino, Professore di Microzonazione sismica, Università di Roma La Sapienza.
37. Paolo Mazzanti, Professore di Interferometria satellitare, Università di Roma La Sapienza.
38. Adriano Mazzarella, Professore di Meteorologia e Climatologia, Università di Napoli.
39. Carlo Merli, Professore di Tecnologie Ambientali, Università di Roma La Sapienza.
40. Alberto Mirandola, Professore di Energetica Applicata e Presidente Dottorato di Ricerca in Energetica, Università di Padova.
41. Renzo Mosetti, Professore di Oceanografia, Università di Trieste, già Direttore del Dipartimento di Oceanografia, Istituto OGS, Trieste.
42. Daniela Novembre, Ricercatore in Georisorse Minerarie e Applicazioni Mineralogiche- petrografiche, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
43. Sergio Ortolani, Professore di Astronomia e Astrofisica, Università di Padova.
44. Antonio Pasculli, Ricercatore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
45. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professore Emerito di Energetica, Politecnico di Milano.
46. Tommaso Piacentini, Professore di Geografia Fisica e Geomorfologia, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
47. Guido Possa, Ingegnere nucleare, già Vice Ministro Viceministro del Ministero dell’Istruzione, Università e Ricerca, con delega alla ricerca.
48. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Chieti-V Pescara.
49. Francesca Quercia, Geologo, Dirigente di ricerca, Ispra.
50. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professore di Struttura della Materia, Università di Roma La Sapienza.
51. Sergio Rusi, Professore di Idrogeologia, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
52. Massimo Salleolini, Professore di Idrogeologia Applicata e Idrogeologia Ambientale, Università di Siena.
53. Emanuele Scalcione, Responsabile Servizio Agrometeorologico Regionale ALSIA, Basilicata.
54. Nicola Sciarra, Professore di Geologia Applicata, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
55. Leonello Serva, Geologo, già Direttore Servizi Geologici d’Italia; Accademia Europa delle Scienze e delle Arti, Classe V, Scienze Tecnologiche e Ambientali; Movimento Galileo 2001.

56. Luigi Stedile, Geologo, Centro di Ricerca Previsione, Prevenzione e Controllo Rischi Geologici (CERI), Università di Roma La Sapienza.
57. Giorgio Trenta, Fisico e Medico, Presidente Emerito dell’Associazione Italiana di Radioprotezione Medica; Movimento Galileo 2001.
58. Gianluca Valensise, Dirigente di Ricerca, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma.
59. Corrado Venturini, Professore di Geologia Strutturale, Università di Bologna.
60. Franco Zavatti, Ricercatore di Astronomia, Università di Bologna.
61. Achille Balduzzi, Geologo, Agip-Eni.
62. Claudio Borri, Professore di Scienze delle Costruzioni, Università di Firenze, Coordinatore del Dottorato Internazionale in Ingegneria Civile.
63. Pino Cippitelli, Geologo Agip-Eni.
64. Franco Di Cesare, Dirigente, Agip-Eni.
65. Serena Doria, Ricercatore di Probabilità e Statistica Matematica, Università di Chieti- Pescara.
66. Enzo Siviero, Professore di Ponti, Università di Venezia, Rettore dell’Università e-Campus.
67. Pietro Agostini, Ingegnere, Associazione Scienziati e Tecnologi per la Ricerca Italiana.
68. Donato Barone, Ingegnere.
69. Roberto Bonucchi, Insegnante.
70. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologo.
71. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomo, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
72. Antonio Clemente, Ricercatore di Urbanistica, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
73. Luigi Fressoia, Architetto urbanista, Perugia.
74. Sabino Gallo, Ingegnere nucleare e scrittore scientifico.
75. Daniela Giannessi, Primo Ricercatore, IPCF-CNR, Pisa.
76. Roberto Grassi, Ingegnere, Amministratore G&G, Roma.
77. Alberto Lagi, Ingegnere, Presidente di Società Ripristino Impianti Complessi Danneggiati.
78. Luciano Lepori, Ricercatore IPCF-CNR, Pisa.
79. Roberto Madrigali, Meteorologo.
80. Ludovica Manusardi, Fisico nucleare e giornalista scientifico, UGIS.
81. Maria Massullo, Tecnologa, ENEA-Casaccia, Roma.
82. Enrico Matteoli, Primo Ricercatore, IPCF-CNR, Pisa.
83. Gabriella Mincione, Professore di Scienze e Tecniche di Medicina di Laboratorio, Università di Chieti-Pescara.
84. Massimo Pallotta, Primo Tecnologo, Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare.
85. Enzo Pennetta, Professore di Scienze Naturali e divulgatore scientifico.
86. Franco Puglia, Ingegnere, Presidente CCC, Milano.
87. Nunzia Radatti, Chimico, Sogin.
88. Vincenzo Romanello, Ingegnere nucleare, Ricercatore presso il Centro Ricerca di Rez, Repubblica Ceca.
89. Alberto Rota, Ingegnere, Ricercatore presso CISE e ENEL ed esperto di energie rinnovabili.
90. Massimo Sepielli, Direttore di Ricerca, ENEA, Roma.
91. Ugo Spezia, Ingegnere, Responsabile Sicurezza Industriale, SoGIN; Movimento Galileo 2001.
92. Emilio Stefani, Professore di Patologia vegetale, Università di Modena.
93. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Movimento Galileo 2001.
94. Roberto Vacca, Ingegnere e scrittore scientifico.
95. Giorgio Bertucelli, Ingegnere, già Dirigente Industriale, Associazione Lombarda Dirigenti Aziende Industriali.
96. Luciano Biasini, Professore Emerito, già Docente di Calcoli numerici e grafici, Direttore dell’Istituto Matematico e Preside della Facoltà di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali dell’Università di Ferrara.
97. Giampiero Borrielli, Ingegnere.
98. Antonio Maria Calabrò, Ingegnere, Ricercatore, Consulente.

99. Enrico Colombo, Chimico, Dirigente Industriale.
100. Stefano De Pieri, Ingegnere energetico e nucleare.
101. Benedetto De Vivo, Professore di Geochimica in pensione dall’Università di Napoli; ora Professore Straordinario presso Università Telematica Pegaso, Napoli.
102. Carlo Del Corso, Ingegnere Chimico.
103. Francesco Dellacasa, Ingegnere, amministratore di società nel settore energetico.
104. Sergio Fontanot, Ingegnere.
105. Umberto Gentili, Fisico dell’ENEA, Climatologo per il Progetto Antartide.
106. Ettore Malpezzi, Ingegnere.
107. Alessandro Martelli, Ingegnere, già dirigente ENEA.
108. Umberto Minopoli, Presidente dell’Associazione Italiana Nucleare.
109. Antonio Panebianco, Ingegnere.
110. Giorgio Prinzi, Ingegnere, Direttore responsabile della rivista 21mo Secolo Scienza e tecnologi
111. Arnaldo Radovix, Geologo, Risk Manager in derivati finanziari.
112. Mario Rampichini, Chimico, Dirigente Industriale in pensione, Consulente.
113. Marco Ricci, Fisico, Primo Ricercatore, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica

1. Guus Berkhout, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, Delft University of Technology, Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; ECD Ambassador
2. Maarten van Andel, Author of the ‘Groene Illusie’
3. André Bijkerk, Geophysicist, Former Royal Dutch Airforce, now Climate Researcher
4. Peter Bloemers, Emeritus Professor of biochemistry, Radbout University, Nijmegen
5. Paul M.C. Braat, Emeritus Professor of Pulmonary Physics, University of Amsterdam
6. Solke Bruin, Emeritus Professor of Product-driven Process Technology, University of Eindhoven, and Former member Management Committee Unilever Research, Vlaardingen
7. Paul Cliteur, Professor of Legal Sciences, Member of the Senate of The Netherlands
8. Albert J.H.G. Cloosterman, Retired Chemical Engineer, Publicist on Climate and Cosmological Matters
9. Marcel Crok, Climate Researcher and Science Journalist
10. David E. Dirkse, Former Computer Engineer and Teacher Mathematics
11. Kees de Groot, Former Director Upstream Research Lab. Shell
12. Kees de Lange, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Vrije University Amsterdam and University of Amsterdam
13. Louw Feenstra, Emeritus Professor Erasmus University and philosopher, Rotterdam
14. Frans H. Gortemaker, Former Vice president Unilever Global R&D
15. Leo Halvers, Former Director Biliton Research Arnhem and former Director technology Foundation STW
16. Eduard Harinck, Former Logistics Expert, Nedlloyd Group/KPMG consulting; member of the ED support team
17. J.R. Hetzler, Forestry Economics and Time Series Modeling
18. Jan F. Holtrop, Emeritus Professor of Petroleum Engineering, Delft University of Technology
19. A. Huijser, Physicist and Former CTO Royal Philips Electronics
20. W. J. (Wouter) Keller, Emeritus Professor of Statistical Methods, Former Member Board of Directors, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
21. Jacques van Kerchove, Economist and Marketeer, Former CFO Rabobank, now Climate and Environment researcher
22. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology
23. Hans H.J. Labohm, Former Expert Reviewer IPCC
24. Kees le Pair, Physicist, Former Director of Research organisations FOM and Technology & former member of the General Energy Council, The Netherlands
25. B.G. Linsen, Former Director Unilever Research Vlaardingen, The Netherlands
26. Pieter Lukkes, Emeritus Professor of Economic and Human Geography, University of Groningen

27. Hugo Matthijssen, Former Teacher Meteorology, now Publicist on Climate Matters
28. Simon Middelhoek, Emeritus Professor of Electronic Instrumentation and Sensors, Delft University of Technology, Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and Member of the National Academy of Engineering, USA
29. J.M. Mulderink, Former General Director Akzo-Nobel
30. Rob Nijssen, Radar Engineer and Publicist on Climate Matters
31. Leffert Oldenkamp, Expert Forest Management
32. Peter Oosterling, Former Scientist E & P Shell, now active as Climate Researcher; member of the ED support team
33. Kees Pieters, Mathematician; Former Operational Research and ICT manager at Shell
34. Reynier Pronk, Former IT Manager, Accredited Project Management Consultant and Trainer
35. G.T. Robillard, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics
36. Arthur Rörsch, Former Member Board of Directors, TNO, The Netherlands
37. Don Schäfer, Former Director Shell Exploration & Production and New Business, Shell
38. Frans Schrijver, Strategy Consultant and Climate Publicist
39. Jos de Smit. Emeritus Professor of Stochastic Operations Research and Former Rector Magnificus of the University of Twente
40. Albert Stienstra, Emeritus Professor of Computer Simulation and Micro-Electronics, Delft University of Technology
41. P.J. Strijkert, Former Member Board of Directors of DSM, Delft, The Netherlands
42. Dick Thoenes, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Technology, Technical University of Eindhoven
43. Fred Udo, Emeritus Professor of Nuclear Physics, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium
44. J.F. van de Vate, Former Director ECN, Petten, The Netherlands. Former UN Delegate IPCC.
45. Frans van den Beemt, Nuclear Physicist, Former Program Director Technology Foundation STW
46. Rutger van Santen, Emeritus Professor of Anorganic Chemistry and Catalysis, Former Rector Magnificus, Eindhoven University
47. Barend-Jan Smits, Geologist, Former Director of Wintershall Nederland, BASF Group
48. Hans van Suijdam, Former Executive Vice President Research and Development DSM, The Netherlands
49. Peter van Toorn, Former Research Geophysicist Shell
50. Jannes J. Verwer, Former CEO Large Electricity Generation Group and Former Chairman Supervisory Board State Owned Radio Active Waste Storage Facilities, The Netherlands
51. Henk van der Vorst, Emeritus Professor of Numerical Mathematics, University of Utrecht
52. Jaap van der Vuurst de Vries, Emeritus Professor of Petroleum Engineering, Former Dean Faculty of Applied Earth Sciences, Delft University of Technology
53. Karel Wakker, Emeritus Professor of Astrodynamics & Geodynamics, Delft University of Technology
54. Cyril Wentzel, Multi-Physics Engineer and Chairman of Environmental Think Tank ‘Groene Rekenkamer’
55. Dolf van Wijk, Formerly AkzoNobel Environmental Research Laboratory and Former Executive Director Cefic-Euro Chlor, Brussels
56. W.J. Witteman, Professor of Applied Physics and CO2 lasers, University of Twente
57. Theo Wolters, Co-founder ‘Groene Rekenkamer’ and ‘’

1. Morten Jødal, Biologist, Former Employee of the Norwegian Research Council and the Centre for the Development and Environment at the University of Oslo; ECD Ambassador
2. Gunnar Abrahamsen, Professor Em. Soil Science, University of Life Sciences, Norway
3. Stein Storlie Bergsmark, Phycisist, Former head of renewable Energy Studies Programmes, University of Agder, Norway
4. Reidar Borgstrøm, Professor Emeritus in fishbiology and Nature Conservation, University of Life Sciences Norway

5. Jon Gulbrandsen, PhD, biologist, Associate Professor NOFIMA and NOAA (USA), Norway
6. Rögnvaldur Hannesson, Professor Emeritus, Norwegian School of Economics, Norway
7. Geir Hasnes, Adjunct Associate Professor, Institute of applied Cybernetics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
8. Hans Konrad Johnsen, Dr. Ing., Norway
9. Arnfinn Langeland, Professor Emeritus Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
10. Willy Nerdal, professor of Chemistry, University of Bergen
11. Ulf Torgny Rock, Master of Chemical Engineering, Norsk Hydro, Norway
12. Martin Torvald Hovland, Geophysical and Geological Advisor, Former Lecturer at University of Tromsø
13. Elen Roaldset, Emertitus Professor in Geology, University of Oslo, Former Director of Natural History Museum Oslo, Professor at Norwegian University of Science and Technology
14. Hakon Gunnar Rueslatten, Geological Researcher, Trondhheim
15. Tom V Segalstad, Associate Professor Emeritus of Geochemistry, University of Oslo, Norway
16. Jan-Erik Solheim, Professor Emeritus Astrophysics, University of Oslo
17. Jørgen Stenersen, Professor Emeritus Eco-Toxicology, University of Oslo

1. Marek Boinski, Chairman of the National Section of Energy Workers’ Union NSZZ
2. Jaroslaw Grzesik, Chairman of the National Secretariat of Mine and Energy Workers’ Union NSZZ
3. Dominik Kolorz, Chairman of the Slasko-Dabrowski Region of NSZZ

1. Ingemar Nordin, Emeritus Professor Philosophy of Science, Linköping University; ECD Ambassador
2. Sture Åström, Professional in cCimate Issues, Secretary of the Swedish Network Klimatsans
3. Rolf Bergman, Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Uppsala University
4. Dr. Lars Bern, Member of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Retired CEO in Incentive AB
5. Magnus Cederlöf, Software Specialist, Stockholm
6. Per-Olof Eriksson, Physicist, Former CEO of Sandvik Group
7. Dr. Anders Flodin, Business Development Manager, Höganäs AB in North Carolina
8. David D. Gee, Professor Em Orogen Dynamics, Uppsala University, Sweden
9. Hans Jelbring, Climate researcher
10. Claes Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
11. Gunnar Juliusson, Professor of Hematology, Lund University, Senior Consultant, Skåne, University Hospital, Lund
12. Sten Kaijser, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, Uppsala University
13. Johan Montelius, Associate Professor of Computer Science at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
14. Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor Geology, President of the Independent Committee on Geoethics. Former head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University
15. Gösta Pettersson, Emeritus Professor in Biochemistry, University of Lund
16. Marian Radetzki, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Luleå University of Technology
17. Peter Stilbs, Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm
18. Elsa Widding, Consultant, Author on Climate Change, Stockholm

1. Jean-Claude Pont, Dr. Math., Emeritus Professor of The History of Philosophy of Sciences, University of Genève
2 Jef Ongena, Member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel for World Energy, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

1. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Peer of the Realm and author of several reviewed papers on climate; ECD Ambassador
2. David Bodecott, Consultant Geophysics and Geology, Fellow of the Geological Society of London
3. D. Q. Bowen, Emeritus Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Fellow International Union for Quaternary Research, Cardiff University
4. Michael Brown, Expert in large scale thermal fluid dynamic models.
5. John C. W. Cope, Professor of Natural Sciences, National Museum Wales, Cardiff
6. Richard Courtney, Retired Material Scientist, Expert Peer Reviewer of the IPCC
7. Isabel Davis, Geophysicist and Entrepreneur
8. Howard Dewhirst FGS, Geologist, Initiator Open Letter to the Geological Society of London
9. Gregor Dixon FGS, Geologist, former member Geological Society of London
10. Roderick Paul Eaton, Retired Energy Systems Analyst from the UK Electricity Supply Industry
11. Peter Gill, Physicist, Former Chair of the Institute of Physics Energy Group, UK
12. Gil Gilchrist, Geophysicist, UK
13. Tim Harper FGS, Geologist, Entrepreneur, Devon
14. Bob Heath, retired Geophysicist, Honorary member of the Indian Society of Petroleum Geologists
15. David A. L. Jenkins, Geologist, Director Hurricane Energy plc
16. Chris Matchatte-Downes, Geologist, fellow of the geological Society of Gt Britain
17. Edward Nealon, Geologist Member of the Australian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, UK
18. Peter Owen FGS, Fellow of the Geological Society of London
19. Clive Randle, Geologist, Fellow of the Geological Society of London
20. Michael F. Ridd, Geologist, Fellow of the Geological Society of London
21. Michael Seymour, geologist, Former Managing Director Aurelian Oil & Gas and Trajan Oil limited
22. Valentina Zharkova, Professor of Mathematics and Astrophysics, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne


1. Viv Forbes, Geologist with Special Interest in Climate, Founder of www. carbon-sense. com, Queensland, Australia; ECD Ambassador
2. Don Andersen,
3. David Archibald, Research Scientist, Australia
4. Michael Asten, Emeritus Professor in Geophysics and Continuing Senior Research Fellow at the Monash University, Melbourne
5. Jeremy Barlow, Energy and Mining professional, Director and CEO, Australia
6. Colin Barton, Geologist, Former Principal Research Scientist CSIRO, Australia
7. Gordon Batt, Director GCB Investments Pty Ltd
8. Robert M. Bell, Retired geologist, Victoria, Australia
9. Richard Blayden Professional Engineer
10. Howard Thomas Brady, Member Explorers Club of New York, Member of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences
11. Geoff Brown, Organizer of a Critical Climate Group, Australia
12. Douglas Buerger, Fellow Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, member of Australian Institute of Company Directors, Australia
13. Mike Bugler, Retired Environmental Consultant, Australia
14. Ray Carman, Organic chemist, Honorary Fellow University of Queensland, Australia
15. Peter Champness, Radiologist, Australia
16. Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and flood events, Australia
17. Richard Corbett, Member Royal Australian Chemical Institute, Member of The Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand
18. Majorie Curtis, Retired Geologist, Stratigrapher and Palaeoclimatic Studies, Canberra, Australia
19. Geoff Derrick, Geologist
20. Aert Driessen, Geologist, Fellow Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Australia
21. John A. Earthrowl, retired Geologist, Brisbane Australia
22. Jeremy K. Ellis, Retired Chairman of BHP, now Chairman of the Saltbush Club, Australia
23. Matthew J. Fagan, Founder and President of FastCAM Inc.
24. Rodney Fripp, former lecturer in geology, geochemistry and geotechtonics
25. Christopher J.S. Game, Retired Neurophysiologist, Australia
26. Robin George, Geologist, Canterbury, Australia
27. David Gibson, Experimental Physicist, Australia
28. Gavin Gillman, Former Senior Principal Research Scientist with SCIRO Australia; Founding Director of the IITA Ecoregional Research Centre in Cameroon for the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
29. Hamish Grant, MR Spectroscopy & Imaging Consultant, Victoria, Australia
30. Lindsay Hackett, Founding member of the Saltbush Club in Australia
31. Erl Happ, Managing Director, Australia
32. John Happs, Geoscientist, Retired University Lecturer, Australia
33. John Harrison, Retired Marine Engineer, Australia
34. Jarvis Hayman, Visiting Fellow School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University
35. Mark Henschke, Retired geologist in mining, oil and gas, Australia
36. Gerhard Hofmann, Geologist and Palaeontologist, former Director of the Geological Survey of Queensland
37. Geraint Hughes, Mechanical Building Engineer, Climate Researcher, Australia
38. Kevin Kemmis, Expert in Information Technology, Climate Researcher
39. Hugh H. Laird, Retired Tropical Agriculture Executive
40. John Leisten OBE, expert in physical chemistry
41. Brian Levitan, worked for NASA, now Technology Consultant to multinationals
42. Matthew David Linn, Fellow of the Institution of Engineers of Australia
43. Gerard McGann, Technical Director Eon NRG
44. Rodney McKellar, Retired Geologist, Queensland, Australia

45. John McLean, Author of first major review of HadCRUT 4 climate temperature data, Member of New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
46. Ross McLeod, Retired Environmental Health Officer, Australia
47. Finlay MacRitchie, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Grain Science and Industry at Kansas State University, USA. Australia
48. John Michelmore, Retired Industrial Chemist, South Australia
49. Alan Moran, Contributor and Editor of the Mark Steyn Compilation: “Climate Change, the Facts”, Author of Climate Change: “Treaties and Policies in the Trump Era”
50. Des Moore, Former Deputy Secretary of the Federal Treasury, founder and leader of the Institute for Private Enterprise
51. Hugh Morgan, prominent Australian mining executive, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technology, Science and Engineering (FTSE).
52. C.D. Ollier, Emeritus Professor of Geology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia
53. Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Author of ‘Climate Delusion and the Great Electricity Rip-off’
54. Alistair Pope, psc, CM, Sceptical Scientific Contrarian in the Climate Debate
55. Tom Quirk, Nuclear Physicist, Australia
56. Campbell Rankine, Varrister and Solicitor, Australia
57. Peter Ridd, Oceanographer and Geophysicist, Former Head of Physics at the James Cook University, Queensland
58. Nigel Rowlands, retired from mining and exploration industry
59. Judy Ryan, Editor Principia Scientific Institution-Australia
60. Jim Simpson, Retired from Managing Positions in different International Telecommunications Firms, now active in the Australian Climate Community,
61. Case Smit, Physicist, Expert in Environmental Protection, Co-founder of the Galileo Movement, Australia
62. Lee Smith, University Lecturer in Spatial Technology, Responsible for State Government Precise Monitoring of Sea Level and International Sea Boundaries
63. Darren Speirs, Independent Business Owner, Rangeland NRM Consultants, Australia
64. Geoffrey Stocker, Professor and Head of Department of Forestry, PNG University of Technology – Director of PNG Forest Research Institute
65. Rodney R. Stuart, Retired expert in energy industry, Tasmania, Australia
66. R. Symons, Professional Engineer, Expert in Temperature Control of Industrial Buildings
67. Rustyn Wesley Thomas, Retired aircraft engineer, Australia
68. John W. Turner, Science Educator, Noosa Heads, Australia
69. Peter Tyrer, Project Controls Engineer in mining industry, Australia
70. Terrence Vincent, Security Engineer, Small Business Adviser AIST, ASIAL, SMBE, Australia
71. James Walter, Medical doctor, Australia
72. John Warnock, Astro Economist, Australia
73. Christopher Kenneth Warren, Expert in hydroelectric dam design and construction, Australia
74. Neil Wilkins, Retired geologist, Australia
75. P.C. Wilson, Former journalist with the A.B.C. Queensland, Australia

1. Luiz Carlos Baldicero Molion, Emeritus Professor of the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL), Formerly of the National Institute of Space research (INPE)
2. Ricardo Augusto Felicio, Professor of the Department of Geography of the University of Sao Paulo (USP), Member of the Brazilian Society of Meteorology (SBMET)
3. Geraldo Luis Saraiva Lino, Geologist, Author of ‘How a natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False Global Emergency
4. Dr. Thiago Maia, Nuclear Physicist with PhD in Astrophysics, wrote critical climate letter to Brazilian Government
5. Igor Vaz maquieira, Biologist, Specialist in Environmental Management

6. Mario de Carvalho Fontes Neto, Agronomist, Editor of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’
7. Daniela de Souza Onca, Professor of the Geography Department of the State University of Santa Catarina (UDESC)

1. Jeffrey Ernest Foss, Professor of Philosophy of Science, University of Victoria, English Canada; ECD Ambassador
2. Reynald Du Berger, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at the L’Université du Québec a Chicoutimi, French Canada, ECD Ambassador
3. Alain Bonnier, Physicist, INRS-Centre de Recherche and Energy Montréal, Canada
4. Ian Clark, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Ottawa
5. Susan Crockford, Zoologist and Polar Bear Expert, Former Adjunct Professor University of Victoria, Canada
6. Paul A. Johnston, Associate Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta
7. Klaus L.E. Kaiser, Retired Research Scientist, National Water Research Institute, Author of Numerous Press Articles, Canada
8. Madhav Khandekar, Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 AR4 Cycle, Canada
9. Kees van Kooten, Professor of Economics and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, Canada
10. Allen MacRae, retired Engineer, Canada
11. Paul MacRae, Independent Climate Researcher, Canada
12. Patrick Moore, Ecologist, Chair CO2 Coalition, Co-Founder Green Peace, Canada
13. Brian R. Pratt, Professor of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan
14. Peter Salonius, Retired Research Scientist, Natural Resources, Canada
15. Marcelo C. Santos, professor of Geodesy, University of New Brunswick, Canada
16. Ian Semple, Retired Geologist, of McGill University, Canada
17. William van Wijngaarden, Professor of Physics, York University, Canada

1. NG Young, Principal Geoscientist, Danxiashan Global Geopark of China
2. Wyss Yim, Retired Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China / Deputy Chairman, Climate Change Science Implementation Team, UNESCO International Year for Planet Earth 2007-2009 / Expert Reviewer IPCC AR2

1. Sanjeev Sabhlok, Economist with focus on climate and energy policy, India

1. Masayuki Hyodo, Professor of Earth Science, Kobe University, Japan

1. Terry Dunleavy MBE, co-founder (2006) and honorary secretary, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition; ECD Ambassador
2. Deborah Alexander, Agricultural Scientist, New Zealand
3. Jock Allison, retired Agricultural Scientist, Ministry of Agriculture,New-Zealand
4. Barry Brill , OBE, Previously Minister of Science and Techology, New Zealand
5. Doug Edmeades, Managing Director agKnowledge Ltd., New Zealand
6. Roger High Dewhurst, Retired, geologist/hydrogeologist, New Zealand
7. Geoffrey G. Duffy, Professor Emeritus, University of Auckland, New Zealand
8. Joe Fone, CAD Engineer, Enatel Ltd
9. Bryan Leyland, Power Systems Engineer and Experienced Renewable Energy Specialist
10. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Paleoclimatologist, New Zealand, Author of the Book The Fable of Stable Climate

11. John Scarry ME (Civil), structural engineer, member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
12. John Sexton, Member of the New Zealand Climate Coalition
13. Philip Strong, Science Research Leader & Member of the New Zealand Climate Coalition
14. Richard Treadgold, Executive Member NZ Climate Scienc Coalition, Convenor Climate Conversation Group

1 Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of the Space Research Sector of the Sun, Pulkova Observatory RAS and Head of the Lunar Observatory Project on Monitoring of the Climate, Russian Federation

1. Rosemary Falcon, Emeritus Professor Clean Coal Technology Research Group at the University of Witwatersrand, Director Fossil Fuel Foundation
2. John Ledger, Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, Energy and Environmental Consultant
3. Don Mingay, Retired Professor of Nuclear Physics, South Africa

1. Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, MIT, USA; ECD Ambassador
2. Ralph B. Alexander, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Science Writer
3. Anthony J. Armini, Retired Founder and CEO Implant Sciences Corp.., USA
4. Tim Ball, Emeritus Professor Geography, University of Winnipeg, Canada and Advisor of the International Science Coalition
5. Hans-Peter Bär, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, Canada and Former Dean of Basic Medical Sciences, American University of Barbados, Barbados
6. James R. Barrante, Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, USA
7. Charles G. Battig, Climate Adviser, Heartland Institute, USA
8. Larry Bell, Endowed Professor of Space Architecture, University of Houston, USA
9. Elliott D. Bloom, Emeritus Professor of Particle Physics and Astrophysics, KIPAC-SLAG, Stanford University
10. Daniel Botkin, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Climate Researcher, Author of the Book: Twenty-five Myths That Are Destroying the Environment, USA
11. Martin Cornell, Retired Senior Scientist, Dow Chemical Company, USA
12. Joseph S. D’aleo, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology at Lyndon Stage College, Founder of, First Director of meteorology of the Weather Channel, USA
13. David Deming, Professor of Arts & Sciences, University of Oklahoma, USA
14. Harold H. Doiron, Retired NASA Engineer, USA
15. John Droz jr, Physicist, Founder of AWED Alliance, USA
16. Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor Natural Sciences, Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton University, USA
17. Peter Farrell, Fellow of the US National Academy of Engineering, USA
18. Rex Fleming, Research Scientist, Author of Book on Carbon Dioxide Fallacy, Retired President Global Aerospace, USA
19. Gordon J. Fulks, Astrophysicist, Board of Directors CO2 Coalition, Co-founder Global Warming Realists
20. Terry Gannon, Physicist, Retired Semiconductor Executive, USA
21. Ulrich H. Gerlach, Professor of Mathematics, Ohio State University, USA
22. Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, Past Chair, New England Section of the American Physical Society.
23. Steve Goreham, Executive Director, Climate Science Coalition of America, USA
24. David Heald, Retired Electrical Engineer, USA
25. Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
26. Wayne P. Kraus, Member American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
27. Patrick J. Michaels, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, USA

28. Pamela Matlack-Klein, Member of Portuguese Sea Level Project, USA
29. Richard McFarland, Retired NASA Physicist, USA
30. Daniel W. Nebert, Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Medicine and Center for Environmental Genetics, University of Cincinnati
31. Thomas O’Connor, Member American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Washington, USA
32. Herman A. Pope, retired Aerospace Engineer NASA-JSC, USA
33. Willem Post, Independent Researcher regarding Energy and Environment
34. Phil Robinson, Retired Chemist in the Aluminium and Steel Industry
35. Willie Soon, Independent Scientist, USA
36. Ronald Stein, Professional Engineer, USA
37. Paul Taylor, Energy Economist, recipient Rossitor Raymond Award, Golden Colorado, USA
38. Richard Trzupek, Chemist and Air Quality Expert
39. Waheed Uddin, Professor of Engineering Science, University of Mississippi, Expert in Climate Modeling, Former Advisor UN
40. William B. Walters, Guggenheim Fellow, Professor of Atmospheric, Nuclear and Environmental Chemistry, University of Maryland, USA
41. Steven E. Weismantel, Retired Engineer and Climate Researcher, USA
42. Gregory R. Wrightstone, Expert Reviewer IPCCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6), USA
43. David Wojick, Cognitive Scientist, USA
44. Thomas Wysmuller, Retired NASA Executive, USA
45. Bob Zybach, Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project INC., USA

Continue Reading

Although Nordhaus seemingly rejects Ehrlich’s panic, he does not realise that humans are themselves the ultimate resource

Here’s another piece by Nordhaus: Source. Once again, he comes out as a mediocre economist.


Is Growth Obsolete? – William Nordhaus and James Tobin

A long decade ago economic growth was the reigning fashion of political economy. It was simultaneously the hottest subject of economic theory and research, a slogan eagerly claimed by politicians of all stripes, and a serious objective of the policies of governments. The climate of opinion has changed dramatically. Disillusioned critics indict both economic science and economic policy for blind obeisance to aggregate material “progress,” and for neglect of its costly side effects. Growth, it is charged, distorts national priorities, worsens the distribution of income, and irreparably damages the environment. Paul Erlich speaks for a multitude when he says, “We must acquire a life style which has as its goal maximum freedom and happiness for the individual, not a maximum Gross National Product.” [Sanjeev: Does Nordhaus consider himself to be one of these multitudes?]

Growth was in an important sense a discovery of economics after the Second World War. Of course economic development has always been the grand theme of historically minded scholars of large mind and bold concept, notably Marx, Schumpeter, Kuznets. But the mainstream of economic analysis was not comfortable with phenomena of change and progress. The stationary state was the long-run equilibrium of classical and neoclassical theory, and comparison of alternative static equilibriums was the most powerful theoretical tool. Technological change and population increase were most readily accommodated as one-time exogenous shocks; comparative static analysis could be used to tell how they altered the equilibrium of the system. The obvious fact that these “shocks” were occurring continuously, never allowing the system to reach its equilibrium, was a considerable embarrassment. Keynesian theory fell in the same tradition, attempting rather awkwardly, though nonetheless fruitfully [Sanjeev: He’s a Keynesian] to apply static equilibrium theory to the essentially dynamic problem of saving and capital accumulation.

Sir Roy Harrod in 1940 began the process, brought to fruition by many theorists in the 1950s, of putting the stationary state into motion. The long-run equilibrium of the system became a path of steady growth, and the tools of comparative statics could then be applied to alternative growth paths rather than to alternative stationary states. NeoKeynesian macroeconomics began to fall into place as a description of departures from equilibrium growth, although this task of reinterpretation and integration is still far from a satisfactory completion. [Sanjeev: Nordhaus has co-authored many times with Keynesian Paul Samuelson]

By now modern neoclassical growth theory is well enough formulated to have made its way into textbooks. It is a theory of the growth of potential output, or output at a uniform standard rate of utilization of capacity. The theory relates potential output to three determinants: the labor force, the state of technology, and the stock of human and tangible capital. The first two are usually assumed to grow smoothly at rates determined exogenously by noneconomic factors. The accumulation of capital is governed by the thrift of the population, and in equilibrium the growth of the capital stock matches the growth of labor-cum-technology and the growth of output. Simple as it is, the model fits the observed trends of economic growth reasonably well.

The steady equilibrium growth of modern neoclassical theory is, it must be acknowledged, a routine process of replication. It is a dull story compared to the convulsive structural, technological, and social changes described by the historically oriented scholars of development mentioned above. The theory conceals, either in aggregation or in the abstract generality of multisector models, all the drama of the events —the rise and fall of products, technologies, and industries, and the accompanying transformations of the spatial and occupational distribution of the population. Many economists agree with the broad outlines of Schumpeter’s vision of capitalist development, which is a far cry from growth models made nowadays in either Cambridge, Massachusetts, or Cambridge, England. But visions of that kind have yet to be transformed into a theory that can be applied in everyday analytic and empirical work.

In any case, growth of some kind is now the recognized economic norm. A symptom of the change in outlook can be found in business cycle semantics. A National Bureau recession was essentially a period in which aggregate productive activity was declining. Since 1960 it has become increasingly customary to describe the state of the economy by the gap between its actual output and its growing potential. Although the word recession is still a source of confusion and controversy, almost everyone recognizes that the economy is losing ground —which will have to be recaptured eventually—whenever its actual rate of expansion is below the rate of growth of potential output.

In the early 1960s growth became a proclaimed objective of government policy, in this country as elsewhere. Who could be against it? But like most value-laden words, growth has meant different things to different people and at different times. Often growth policy was simply identified with measures to expand aggregate demand in order to bring or keep actual output in line with potential output. In this sense it is simply stabilization policy, only more gap-conscious and growth-conscious than the cycle-smoothing policies of the past.

To economists schooled in postwar neoclassical growth theory, growth policy proper meant something more than this, and more debatable. It meant deliberate effort to speed up the growth of potential output itself, specifically to accelerate the productivity of labor. Growth policy in this meaning was not widely understood or accepted. The neoclassical model outlined above suggested two kinds of policies to foster growth, possibly interrelated: measures that advanced technological knowledge and measures that increased the share of potential output devoted to accumulation of physical or human capital.’ Another implication of the standard model was that, unless someone could find a way to accelerate technological progress permanently, policy could not raise the rate of growth permanently. One-shot measures would speed up growth temporarily, for years or decades. But once the economy had absorbed these measures, its future growth rate would be limited once again by constraints of labor and technology. The level of its path, however, would be permanently higher than if the policies had not been undertaken.

Growth measures nearly always involve diversions of current resources from other uses, sacrifices of current consumption for the benefit of succeeding generations of consumers. Enthusiasts for faster

‘ The variety of possible measures, and the difficulty of raising the growth rate by more than one or two percentage points, have been explored by Edward Denison in his influential study, The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us, New York, Committee for Economic Development, January 1962, Supplementary Paper No. 13.

growth are advocates of the future against the present. Their case rests on the view that in a market economy left to itself, the future would be shortchanged because too small a fraction of current output would be saved. We mention this point now because we shall return later to the ironical fact that the antigrowth men of the 1970s believe that it is they who represent the claims of a fragile future against a voracious present.

Like the enthusiasts to whom they are a reaction, current critics of growth are disenchanted with both theory and policy, with both the descriptive and the normative implications of the doctrines of the previous decade. The sources of disenchantment are worth considering today, because they indicate agenda for future theoretical and empirical research.

We have chosen to direct our attention to three important problems raised by those who question the desirability and possibility of future growth: (a) How good are measures of output currently used for evaluating the growth of economic welfare? (b) Does the growth process inevitably waste our natural resources? (c) How does the rate of population growth affect economic welfare? In particular, what would be the effect of zero population growth?


A major question raised by critics of economic growth is whether we have been growing at all in any meaningful sense. Gross national product statistics cannot give the answers, for GNP is not a measure of economic welfare. Erlich is right in claiming that maximization of GNP is not a proper objective of policy. Economists all know that, and yet their everyday use of GNP as the standard measure of economic performance apparently conveys the impression that they are evangelistic worshippers of GNP.

An obvious shortcoming of GNP is that it is an index of production, not consumption. The goal of economic activity, after all, is consumption. [Sanjeev: glad I can agree with Nordhaus on at least this thing, although without production there can be no consumption.] Although this is the central premise of economics, the profession has been slow to develop, either conceptually or statistically, a measure of economic performance oriented to consumption, broadly defined and carefully calculated. We have constructed a primitive and experimental “measure of economic welfare” (MEW), in which we attempt to allow for the more obvious discrepancies between GNP and economic welfare. A complete account is given in Appendix A. The main results will be discussed here and summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

In proposing a welfare measure, we in no way deny the importance of the conventional national income accounts or of the output measures based upon them. Our MEW is largely a rearrangement of items of the national accounts. Gross and net national product statistics are the economists’ chief tools for short-run analysis, forecasting, and policy and are also indispensable for many other purposes.

Our adjustments to GNP fall into three general categories: reclassification of GNP expenditures as consumption, investment, and intermediate; imputation for the services of consumer capital, for leisure, and for the product of household work; correction for some of the disamenities of urbanization.


On both counts, therefore, a reduction in population increase should raise sustainable consumption. [Sanjeev: Nordhaus NEVER CONSIDERED THAT POPULATION ITSELF WAS THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE] We have essayed an estimate of the magnitude of this gain. In a ZPG equilibrium sustainable consumption per capita would be 9-10 per cent higher than in a steady state of 2.1 per cent growth corresponding to 1960 fertility and mortality, and somewhat more than 3 per cent higher than in a steady state of 0.7 per cent growth corresponding to 1967 fertility and mortality.

These neoclassical calculations do not take account of the lower pressure of population growth on natural resources. As between the 1960 equilibrium and ZPG, the diminished drag of resource limitations is worth about one-tenth of 1 per cent per annum in growth of per capita consumption. Moreover, if our optimistic estimates of the ease of substitution of other factors of production for natural resources are wrong, a slowdown of population growth will have much more important effects in postponing the day of reckoning.

Is growth obsolete? We think not. Although GNP and other national income aggregates are imperfect measures of welfare, the broad picture of secular progress which they convey remains after correction of their most obvious deficiencies. At present there is no reason to arrest general economic growth to conserve natural resources, although there is good reason to provide proper economic incentives to conserve resources which currently cost their users less than true social cost. Population growth cannot continue indefinitely, and evidently it is already slowing down in the United States. This slowdown will significantly increase sustainable per capita consumption. But even with ZPG there is no reason to shut off technological progress. The classical stationary state need not become our utopian norm.

APPENDIX B: NATURAL RESOURCES B.1 The Role of Natural Resources in Economic Growth

In this appendix we consider the importance of natural resources in measured economic growth. In comparison with the usual neoclassical growth model, the laws of production are more complex. There are not simply constant returns to scale in capital and labor.

To the central question —How important are natural resources in measured growth? — we seem to get an unambiguous answer: less important than they were.

Continue Reading

William Nordhaus thinks population decline is a good thing and resources are constrained. That’s why he is such a mediocre pen-pusher.

William Nordhaus is a big name now in economics, with a Nobel under his belt. But I have strong differences of opinion with him. I consider him a mediocre pen-pusher. I fundamentally object to his recommendation for a carbon tax (SCC) without proof of harm.

Julian Simon considered Nordhaus’s methodological advances might have added something of value to economics, although Simon’s conclusions were transformationally different to those of Nordhaus. This extract from Ultimate Resource.

Like Oscar Wilde’s cynic, to them an economist is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. But in fact, to be a good economist one must be able to establish a sound valuation – and that means not leaving out any important elements relevant to the valuation. Of course economists often fail, but this is not a failure of the science but of its practitioners. The question really hinges on what will and will not be included in cost-benefit analyses. Economists have long taken into account goods other than those that pass through the market when doing cost-benefits analyses of such governmental activities as dam building. Included have been the value to vacationers of boating and other recreational opportunities. At the same time, economists have tried to determine the felt costs to people who would be moved from their homes by the building of a dam. I am not suggesting that these analyses have always been carried out well, but simply that economists have been cognizant of the need to include magnitudes other than those paid for in money. They have mostly proceeded by estimating how much people would pay to obtain these goods or to avoid these bads if given the opportunity to do so. In all cases, the magnitudes that have been considered have been impacts upon human beings, taking futurity into account with the discounting mechanism in standard economic fashion. On a macroeconomic level, economists – William Nordhaus and James Tobin early among them – have experimented with factoring some important non-market goods and bads into expanded estimates of national economic welfare. They have found that these expansions of the intellectual framework do not change the general impression left by GNP times series, however. But these widenings of the standard economic measurements have not satisfied many ecologists and a few economists. One major charge is that conventional economics does not take into account a depletion cost of the use of natural resources. But such an entry into the calculation often turns out to be double counting, and assumes that the value of materials extracted will be rising in the future rather than falling, as we have seen (see chapter 2 for materials and 11 for energy.)

Another assertion is that the effects of our activities other than on humans should also be included in the calculations. That is, eradication of mosquitoes and reduction of malaria might simply be recorded on the positive side of the ledger by economists. Biologists ask that the effect upon the mosquitoes, and upon species in the rest of the ecosystem such as fish that eat the mosquito larvae, also be taken into account.

I decided to investigate personally, starting with his 1974 article: Resources as a Constraint on Growth

This article is very problematic. The worst part is that while the world was exceptionally cold and scientists were screaming “Ice Age”, Nordhaus was busy thinking that CO2 is a problem –  as long ago as in 1974! He went off on a complete tangent after that, working on ways to tax the world. This type of economist brings great disrepute to the discipline.


Resources as a Constraint on Growth By WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS*

For a considerable part of its history, the American economy has functioned as a cowboy economy. It has been a cowboy economy in the sense that there have been no important resource constraints on growth. This is not to say that land, minerals, and a clean environment have been freely available. Rather, agricultural land could be obtained at roughly constant costs; most essential minerals have been present at fairly high grade in considerable abundance; and the environment could be used as a sink without becoming fouled. In the last several decades, however, cropland has stayed almost constant. Some high grade mineral deposits have been exhausted, and the carrying capacity of our environment has been strained. [Sanjeev: This is in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to what Simon has found – and that’s the kind of problem with Nordhaus: he is not a deep thinker]

The scarcity of resources has led many to argue that the operating rules of our economy must change. Whereas in the cowboy economy we could afford to use our resources profligately, the new view of economic growth is that the closing of all our frontiers means that we are now operating in a spaceship economy. In a spaceship economy, great attention must be paid to the sources of life and to the dumps where our refuse is piled. Things which have traditionally been treated as free goods—air, water, quiet, natural beauty—must now be treated with the same care as other scarce goods.

It would seem difficult to question the observation that the world economy is progressing toward a closed system. Many have carried this observation further, describing a future imperiled by famine, depleted of essential materials, running out of energy, or choking in its own exhaust fumes. Behind these pessimistic visions is a deeper skepticism about the very fruits of economic growth. [Sanjeev: I strongly differ with this absurd view]

Economists have for the most part ridiculed the new view of growth, arguing that it is merely Chicken Little Run Wild. I think that the new view of growth must be taken seriously and analyzed carefully.

What have we learned about the new view?
The first set of studies relates to theoretical investigations. (By theoretical I mean propositions based on largely untested assumptions about model structure —perhaps hypothetical would be a more accurate term.) In this category belong the celebrated writings sponsored by the Club of Rome as well as many offshoots of this work (Jay Forrester, Dennis H. Meadows et al.). These works have demonstrated that, under certain conditions involving technology, population, and resource availability, a sustained growth path for consumption is not possible.

The conclusions of these works have not generally been accepted by economists because of the dubious nature of many of their assumptions. In particular, the assumptions regarding population growth and technology are quite unsatisfactory. Several authors have shown that the conclusions of these models are not robust to minor modifications in structure. Thus R. Boyd showed that introducing a new factor called “technology” would drastically alter the model’s path. My work (1973a) showed that any of three changes in model structure—ongoing technological progress, adequate factor substitution or population decline—would lead to opposite and more optimistic results. [Sanjeev: Nordhaus thinks that POPULATION DECLINE WILL BE A GOOD THING – Simon would strongly disagree. Population is the ultimate resource.]

It should be stressed, however, that all of the debate about Club of Rome models has been theoretical. It has been demonstrated that different world models paint drastically different pictures of future economic life. It is at this moment an open question as to which is the preferred model. [Sanjeev: Why is it an open question? These are ALL ENTIRELY WRONG] Only careful empirical analysis can indicate which of the alternative models is closer to reality.

What then of empirical studies of long-run constraints on growth? Although there have been no comprehensive studies, several particular problems have been investigated. I will report on recent findings for mineral resources and energy.

For centuries there has been virtually constant concern about the availability of mineral resources. Many recent studies have kindled this anxiety by showing that the ratio of proved reserves to current consumption (R–C ratio) for most minerals is very low. Fortunately, this is unduly pessimistic because the concept of reserves is entirely different from ultimate recoverable resources. Proved reserves are akin to the working capital or inventory of known resources. At the opposite extreme it is possible to calculate the total crustal abundance (CA) of different materials; of course this is unduly optimistic because it assumes that everything can be recovered. [Sanjeev: this is ENTIRELY wrong way to look at things – the concept of resource needs to be understood first, and Nordhaus has no clue] Somewhere between the two concepts lies the economically relevant measure—ultimate recoverable resources ( URR). [Sanjeev: THIS CONCEPT IS AN ULTIMATE PIECE OF GARBAGE] Although URR is a variable which depends on technology and price, we can as a first approximation use recent estimates prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey. These assume that URR is approximately 0.01 percent of total availability to a 1-kilometer depth (Geological Survey, p. 23). It should be emphasized that these estimates do not take into account the economic feasibility of mining lower grade ores as prices rise or techniques improve. [Sanjeev: This discussion is so puerile. It doesn’t even begin to understand what is a resource, and in particular a resource is NOT what is currently considered a resource. That’s why Simon is so vastly superior to such mediocre pen-pushers]

deleted a big chunk

Under the assumptions of the model it thus appears that the long-run outlook for energy prices is favorable, although less favorable than over the last few decades. (The assumption of competitive behavior is clearly unrealistic. A cartel of oil producers would drive up the short-run price. But as Robert Solow has noted, monopolists are the conservationists’ best friends: higher prices lead to lower consumption, a stretching out of finite resources, and possibly even lower prices in the future.) [Sanjeev: This is SO VERY WRONG – the ideal is to “exploit” as much as you can immediately, grow the population, grow innovation and create new resources tomorrow]

The final and probably the most difficult question concerns the environmental effects of energy use. Up to now, there has been considerable attention given to the “local” environmental problems—especially sulphur emissions from stationary sources and the emission of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from automobiles. Adapting a technology to these new constraints has proved difficult and costly, but there seems to be wide agreement that—with sufficient time and money—emissions can be brought in conformity with any reasonable set of standards (see National Academy of Science Report).

A second set of environmental problems

The report on Man’s Impact on the Global Environment reviews very thoroughly knowledge about the possible adverse global effects of energy consumption. The most important of these for energy were a possible “greenhouse effect” stemming from a large increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) production from fossil fuels and the problem of global heat balance. Although there is great uncertainty, meteorological studies indicate that a change of two degrees Centigrade in average temperature is the order of magnitude which could trigger “albedo instabilities” leading to melting ice caps or “equator-to-pole ice cover” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, p. 98). [Sanjeev: The man doesn’t think for himself. He has bought into some garbage study and made a career out of “analysing” its implications. That study itself is badly faulty. A very poor example of a thinking human being.] Studies report that such a temperature rise could result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 or from net waste heat of around 3 percent of total solar radiation (MIT, p. 88). These thresholds are well beyond current levels of human activity. Moreover, our limited supply of fossil fuels limits the production of CO2 to acceptable levels.

I have performed a rough calculation of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 along the efficient path described above. Assuming that 10 percent of the atmospheric CO2 is absorbed annually (G. Skirrow), the concentration would be expected to rise from 340 ppm in 1970 to 487 ppm in 2030—a 43 percent increase. Although this is below the fateful doubling of CO2 concentration, it may well be too close for comfort. [Sanjeev: this was the start of his lifetime work on the completely wrong problem]

Waste heat could conceivably be a problem—but not for a while. Energy consumption is currently about 0.003 percent of incident solar energy—a five hundred-fold increase (160 years at a 4 percent annual growth rate) would be environmentally unacceptable.


Continue Reading

Even in 1996 Julian Simon’s sharp mind pierced through the “global warming” fraud – Extract from Ultimate Resource 2

Julian Simon was perhaps the most significant practical economist of the 2nd half of the 20th century. He died too early but left behind significant material that throws light on the litany of scams and hoaxes mankind has gone through.

This portion from his 1996 book, The Ultimate Resource 2 is illuminating. I’ll also scan and OCR other bits as and when I find time.

I should have re-read this portion in 2008 when I started researching “climate change”. Fortunately, the overall teaching of Simon was always in my mind so I was able to take a very critical approach to this issue and arrived at precisely his conclusion – that this whole thing needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.


Global Warming

Along with acid rain and the ozone hole (addressed below), the supposed greenhouse effect and global warming must be mentioned in this book because it is so salient in public thinking. I am not an atmospheric scientist, and I cannot address the technical issues. I can, however, try to put these issues in reasonable perspective.

Given the history of such environmental scares—over all of human history—my guess is that global warming is likely to be simply another transient concern, barely worthy of consideration ten years from now should I then be writing again of these issues. After all, when I first addressed environmental matters in the late 1960s and 1970s, the climatological issue of major public concern was still global cooling. These quotations collected by Anna Bray illustrate the prevailing thinking about climate in the early 1970s, only a decade before the hooha about warming began in earnest.61

[Climatologist J. Murray Mitchell, then of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, noted in 1976: “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation.
Whenever there is a cold wave, they seek out a proponent of the ice-age-is-coming school and put his theories on page one. . . . Whenever there is a heat wave . . . they turn to his opposite number, [who predicts] a kind of heat death of the earth.”

The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations. It has already made food and fuel more precious, thus increasing the price of everything we buy. If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. (Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)

The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and producer of scientific television documentaries, “In the Grip of a New Ice Age,” International Wildlife, July 1975)

At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed. . . . Once the freeze starts, it will be too late. (Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age,” Science Digest, February 1973)

I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or two. (Reid Bryson, “Environmental Roulette,” Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man, John P Holdren and Paul R. Ehrlich, eds., 1971)

Bryson went so far as to tell the New York Times that, compared to the then-recent “decade or two” of cooling, “there appears to be nothing like it in the past 1,000 years,” implying that cooling was inevitable.62

Indeed, many of the same persons who were then warning about global cooling are the same climatologists who are now warning of global warming—especially Stephen Schneider, one of the most prominent of the global-warming doomsters.*

It is interesting to reflect on the judgments that would be made in (say) 1996 of past decisions if the world had followed the advice of the climatologists only two decades years earlier who then urged the world to take immediate steps to head off the supposed cooling threat. Should we not be glad that

* When described as a former advocate of the cooling view by George Will (Washington Post, September 7, 1992, op-ed page) and Richard Lindzen (Regulation, vol. 15, no. 2), Schneider violently denied it. He referred to Will’s assertion as “false and possibly malicious” (Washington Post, September 26, 1991, A19) and objected to Lindzen’s statement in a strong “personal note” (Regulation, Summer 1992, p. 2), in both places asserting that his earlier book was “relatively neutral” on the subject. Therefore it behooves me to quote this summary from that earlier book in the section entitled “What Does It All Mean?” (1976, p. 90): “I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in—perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age—and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along witht he cooling.” There is no qualification or rebuttal in the following text.

governments did not listen to the anti-cooling advice they were given in the 1970s? And therefore, is it reasonable now to trust the forecasts of those very scientists who have been systematically wrong in every doomsaying prediction that they have made—as is true of the environmental spokespersons of the past two decades, who are up in arms about global warming?

Curiously, within days after I first wrote the above paragraph, there appeared a newspaper story entitled “Volcano Reverses Global Warming: Scientists Expect Mean Temperature to Drop 1 Degree over 2-4 Years.”63 The event in question was the eruption in June 1991, of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Then within a few days more there appeared a scholarly article finding that smoke particles may lead to cooling rather than warming, as had previously been assumed.’ Or do I have it backwards? No matter.

Whether the climate models will be right about Mount Pinatubo or not, and about the cooling effect of smoke particles, is in question, of course. The problem here, as with the global warming issue generally, is that our planet contains many forces about which we as yet know very little, and which we can predict little if at all—for example, volcano eruptions. It is an act of hubris and great imprudence to proceed as if we know much more than we do when a single article in a single journal can undermine our basic conclusions.

All that can be done within the scope of the available space and of my nonexpert’s knowledge is to give the following quick list of propositions about the issue.65 Before the “concerned” reader concludes that the following treatment is simply a whitewash, it would be fair to examine the state of one’s own knowledge on the subject—what you know about technical facts, and the sources of the supposed information. The basis of most people’s thoughts on the subject is simply general newspaper stories that assert that a problem exists. (In the following summary of the facts I rely heavily on Balling’s book.)

1. All climatologists agree that dire has been an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in recent decades. But there is great disagreement about the implications (if any) of the CO2 trend for global temperature. In the late 1980s the range of thinking ran from those who believed that there will be warming of up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the next mid-century to those who argued that the evidence is so mixed that one cannot predict any warming at all; by 1994, the range had come down somewhat at the top, but there is still great disagreement.

2. Even those who predict warming agree that any likely warming would not be great relative to year-to-year variability, and would be swamped by long-run natural variability over the millennia.

The high-end-estimate climatologists have also scaled back their estimates of a possible rise in sea level (due to glacial and polar ice melting) from several feet to at most a few inches.

3. Those who foresee warming rely heavily on computer simulation models. Many of those who foresee little or no warming rely on the temperature data for the
past century. And many of the skeptics of global warming believe that the simulation models lack solid theoretical basis and are built on shaky ad hoc assumptions. Skeptics also point to the absence of correlation between past carbon dioxide buildup and the temperature record.

4. Even if warming will occur, it is likely to be uneven in time and place. More of the effect would be at night than day, more in the low-sun season and less in the high-sun season, and more in the arctic regions than in the tropical parts of the world. It should be noted that these effects are less unwelcome than if the effects were in the opposite parts of the daily cycle and the planet’s geography

5. If there is warming, it will occur over many decades, during which period there will be much time for economic and technical adjustment.

6. Any necessary adjustments would be small relative to the adjustments that we make during the year to temperature differences where we reside and as we travel. A trip from New York to Philadelphia, or spring coming a day or two earlier than usual, is not very different than the temperature gradient for any likely warming within the next century

7. The necessary adjustments would be far, far smaller than the effects of the advent of air conditioning in any of the places in this world where that device commonly is found. The alterations that air conditioning—let alone central heating—make in the environment in which we spend our hours dwarf any alterations required by any conceivable global warming.

8. If there is warming, and if one is worried about it, the clear policy implication would be the substitution of nuclear fission for the burning of fossil fuels. This would have other benefits as well, of course, especially the lives saved from air pollution and coal mining. [Sanjeev: Of course, this is one thing the climate fascists don’t want]

Does this calm assessment differ from the impression you get from the news? One can gauge the effectiveness of the mass media in creating public opinion on global warming and other doomsday subjects by the increase in just a single year in the proportion of the public that were “aware of the global warming issue”—from 59 percent in 1988 to 79 percent in 1989.66 There is no way that individuals can measure for themselves the extent of global warming. Hence their thinking is labile and easily influenced by television and newspapers. Then the politicians and the environmental activists who give scare stories to the press cite public opinion as a reason to change public policy.

Assessing global warming seems more and more like assessing the likely availability of raw materials: every alarm about scarcity has been a case of speculative theory not fitted to the historical data. The alarm about greenhouse warming seems to come from those who pay attention only to various theoretical models—just as the alarm about global cooling came only from theoretical models in the 1970s (and from some of the same persons who were alarmed then)—whereas those who focus on the historical temperature record seem unconvinced that there have been unusual changes and are quite un-worried about the future. With respect to natural resources, the conclusion is inescapable that those who have believed the historical record have been correct, and those who have believed theories without checking them against the record have been in error. Is it not likely that this will be the case with global warming, too?’

Continue Reading