COMMENTARY | Sixteen notable scientists expressed calm over the panic of global warming. Other scientists responded with the usual alarm. In a reply to the responses, the original 16 concerned scientists published their rejoinder in the Wall Street Journal, setting the record straight on the false exaggeration of global warming.
A rejoinder is a reply to the responses generated by the original article. The original article attacked the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predictions of catastrophic global warming and the APS’s (American Physical Society) statement that the science was settled or “incontrovertible.” The rejoinder not only substantiated its original claims, but also put down the objections of Kevin Trenberth, lead responder with thirty-seven other scientists, and Richard Byer of the APS.
Alarmist rhetoric met with salient rebuttal on several issues. Concerning the IPCC’s computer models and predictions, readers should know that the models are wrong and predictions don’t match the measurements. The warming that the models say should exist is belied by actual temperature data. So where’s all the missing heat? Trenberth and his band of 37 global warming advocates say it’s “hiding” in the deep oceans. The rejoinder had fun poking holes in that explanation!
If that wasn’t embarrassing enough, the Trenberth objectors said that “the science is clear, the world is warming up.” Well, the rejoinder scientists stopped short of saying they weren’t buying the bridge that Trenberth was selling, but they did explain that science is not determined by consensus. Just because a handful of vocal authoritarian scientists say over and over that something is true doesn’t mean it is. Science is discovered by measurement and observation, over and over, and unbiased conclusions drawn from evidence observed and accurately recorded repeatedly.
So, the original op-ed scientist authors are up for studying the matter further. Let debate, discussion, observation, measurement, and further study proceed unencumbered. In the meantime, no need to panic about global warming since the science — contrary to public belief — is still unclear. No need to scourge the economy with drastic mitigations now that do no good later, if indeed they do any good ever. The problem the APS has with that, however, comes with its “incontrovertible” statement. No more study is needed as the science is settled. Oh, really?
The rejoinder concludes its eloquent essay with the conclusion that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Despite EPA declarations to the contrary, CO2 is beneficial to agriculture and can induce the production of greater food crop harvests. But the government, along with scientists seeking grants and “green” enterprises on the take, has a stake in promoting the hoax at taxpayers’ expense. Despite the articulate arguments expressed in the article, the irrational idea of a warming earth will likely live on as the myth that it is.
As a commenter pointed out, “This article brings to mind a poignant scene from [the movie] My Cousin Vinnie. Lawyer Vinnie makes an objection to Judge Haller on a point of law. Judge Haller compliments him on the strength of the objection and notes that it is based upon sound logic, reason and the law. Judge Haller then overrules the objection” anyway.
So much for logic, reason, and law. The public may overrule the rational thought of 16 concerned scientists who calmed the trumped up panic over global warming. They made a strong case, however, against the hoax that poised less principled people to benefit from the public misconception that global warming really is.