Myth of global warming, disaster

An article was featured in the Journal on 21 June (“Mad about the climate? Don’t cheer up”) warning the readers about the dangers of “climate change.” The author, Michael Brune, was listed at the end of the article, and, not surprisingly, he is the executive director of the infamously violent environmental group — the Sierra Club. (Check here, for example

Sadly, readers were invited to read Brune’s whining against Trump and the Paris Climate Agreement.

Bore. Another Climate Change fanatic. How about publicizing the views of someone like S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project? His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. He is an expert in remote sensing and satellites and has served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He co-authored the New York Times best-seller, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.

Yes, there are trends in which it happens cyclically, warming and cooling. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports. He says, “The moral of the story is that the best empirical data we have show very little influence on global temperatures from rising CO2 levels.” (“The Climate Sensitivity Controversy,” American Thinker, October 15, 2014).

Another scientist takes a very optimistic view of a warming. Terence J. Hughes is Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences and Climate Change at the School of Earth and Climate Sciences at the University of Maine. He was a researcher with the Climate Change Institute. Global warming is good, he protests, whatever the cause!

For example: Granting the popular assumption that global warming is caused by CO2 (which has greatly increased in the last 18 years with no corresponding global warming), more atmospheric CO2 would greatly increase agricultural production because CO2 is “oxygen” for plants, which produce oxygen we need to survive.

He writes, “Global warming would thaw permafrost (perennially frozen ground), opening arctic and sub-arctic lands in Alaska, Canada, and Russia to a boom in economic development that would benefit all mankind. For example, 18 to 24 hours of summer sunshine would deliver two agricultural harvests per year.”

This and much more he suggests with appropriate optimism, rather than bleak expectations of disaster as the Chicken Little Sierra Clubbers are wont to sound.

Michael Bray