Burt Rutan and Climate Change. In early , The Wall Street Journal published a letter supposedly from 16 scientists saying there was no need to worry about. Elbert Leander “Burt” Rutan Credentials B.S. Aeronautical Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. the New York Academy of Sciences;; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, The first myth in the article is the well-worn “global warming stopped.

Author: Mogore Kagazil
Country: Niger
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 13 June 2012
Pages: 374
PDF File Size: 7.70 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.46 Mb
ISBN: 309-7-24798-675-1
Downloads: 28083
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tegore

I became a cynic; My conclusion – ‘if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependent on complex experimental data, gutan is likely lying’. Topics Environment Climate change: The fake skeptics then repeat one of Lindzen’s favorite mythsthat the Earth has warmed less than predicted by the IPCC.

CCC is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic.

Burt Rutan on Climate Change

The lack of expertise and numerous conflicts of interest aside, let’s evaluate their arguments on their own merits or more accurately, lack thereof. Comedy Climate change comment. BEST land-only surface temperature data green with linear trends applied to the timeframes totototototo blue warjing, and to red.

Among the 16 scientists who signed a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled No Need to Panic About Global Warming, only four had published peer-reviewed research related to climate change.

To gloss over burg complexities with the simplistic “CO2 is plant food” argument is an insult to the readers’ intelligence. What happens when we shed our pro-science bias and start respecting creativity, flair, hunches and guts as much as knowledge, expertise, data and brains?

Dwyer has a PhD is in Organic Chemistry. In fact, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades.

Related Articles (10)  CONTRATAME LIBRO PDF

What makes these skeptical renegade scientists so valuable is that they are driven by ulterior motives — mostly greed — and not a pro-science agenda. Many, including Burt Rutan, have experience in fields entirely unrelated to climate science.

Know-it-all scientists and their followers all share an extreme, elitist, pro-science, pro-reason bias, which clouds their judgment and threatens the very fabric of our democracy. If he could have supported them in a factual way he might have come off better,but in the end he appeared to be simply parroting the denier party line.

If this is the best today’s climate fake skeptics can do, perhaps, as Patrick Michaels suggeststhey are losing the battle. Shaviv has published some research on galactic cosmic rays, and Kininmonth and Tennekes published a couple of climate-related papers in the s although most of Tennekes’ research as been in aeronautics.

He also wrote a book titled The Greatest Hoax: Increasing CO2 in the climate also changes temperatures, precipitation, drought and flood frequencies, and a number of other factors which impact plant growth.

Global Warming – Burt Rutan

Positive Feedbacks The denialist op-ed continues to confuse the issue by claiming ” The senator made headlines in February when he addressed the Senate and said: However, recent research by Loeb et al. If you have a 1. In reality, because its emissions endanger public health and welfare through its impacts on climate change, by definition CO2 is a tlobal according to the US Clean Air Act. To that I say: And speaking of psychological projection – Rutan’s schtick is big on AGW communicators engaging in “data presentation fraud” which he argues inappropriately scares the punters – but his own anti-AGW slide deck is so full of it, it’s difficult ubrt find one single slide discussing science that presents a fair view flobal the data.

Who said climate skeptics’ hunches don’t pack a punch?

Do follow their advice: If we boil down warmin op-ed to its basics, we’re left with a letter signed by only two scientists with peer-reviewed climate research publications in the past three decades, which exhibits a serious lack of understanding of basic climate concepts, and which simply regurgitates a Gish Gallop of long-worn climate myths. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth.


He currently serves as Scaled Composites’ Chief Technical Officer and following his retirement, will assume the title of founder and chairman emeritus. You wadming to be logged in to post a comment.

It kind of reminds me We must keep the debate open and listen to the voices of scientists and non-scientists alike. Written for the ” Global Warming Policy Foundation “. We can only hope that this is the case. When we actually listen to what Nordhaus has to saythe bur looks very different:.

The Physical Science Basis.

Climate Science Glossary

Inhofe sees a lot of similarities between those who worry about the threat posed by climate change and those who worry about the threat posed by Jewish people: It would not surprise me if it did. Follow the Money Indeed Just when we thought the op-ed letter couldn’t get worse, these fake skeptics have the gall to suggest that we “follow the money,” because climate “alarmism” supposedly brings bountiful research funding, “an excuse for governments to raise taxes”, “big donations” for environmental groups, and other similar tinfoil-hattery.

German Institute for Economic Research and Watkiss et al. If not, we will be in one of those gloomy scenarios. They couple this with the grossly oversimplistic “CO2 is plant food” myth. It also has sections on climate adaptation and scientific consensus.

Author: admin