A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
This point of view can be articulated—as it is in this article, of course—from two points of view: the first is that there is no catastrophic warming and that therefore nothing needs to be done. The second argument is that, even if there is, the best thing that we can do is carry on and get filthy rich so that we can afford to adapt (should adaptation be necessary).
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Facts like, y'know, the lack of warming. Or the lack of any increase in hurricane severity or frequency. Or the lack of sea level rises. Or the lack of ice loss from the poles.
Some people—your humble Devil included—have been banging on about these inconvenient truths for some years now: it is good to see that at least sixteen people from the scientific community have finally been able to locate their testicles and point out the truth.
In fact, to many of us (especially those who have studied equally damaging consensuses in other areas of science), it has come as something of a shock—I, for one, thought that scientists had permanently lost all integrity.
Still, it's good to see that some of the "professionals" finally stepping down from their ivory towers to acknowledge that we lay-people might, actually, be right...