Cato Institute Says: There's a whole new world of global warming science today-but few ever hear about it. In recent years, an internally consistent body of scientific literature has emerged that argues cogently for global warming but against the gloom-and-doom, apocalyptic vision of climate change.
Not that you would know. Consult the daily newspaper or evening newscast: dire predictions are nearly all we see or hear.
In their new book, "Climate of Extremes", coauthors Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. illuminate the other side of the story, the science we aren’t being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic. However, because it is not infused with horrific predictions and angst about the future, regardless of its quality it is largely repressed and ignored.
This in-depth exploration illustrates the crucial unreported forecasts: that changes in hurricanes will be small, that global warming is likely to be modest, and that contrary to daily headlines, there is no apocalypse on the horizon - Cato Institute
David Russell Legates is the Delaware State Climatologist, and an associate professor at the University of Delaware.
He is best known for his contrarian opinion on the causes and effects of global warming. Legates opposes the consensus scientific opinion on climate change, and was a signer of the Oregon petition, which stated that there was no convincing scientific evidence that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing climate change.
Patrick J. Michaels
Pat Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
According to Nature magazine, Michaels is one of the most popular lecturers in the nation on the subject of global warming. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.
Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers, for the demonstration that urban heat-related mortality declined significantly as cities became warmer.
His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science; and his articles have appeared also in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and the Journal of Commerce.
He has appeared on ABC, NPR's All Things Considered, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.
Everything you've said sounds nice. The reality is a little different. Corn ethanol production, an alternative domestically grown fuel that's been marketed as "carbon neutral" in fact makes us MORE dependent on oil, not less. If you're concerned about putting CO2 into the atmosphere, corn ethanol production puts a lot of it into the atmosphere. It's a bad solution, but it's supposedly "green" and will "save the planet". We're preparing to impose cap and trade on carbon emitting energy producers and factories at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in the name of global warming. This matters to our economy and by extension our national security if CO2 is not the cause of climate change. We are NOT considering nuclear power (what was that about energy diversity?). We are not drilling for oil along our coastlines or expanding oil exploration in Alaska (both domestic sources). Instead we are staking our future on wind power and rooftop PV solar. I'm not hearing any moves towards tapping into more natural gas, an abundant *domestic* source of energy, again because of fears about CO2. Getting the science wrong hurts us.
"In conclusion, if I'm right about Global Warming, the United States will have needlessly diversified its energy profile, modernized its power grid and significantly decreased its dependence on foreign oil. If I'm wrong... then um... sorry, my bad."
I have to agree with the gentleman who said that green has become one of the ugliest words in the English language. We have been 'green' ever since the 60's. Our air is so clean the environmentalists had to find an invisible demon (CO2) to blame extreme weather events on, and now they even want to put sulfur and other particulates back into the air to block the sun. (I think pulling the emissions controls off the nearest coal-fired electric plant should do the trick)