Carlin Economics and Science

With emphasis on climate change

The Fundamental Issue in Climate Science Resolved

It has been a long time in coming, but we can now say with some confidence what the answer is to the most important question in climate science. As is all too well known, the climate alarmists have one fairly uniform answer, which they claim is part of their “consensus.” Climate skeptics, on the other hand, have a very different but less uniform answer. Climate alarmists are “kind” enough to call anyone who disagrees with them “climate deniers” and generally avoid any real discussions with them.

But who is correct? It really matters since the world, mainly the developed world, is spending about $1.5 trillion per year according to one estimate on the assumption that the climate alarmists are correct, even though this has never been shown scientifically. $1.5 trillion per year could buy a lot of happiness and health for people living in the developed world if it were spent for other purposes such as medical care, schools, or essential public services, rather than burdening primarily the lowest income members of the population.

The Climate Alarmists Have Been Uniformly Wrong Although Some Skeptics Missed an Important Detail

Happily, the problem of who is right on the key issue has finally been resolved. The answer is that all alarmists and many but not all skeptics are incorrect according to a recent study. Most skeptics have been on the right track, but some have gotten an important detail a little wrong. Although there is a great deal more to be learned about many aspects of climate science, the fundamental issue has now been resolved: Changes in atmospheric CO2 have no significant effect on global temperatures. As a result, the entire $1.5 trillion per year over many years should be written off as a waste of money and effort because of the insistence of alarmists that action must be taken before valid research was carried out.

Human-caused emissions of CO2 never had much influence on atmospheric CO2 levels, but since changes in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effects on global temperatures, it really does not matter how much humans cause to be emitted. Further expenditures in support of reducing human-caused emissions of CO2 are a complete waste. We will be stuck with monumentally expensive, ugly, bird and bat-killing solar and wind farms until they are eventually abandoned and taken down and disposed of at still more cost. The primary victims are those countries that invested most heavily in these technologies, particularly Western Europe and some states in Australia and Canada.

Some climate skeptics have been in error too since they believe that changes in CO2 have minor effects on global temperatures, but not enough to cause the catastrophic temperature changes predicted by the climate alarmists. Although it is not entirely clear why there are actually no significant effects, we can now say that that is the case.

The Time Has Come to End Any Further Expenditures on “Green” Energy

Is it possible that this recent study is wrong? Of course, anything in science can be wrong. But it is unlikely since it has been peer reviewed by over ten very knowledgeable experts, and no major problems have been found after about six months of public availability. The wise course would be to halt any further investments in “green” energy unless an error should be proven in the study which confirms that the “consensus” conclusions are correct after all. There is certainly no reason to spend more money pursuing a previous waste of money, as the alarmists still maintain by ignoring the recent study and many previous studies summarized here.

Share this Post:

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Heyer

BillD,
For someone who claims great experience in editing and reviewing, I find it astonishing that you failed to mention the subject of your criticism. Was it the original blog posting, or the paper and article that I linked to? Also, you provide no references for your own assertion that you are an expert. Why should anyone give you credibility?

Professor Bejan has published over 600 peer reviewed papers, many books and garnered over 13,000 citations. For my own writing, I never claimed peer review and will live or die by the judgement of critical and thoughtful readers who are able to form independent thoughts. I am sure Mr. Carlin would agree.

If you are unable to provide cogent criticism, I suggest you move on.

BillD

This article is not published and peer reviews are anonymous and chosen by editors. I know this because I have been an editor or reviewer for over 1200 science manuscripts. Who gives credence to unpublished work?

Mark Heyer

Dr. Carlin, in your previous posts you suggested that it may be time for the 100% alarmist domination of the discussion to end. There is a critical moment when opinions can be switched and for us skeptics, that moment is now. With my colleague, Dr. Adrian Bejan of Duke University, we are undertaking to highlight the effects of energy restriction on wealth inequality. He published a paper yesterday in the Journal of Applied Physics relating to this and I prepared an enclosing article.

https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/physics-can-predict-wealth-inequality
http://constructalinfonomics.org/the-wealth-imperative/

Bejan’s expertise is in thermodynamics and mine is in information. As an economist and expert on environmental policy, we would very much appreciate and greatly value any comments you might have about our arguments. Thanks in advance,
Mark Heyer
markh@heyertech.com

Mark

Dr. Carlin,

Thanks for the update on the significance of the recent paper! I was unable to follow the link to the “previous studies summarized “ here.” ” The link appears to be broken.

By chance have ever read any of Howard Fast’s works:

https://www.enotes.com/topics/howard-fast/critical-essays/fast-howard

I saw a bit of the movie “Man in the Middle” early this am and it reminded of the journey you took evaluating the scientific data supporting the endangerment finding in your book. I made a note in the inside cover entitled “Freight Train- pg 119-121” as it it’s very hard to slow one down once it’s rolling.

An experienced PhD made the comment to me 30 years ago about the final stages of product and process design reviews.

Comment by Alan Carlin: Thanks for catching the bad link, which I have fixed. Not clear how it happened.

No, I have not read any of Fast’s books, but am interested in your analogy. So thanks.

Justbeau

The times are stirring, Dr. Carlin, inspiring you.

Justbeau

The President is a showman. So the obamacare Repeal and replace is delayed. So what? This just heightens the drama!

They could bring it to vote anytime, if somebody gets what they want And votes yes.

It’s called democracy. Fun stuff.

Scroll to Top