If you are a science writer and have submitted to Scientific American you know they reject your manuscript if you are not a Ph.D. Theirs is a world of snobbery and group-think consistent with traditions like “The Ivy League” of 13 eastern colleges, save the single inclusion of Stanford. What Scientific American thinks is a product of what academia thinks and they just dropped a big bombshell on “global warming/climate change,” with:
“Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever “climate change” occurs,” Scientific American.
A paper by John Horgan, Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes reports by scientists who reject climate panic and our ability to cope with it. Entitled “Enlightened Environmentalism” by Harvard author Steven Pinker, urges people to seek perspective on climate, especially in the context of the many benefits of industrialization. Pinker argues humanity can solve problems related to climate change in the same way it has solved other problems. Pinker insists, “industrialization has been good for humanity,” much to the distress of the environmentalists.
“It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and by replacing muscle with machinery, ended slavery, emancipated women, and educated children, made it possible to read at night, live where they want, be warm in winter, travel the world, expand contact and commerce.
CO2 and methane, CH4 are accused of heating the atmosphere, but they do not and it can be easily shown in both cases. We have a free paper you can see and copy at: http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com, “CO2 Is Innocent” and there are several sources of methane IR absorption where you will see that CH4 does not absorb a significant amount of infrared energy from sunlight. Why would Ph.D. scientists
Costs in pollution and habitat must be weighed against these products. And just as our ingenuity has allowed us to overcome many obstacles it is more than likely it will in the future.
This is a well-reasoned discussion of the issue reaching a logical conclusion and while we are very happy to see Scientific America at least put a toe in our pond of reason and experimental example we are cautious and do not declare the war has been won.
As an example, Pinker pokes fun at a 2016 Newsweek article announcing “Climate change could cause 500,000 deaths in 2050 due by starvation.”
The story, based on a Lancet study, made dire forecasts regarding the effects of climate change on agriculture, while failing to note that the study predicts much more abundant food availability in 2050 thanks to the 30% increased production seen in rich CO2 environments. This will “dwarf the effects of climate change,” he contends, and the “poorest countries will benefit most.”
Like Pinkers, Boisvert tries to factor in what climate alarmists ignore: the capability of human beings to react to changing scenarios in ingenious ways.
The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in knots, isn’t that big a deal, Boisvert argues. It is “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates.”
While climate skeptics will welcome this gust of common sense from the Scientific American, establishment climate alarmists will undoubtedly seek to quash the news, knowing it could affect not only the funding they depend on, but the ideologically driven political programs they seek to impose on the world.
From late August 1988 to date, the funding for studies to prove man-caused global warming in an undeniable way has cost America over $1.25 trillion for studies that are nothing, but lies, misconceptions or fraudulent. We have produced a free paper at https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com entitled “CO2 Is Innocent” that includes a simple, safe, inexpensive demo-experiment that shows clearly increased CO2 does not heat the atmosphere. We welcome Scientific American.