freeman dyson

Freeman Dyson

CO2 is de paria onder de broeikasgassen omdat het verantwoordelijk zou zijn voor de verschrikkelijke opwarming van de atmosfeer (die maar niet wil komen).

In een recent rapport van de ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation’ (GWPF) legt Indur Goklany uit waarom wij een geheel verkeerd idee hebben van CO2 – een bouwsteen van het leven op aarde.

Het rapport is voorzien van een voorwoord van Freeman Dyson, die als een van de meest vooraanstaande natuurkundigen van de wereld wordt beschouwd en vaak als een opvolger van Albert Einstein, met wie hij vroeger heeft samengewerkt, wordt gezien.

Aan zijn voorwoord ontleen ik het volgende:

Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm. To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

I consider myself an unprejudiced person and tome these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing.

I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. …

Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial.

I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.

Aldus Freeman Dyson.

Hier is de samenvatting van het rapport van Indur Goklany:

1. This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating  plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall.
2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about  14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.
3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields.
4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land  for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in  more land being left wild.
5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have  also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation  types.
6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of  many marine ecosystems.
7. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environmental well-being have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming.
8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of  extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.
9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate  of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the  harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to  capture the benefits while reducing the harms.
10. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently  net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are  real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits  of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Aldus Indur Goklany.

Lees verder hier.

Voor mijn eerdere bijdragen over klimaat en aanverwante zaken zie hierhier, hier, hier en hier.

– – –

Dear All,
Please dispatch and support as much as possible this “call for support (petition)” to the chief climatologist of the French TV, Philippe Verdier.
Philippe just published a “climato-realist” book (which is “booming” on Amazon)  on the dysfunctions of IPCC and has been fired from his position. The French Government (president Hollande and his ministers Fabius (in charge of organizing the COP21) and Royal (environment, energy and climate change) seem to be “discretely” behind the decision, as they try to control the public opinion through the meteo bulletins and quite sublimal spots on “climate change”.
Let us show the Establishment that we are able to organize a worldwide backfire, and let us hope this will make them more cautious in the future when they will try once more to censor the freedom of (climatic) expression
Thanks in advance for a swift and effective reaction, as usual.
Kind regards
Henri Masson