By David Wojick
A fine skeptical journal article waded through green pal review. Wonder of wonders!
The journal is the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The article title is perfectly clear: “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems”.
See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12579
But it is an “Early View Online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue” so get it before it gets too hot for the Journal. I understand it is very popular so the green screams are deafening.
Alas it is paywalled but the lengthy free Abstract is as clear as the title. Here is the conclusion:
“Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May, 2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta, 2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.”
The authors are Andy May and Marcel Crok and as the first parenthetical reference above indicates they are building on prior work. Their 53 References are not paywalled and quite interesting.
Both authors list as from CLINTEL making this a worthy CLINTEL effort. In fact Croc is a co-founder of CLINTEL. This work certainly supports CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration that “There is no climate emergency”. See https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ which offers an opportunity to sign, joining the almost 2,000 signatories and growing (including me).
The article is a clear discussion of the basic issues including some of the uncertainties. The overall position is moderate compared to some forms of skepticism (including mine). This makes it a good non-technical entering wedge for the climate debate.
Here is their overall conclusion:
“Clearly, there are two sides to climate change. It will be a problem in the future for some people in some places and a benefit for others in other places. Climate changes, it always has and always will. Is it changing more now than in the past? Or are we comparing current climate change to some fantasy world where climate never changes?
Warmer temperatures and more CO2 will mean more food at a lower price for nearly everyone, but in some areas, drought will increase and in others additional precipitation will cause flooding. However, with modern technology and cheap energy, we can build aqueducts to bring water to dry areas and build dikes and seawalls to protect areas prone to flooding. Sea level rise is currently a very modest two millimeters per year, it may be accelerating at about .02 mm/year, but the rise in the next century will be less than a foot, about a third of the normal average ocean daily tide.
Currently fossil fuels supply about 80% of our energy, reducing this to zero rapidly will devastate the world economy and cause widespread suffering, especially for the poor. Should we do nothing? If so, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget projects that three degrees of global warming will cause a decline of <1% in U.S. GDP. Modern global warming, since 1950, has reduced GDP by <.5%, a trivial amount given that the economy has grown 800% in that time. Using IPCC scenarios, Lomborg estimates that economic growth will decline from 450% to 434% over the 21st century. Will anyone notice?
The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist and likely cannot be built in a short time. Current realistic estimates of future energy use suggest that fossil fuels will still supply half our energy in 2050 and beyond. Yet, no credible evidence exists that this is a problem or will become a problem. Recent research into climate change has suggested that nature plays some role, and certainly greenhouse gas emissions may play some role as well. What we do not know is how much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes to our economy are justified until we can figure this out.”
Please spread the word about this fine article. The more attention it gets the harder it will be to kill.
My crystal ball foretells retraction.
Accessible article can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381013579_Carbon_dioxide_and_a_warming_climate_are_not_problems
It is a special issue on climate change and that is under attack. May and Crok will not retract.
May the Force be with them.
But what about Croc?
A large dose of common sense. Good for Clintel.
Only problem is that climate alarm is a ‘religion’—so immune to common sense. It will have to founder on the rocks of its own internal inconsistencies. Stuff like net zero is impossible, and there is no solution for renewable intermittency. Much pain for no gain is not a long term viable position.
Dare I say that Net Zero and intermittent electric power machines are unsustainable. A sign of this is the fact that proponents are looking in vain for patches to make a failed technology work.
Imagine if the Wright Brothers couldnt get their powered fight machine to fly more than a couple of hundred feet or so and doggedly ‘fixed’ it by hooking up a hydrogen balloon to hold it up, then proudly heading for the patent office.
The a**holes over at Desmog are busy adding Andy May to their list of “Deniers” and preparing to send their usual complaints to journals and media editors and influencers worldwide asking them what they are doing publishing the biased work of a known “denier”.
However their list of people that sheep shouldn’t follow is getting really really long and full of people with actual qualifications in the subject matter. No longer just a few….
https://www.desmog.com/climate-disinformation-database/
Like, does anybody actually notice what’s on their database? As if anyone should believe what they say. You’re right that the longer the list gets- it makes Desmog look foolish. “Deniers” like us should ask to be on it- then wear a label on our shirts saying, “proud to be listed on Desmog”. 🙂
So, Desmog makes no effort to deconstruct all these supposed deniers? Just give names?
I see on their web site: “Have a suggestion on an individual/organization you would like to see
researchedblacklisted?”Google uses their database to smear skeptics or did last I looked. If you search on a listed name you usually get the DeSmog hit piece in the first five links sometimes as the first item. Plus a lot of the other items are negative.
The qualifications of the staff at Desmog is so far below the skill level of the people they “smear”…it’s akin to a junior high school comic book club reviewing University class textbooks using only the authors autobiography page…but somehow these National Enquirer “investigative journalist” wannabees get to be “fact checkers” for the big “G”. It’s atrocious.
Might be finally nearing unwind
This is part of how reversion to the norm commences.
Congrats CLINTEL. I have applied to sign the Declaration.
Geoff S
This might be like the legacy media finally noticing Joe Biden has mental issues. Repeating the catechism can eventually get an organization looking like “Baghdad Bob”, denying what is screamingly obvious. “Tanks? What tanks?”
Been doing some research. Looks like Biden has both cognitive impairment and Parkinsonism. While Parkinsonism eventually leads to dementia in four out of five cases, his then mild during 2020 ‘gaffes’ and now obviously moderate cognitive impairment predates by a couple of years his beginning to display 6 out of the 7 classic Parkinsonism symptoms.The only symptom not noticeably present is tremor.
it’s spelled Parkinson’s
I think my wife has it.
Actually, if the classic tremor is present it is called idiopathic Parkinson’s. If not, it is called Parkinsonism
Be careful not to get dragged into a “naming something that might be something simpler so therefor you’re technically wrong” trap on the president thing. Even if your reasons are good, it could be embarrassing to show up at a random pizza shop ready to point fingers.
How do we know? He was never allowed out of his basement long enough for anyone to assess his physical or mental state!!! I believe his mental acuity then was just about like it is now, that was the whole reason for the Basement Campaign. That was the first clue I had that he was unfit for office, his “handlers” never allowed him to interact one-on-one with anyone outside of those-so-consecrated-to-approach!
The arguments are solid. Frost fairs for a hundred years on the frozen solid Thames, Viking abandonment of 400 year old farming sites on Greenland and the advancement of European glaciers.
Jeez. Stop bringing up history. We are looking to the future, not to the past!
Ah, but the future is founded on the past.
I find it an interesting thought experiment to consider the mental calculations and algorithms that go into these economic models that relate global average air temperatures to economic growth.
Once you even start to scratch the surface the whole concept immediately becomes preposterous. The “dismal science” has really out-dismaled itself with this one.
Who did I see just a couple of days ago…? His entire premise, Mankind has throughout history prospered during times of warmth, declines occurred only during cold periods. So any “calculation” that determines a warming climate will subtract from GDP or GPA or whatever, I call b***s***.
hmmm… but if ruinables supply half our energy in 2050 at immense cost- I should think it will be a problem
Ruinables WILL NOT supply half our energy by 2050. They still have to be backed up 100%.
By?!
They squandered TRILLIONS over the last two decades on wind and solar and barely moved the needle.
Oh they moved the needle alright… really goosed the cost of energy for the average, and especially poor (since there is an inverse relationship between income level and proportion of income spent on energy) people.
The climate howlers would probably claim the peers were not climate scientists since it is an economics journal. If that’s true, I consider that good news.
I review at least a dozen climate and energy articles every morning. I look for a conclusion that is well supporte by facts, data and logic. This article easily meets that test. I don’t have to agree with a conclusion to recommend an article.
But it’s very easy to agree that CO2 and a warming climate are not problems. I would say both are good news.
If you need an extra link to the article, try:
Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems – Andy May Petrophysicist
A petrophysicist?
Obviously a shill bought and paid for by the Exxon syndicate.
/sarc
Any kind of physicist is bad news for alarmism.
Any kind of ‘actual’ scientist is bad news for climate alarmists.
Any moderately intelligent human being who works for a living is bad news for alarmism.
Congratulations! No mention of ‘nutters’ in yr post. Thank you!
Good luck getting it published.
It has been accepted. The question is if the issue will be published.
A secondary question is, will M.Mann get it pulled like he has other scientific papers?
Perhaps it can be published here:
Anthem Press | Since 1993
I just finished reading Climate Uncertainty and Risk by Dr. Judith Curry and highly recommend it. Very readable, rational, and relateable.
Forget about seeing information like this in the mainstream media which probably has strict instructions from governments and environmental organization donors to suppress it. After all, such articles scuttle their alarmism and undermines their rationale for hitting consumers with carbon taxes, EV mandates, travel restrictions, heating and cooling availability, food choices and anything that uses fossil fuels.
Who instructs whom?
Glad to see Andy May et al, get some credit for doing good work! Congratulations!
Very nice review David. We are not in a climate crisis, CO2 is not the control knob for our climate, we are not going to reach a tipping point and suffer irreversible global warming. Therefore net zero is not required. Wind and solar are not a substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid. Maintain the grid to the highest standard.
Let me repeat, if we can get the d*** government out of the way, the U. S. could have new nuclear power online in 12 months. Safely.
Sometimes you have to put aside your old beliefs and see things for what they really are even if it pisses off plenty of mates stuck in the past-
Michael Moore: Here’s why Dems have no choice but to run with Kamala Harris (msn.com)
massive LOL
Trump challenges Biden to another debate ‘this week’ and golf match during Florida rally (msn.com)
Praying to the god of “peer review”…
Do you realize that “peer review” means nothing and is an empty shell? It is bullshido on all levels. I have picked apart some prominent “peer reviewed” science (NASA has its own, internal “peer review”) here..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-anatomy-of-a-climate-science-disaster
If you comprehend just this one instance, I can not imagine how would ever take “peer review” serious again.
But the review was not based on “peer/pal review” (i.e., who reviewed and what they thought of it) but rather the actual content of the article/paper.
“The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist”
Try telling that to Milliband, the d*ck head, has just issued a directive to withdraw and stop new licence applications for oil and gas!