Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumScientists Systematically Demolish WSJ's Pathetic Climate Denial Op-Ed, And It's A Pleasure To Read
SUMMARY
This commentary in the Wall Street Journal by Rodney Nichols and Harrison Schmitt tries to argue that CO2 emitted by humans is, overall, beneficialparticularly for agriculture. To do so, the authors ignore all the evidence of the negative impacts of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (due to climate change and ocean acidification, for example). The commentary relies on claims that are not supported by any evidence, like the assertion that more CO2 in the atmosphere has helped to reduce poverty.
The authors invite the reader to check the facts but do not apply that maxim to themselves. Instead of referring to published scientific research, the article draws heavily from information created by an advocacy group that exists to promote CO2 emissions as beneficial. Taken as a whole, the body of scientific evidence clearly shows that this is not the case.
GUEST COMMENTS
Wolfgang Cramer, Professor, Directeur de Recherche, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology (IMBE):
The article speaks about scientific questions under an opinion banneras if questions about the role of CO2 in the Earth system could be a matter of opinions. Virtually every single point in the article can be easily proven wrong by referral to standard textbook knowledge. For the major final conclusion With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the challenge [to feed additional 2.5 billion people] can and will be met., there is absolutely no scientific credibility, nor support in the scientific literatureit is pure fantasy.
REVIEWERS OVERALL FEEDBACK
These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.
William Anderegg, Associate Professor, University of Utah:
The opinion article makes sweeping assertions that are not in line with the scientific understanding. The conclusions on CO2 uniformly benefiting agriculture are simply misleadingyes, CO2 can help plants but higher temperatures and more drought and pests with climate change also hurt plants.
Timothy Osborn, Professor of Climate Science, University of East Anglia:
The article presents a biased view by understating the degree and impacts of global warming while overstating or simplifying the benefits of CO2 fertilisation.
James Renwick, Professor, Victoria University of Wellington:
The article is full of half-truths, untruths, and red herrings. Casting increased CO2 as a benefit to humankind, without considering the impacts and risks associated with a changing climate, is dangerous and irresponsible.
Lauren Simkins, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Rice University:
The lack of distinction between the role of solid particulates and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes many of the authors claims false and misleading. The article does not present a complete or accurate discussion of climate change, its causes, and its societal influence. The authors state that readers should check the facts regarding climate change, but have presented us with little scientific support for their own claims.
Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
This has nothing to do with science.
EDIT
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-phony-war-against-co2-the-wall-street-journal-rodney-nichols-harrison-schmitt/
moman
(73 posts)These damn lying scientists or Rush Limbaugh!