May 10, 2009

Skeptics From Around the Globe


Robert Essenhigh PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas. If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

"We can certainly go for carbondioxide control and sequestration, but this is likely to be somewhere between highly and catastrophically expensive. And to what end, if that isn’t the problem? I’m not alone in this position. Merely one of a large minority. But those with the power evidently don’t want to listen. So is this science or just politics?"


1 comment:

  1. Well Professor, in California you might be in the majority, judging by the resounding defeat of proposition 7, which would have required public utilities to get 20% of their energy from windmills by some future date.
    Mind you that these prop 7 mandates already apply to private energy companies - a saddle that makes private energy more expensive compared to the public utility.

    Believe it or not, Prop 7 was the first time anthropogenic global warming or it's anciliary govermental remedies has been put to a general election in California, and it lost... BIG.
    Supermajority big.

    Also what with the resent Obama admin polar bear ruling regarding the creatures possible listing under the endangered species act, you might be in the majority opinion on a national basis as well.