Sixteen scientists write in the WSJ:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
It’s a fascinating article and I particularly enjoyed being reminded of the words of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever on his resignation from the APS, “In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
No doubt the article will be hysterically contested.
Just reading that and it sounds like the answer is to re direct all our CO2 emissions into mega size greenhouses, thus negating the need for fertilizers ???
The WSJ isn’t exactly known for their impartial stance on global warming.
Here’s a response:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/