Freedom works.

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.

Via The Australian:

Lord Lawson, 79, has long been an outspoken critic of the direction of climate change politics, doubting the ability of world leaders to agree on co-ordinated action, instead favouring adaptation and development of new technologies to replace carbon-intensive power generation.

Comments in Australia about Baroness Thatcher’s position as one of the pioneers of action against climate change were “not an accurate portrayal”, he said.

“I was as close to Margaret Thatcher as anybody at the time. The fact is initially she felt this issue needed to be looked into, but she was agnostic as to whether it was a serious problem or not.

“She was instrumental in having the IPCC set up, but it has changed greatly from what she intended as a fact finding organisation to become a lobby group.”

Lord Lawson said Baroness Thatcher made her position clear in her memoirs and her later book Statecraft.

“She did have reason for highlighting the possibility of global warming because the biggest threat to the UK energy security at the time was the stranglehold the Marxist National Union of Mine Workers had on the coal industry.

“She felt Britain should not be so dependent on coal. She was in favour of building up nuclear energy to break the dependence on coal and the main opposition to nuclear came from the environment movement. Mrs Thatcher thought she could trap them with the carbon emissions argument.”

Fascinating:

WASHINGTON — US scientists say the familiar sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight cooling effect on global temperatures.

For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.

…

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715 known as the “Little Ice Age.”

“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate,” said Hill.

Read the rest of the article via AFP: Scientists predict rare ‘hibernation’ of sunspots.

Over on ConservativeHome, I have responded to one of Paul Goodman’s articles, The dog that didn’t bark on Thursday during Energy questions:

So, the greatest problem humanity faces is how to use increasingly scarce natural resources to create greater prosperity for a growing number of people in the context of a changing environment. The study of that problem is surely economics.

Read more via ConservativeHome’s Platform: Steve Baker MP: The greatest threat to civilisation is not climate change but bad economics.

Via the New Scientist:

IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report – and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.

The science deserves to be taken more seriously than this.