The debate over global warming flamed hotter over the weekend, as a group of eminent scientists and engineers – including Burt Rutan, the famous designer of the X-prize-winning suborbital rocketplane SpaceShipOne – signed an open letter stating that the dangers of climate change are being deliberately exaggerated. The statement …
I agree with you that in the past C02 levels and global temperatures have been much, much higher. But we as a species were not alive then, we are not adapted to living (certainly not 7 billion of us) in a much warmer world.
Of course from one perspective it doesnt matter, life on Earth will go on whatever we do.
Whether our society does is a different matter entirely.
"The Paleozoic (Silurian/Devonian) and Mesozoic show rapid increases in atmospheric CO2."
100ppm in a century? No.
The fastest CO2 spike known is at the PETM 55 million years ago and that was slower than the current increase.
Meh x 2
"100ppm in a century? No"
I am not aware of any data for the PETM that can provide accurate data for *100 year timesteps*. I am only aware of averages spread across 10,000+ years. If you can point me to a scientific source that provides PETM data in accurate, century timesteps (which are *not* a tiny part of a much larger average) - so that I can all draw a direct comparison against the last century - please do. If not, I fail to see how that statement holds.
Don't get me wrong - we are contributing to a (potentially) big problem - without doubt. It's the FUD driving some of the science that I take issue with.
At the end of the day we are not yet clever enough to determine if our current experiment on the global climate will roast us all. Even if we were to become able to accurately determine the furture for the climate, whichever camp was left our in the cold would always find a counter argument - it's the nature of the beast.
So why not adress the population problem with as much gusto?
We've doubled atmospheric co2 in the past century burning the coal laid down in the carboniferous. I'm sitting beside a large river which once teemed with salmon and trout; none left now because of acid rain caused by burning coal. The acid resistant species that remain can't be eaten because of mercury from the same source. This isn't progress, it's a slow suicide. Global warming is only one reason why we should find a way off the fossil fuel roller-coaster. As a bonus, maybe we can save a few dollars not bombing Muslims so we can steal their oil.
True - atmospheric oxygen peaked at over 30% during the carboniferous .. we wouldn't last long at that level. The insects did well though; dragonfly's as large as ravens.
@Piobairean and the river
The damage to that river has nothing whatsoever with CO2.
Acid rain is caused by sulphur dioxide (and similar), and never CO2 - and coal electricity generation has had effective scrubbers to take out NO2, SO2 and the like for decades.
Environmental damage like that you mention is made considerably worse by many of the supposedly 'green' technologies we are being pushed towards in the name of Climate Change.
Perhaps the most obvious is that CFLs are a major source of mercury pollution, a lot of other nasty chemicals and are almost impossible to recycle.
In fact, most of the 'low energy' and 'green generation' are indeed low CO2 - but involve much higher emissions and releases of rather nasty pollutants that are genuinely poisonous to life.
CO2 is temporary, mercury is forever.
"The debate over global warming flamed hotter over the weekend, as a group of eminent scientists and engineers – including Burt Rutan, the famous designer of the X-prize-winning suborbital rocketplane SpaceShipOne"
The thing is Burt Rutan has a website on which he has a PDF about his views on climate change and it's chock full of the worst of the worst psuedo-scientific claptrap. He's no authority on climate, he's bone ignorant about it.
"People like to be frightened."
That's what I was told on my first day working for a news empire.
Shocking headlines sell airtime and newspapers, such a shame (as stated above) that these so-called scientists have used the "incontrovertible" word.
How can anyone make a good study of a climate system that takes centuries to change?
I'd like to think we can all be adults about this, but keeping the folks scared sells and gets votes.
It's possible (perhaps even probable) that the Earth is naturally warming - the extent to which anthropogenic emissions contribute is debatable.
It's certainly true that the earth has experienced warmer periods in the past, but in the past the earth's population was significantly less than at present, and buildings / communities weren't as fixed as at present. If a community noticed sea level rise 1,000 years ago, they'd just incrementally move their houses further inland (or even relocate the community further inland).
Over the past hundred years or so, buildings have tended to be more fixed - hence from Victorian times onwards people have built sea defences to try and stop the sea encroaching further inland. So whereas sea level rise wasn't a problem in times gone by, it's A Big Problem now. After all, if due to a landslip you find your house which was previously 1/2 mile from the cliff edge suddenly gets a lot nearer, you probably won't be able to insure it or sell it, and you can't just move it to a vacant plot further inland as someone else will own that plot, so you'd have to (a) buy it, (b) obtain planning permission to build a home there, (c) build a brand new home there (modern buildings aren't portable!), and (d) hopefully dismantle the old home before the sea does it for you.
Regardless of the extent to which anthropogenic emissions contribute, it's likely that reducing them won't stop the warming process. So rather than bleat on about drastically reducing energy consumption, maybe people / organisations / governments can start modelling what effects are plausible (for example, we're already seeing increased instances of extreme weather events compared to a few decades ago - and in the UK although total annual rainfall hasn't changed much, it's more likely to be dry for most of the month then the month's quota to arrive all at once, which puts extra pressure on storm drains and culverts) then start working out ways we can adapt.
" After all, if due to a landslip you find your house which was previously 1/2 mile from the cliff edge suddenly gets a lot nearer"
That would be due to a landslip, caused by erosion. Not sea-level rise.
"So whereas sea level rise wasn't a problem in times gone by, it's A Big Problem now."
It's about a foot per century. Tidal ranges are more than a few metres - you are unlikely to notice 30cms a century when there is a 3-4 metre change twice a day. The sea level is rising about as fast as your fingernails grow. And has been for some hundreds of years. It may even be slowing.
"If a community noticed sea level rise 1,000 years ago, they'd just incrementally move their houses further inland (or even relocate the community further inland).
Over the past hundred years or so, buildings have tended to be more fixed - hence from Victorian times onwards people have built sea defences to try and stop the sea encroaching further inland"
I suspect that 1000's of years ago they thought their towns/cities were in fixed positions just like we do.
If so they were deluded, perhaps we are too. New Orleans anyone?
This article fails in the first five words
"The debate over global warming..."
Few areas of science enjoy a higher level of consensus *among scientists* than global warming, despite the millions (billions, if you count campaign contributions) spent by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation. Every national foundation of science in the industrialized world agrees that enormous increases in CO2 output due to human activity will, if unchecked, have catastrophic effects. (The last year alone saw another 6% increase in CO2.) We are only beginning to see the effects in more intense weather; during this century absorbtion of CO2 by the ocean will raise the acidity of ocean water to the point where most sea life will be destroyed. At this rate, melting ice will raise the sea level by a couple of meters by the end of the century; if you're curious, in a world with no ice the sea level would be approximately 250 feet higher than it is now. Draw your own conclusions about what qualifies as a catastrophe.
you go too far. there may indeed be a mass extinction of deep ocean life due to ocean acidification but I think "most sea life will be destroyed" goes too far.
Similarly "At this rate, melting ice will raise the sea level by a couple of meters by the end of the century" is a worse case scenario, it's likely to be lower than that.
But you are nevertheless more accurate than the 16 signers of the WSJ article
You, sir, are a troll.
For those who couldn't be bothered to read the actual letter, here is the full list of signatories:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Do you seriously believe I should ignore the opinions of all of these people in favour of some random internet troll who thinks "NomNomNom" lends his posts that extra touch of depth and gravitas so lacking in these forums?
And there I was thinking that the President of the World Federation of Scientists might actually have a clue how science is supposed to work! Clearly, I was mistaken.
I mean, naturally, I should always go with the side that has more money. There's certainly an awful lot of money sloshing about in the pro-"Chicken Little" camp—not least because many, many companies stand to benefit from the lavish grants and subsidies governments are now encouraged to fork out, despite many nations' economies slowly floating down Shit Creek without any sign of a canoe, let alone a paddle.
I have been convinced by NomNomNom's clear, lucid and unbiased response! More windmills, I say! Never mind the naysayers who point out that we've tried relying on wind power in the past and didn't exactly stick with the technology when "alternative fuels" appeared on the scene! More solar photovoltaics are urgently needed to cover those unsightly roof tiles that blight cities like London! More! More!
A skeptic making an appeal to authority! priceless.
Standing barefoot, frozen bloody hands
his musket clutched, an iron grip
and for the cause, he has but one regret
he's only got one upvote to give
It's been done before
Such "open letters" have been tried before. But the establishment (educational, scientific, political and media) is what ends up being in control of public perception, and temporary furor over a published open letter highlighting the "dirty little controversy" is soon forgotten.
The only way this controversy won't be buried by the established manipulators of public perception is if someone (or organization) carries the torch and keeps this issue fresh before the public eye. This will of course earn them villification by the powers that be and will bring with it other significant costs (grants, recognition, etc.)
It would be irony if Professor Lewis had reversed his position on one of the two matters.
The word you are looking for is "consistent".
Though personally, I've seen the Athabasca Glacier and I don't need convincing the place is getting warmer, or - to judge by all the soot on it - that there's a component to that that is entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels. I also seem to recollect that the US army has plans - perhaps as yet speculative - on how to deal with the fact that the domestic wheat belts are walking North and will eventually be in Canada.
I don't care. I'll be long dead before Da Yoofs start fighting over edibles and water. Serves 'em right. You get the climate you live in. Falling standards, wouldn't happen in my day, etc etc etc.
You do better
Who caused, or didn't cause, global warming is irrelevant now. It's an academic (and amateur) discussion that won't change anything. What has, or hasn't, caused it is much more interesting and much more relevant.
The important thing is to be able to understand and predict climate well enough to be able to mitigate the bad effects and benefit from the good. So climate models need to be good. You deserve to be heard only if you can demonstrate modelling methodology and results that fit the known facts better than the current models.
If they're going to run that quote of Trenberth's, it's only fair to also run this one:-
"It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability"
And any mug can set up a club called the "World Federation of Scientists". I could set up one called "World Federation of Mongolian Lizard Men With Magic Powers". It doesn't make me one. To quote the guy's Wikipedia entry: "Nobel Prize laureate Hans Bethe has been quoted saying about Zichichi "eccellent organizer, mediocre physicist"." So clearly you may well have been mistaken.
It's also interesting to look up the "World Federation of Scientists". They state publicly that their biggest achievement after 15 years of the organisation existing was to have roughly categorised the ways we can screw up the world and to have decided to set up Working Groups to think about it. Anyone else thinking the Golgafrinchams' committee at the end of "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"?
Basically, there's four possibilities when it comes to overwhelming concensus. Either they're all insane, or they've all been bribed, or they don't have the right information, or they're right. Hopefully we can rule out mass insanity. Uni tenure tends to be a bit less profitable (by orders of magnitude) than working for an oil company, which tends to make you wonder about the second one. The unis are making all their research publicly available, and are the only people putting significant funds into actual investigation, which suggests they're the best informed people when it comes to point three. So go figure.
No, climate change will not kill the Earth. It won't even kill all the humans, or make too much of a dent on species generally, especially not in the long run of evolution. But it'll fucking *muller* a large fraction of the Third World which is already well in trouble, and it won't do much good for large portions of our countries either. Whether you think the deaths of billions of people is worth us doing something about or not is your call, of course.
Here we go again...
... let's stop getting into the "Tis!" "Tisn't!" "Tis so!!" arguments and just do our best to use *ALL* our energy in a more efficient manner, that way we stop chucking out CO2 (and other pollutants) *and* extend the availability of fossil fuels whilst we put serious money into alternative methods of energy generation.
TheRegister is an excrement of a website
TheRegister is an excrement of a website. It is supposed to provide critical articles, but then it falls for the unscientific denier propaganda. What's next? Astrology?
I do not recommend any more, and I advise people to stay away from it.
Re: TheRegister is an excrement of a website
We fall for nothing. You have misread the article.
The unscientific is the whole alarmist schtick. You know, give us billions and keep giving us billions, make us important people. Oppose us and we'll villify you in every available forum, attempt to get you removed from your position, get you labelled a kook and other such terms.
And all this while producing outright fraudulent science, hiding the data so the results can't be checked, and deliberately evading FOI and related legislation.
This is embarassing. That article, which was editorial and signed by a 16 scientists (many of whom are NOT climate scientists!) was chosen over another open letter, signed by 225 scientists, and submitted by the UN National Academy of Sciences, which said pretty much the opposite.
Also, look out over the next few days for the responses from the climate science community to that letter published in the WSJ.
Great, so we can carry on pumpng shit into the atmosphere. Breathe easy everyone.
Sceptics must be getting desperate
Why did they only manage to get ONE practicing climate scientist to sign? Surely Lindzen wasn't the only one they asked? What about Roy Spencer? Judith Curry? Hendrik Svensmark? Epic FAIL. Sure they can appeal to Burt Rutan's expertise in climate change, the same way they can seek the Pope's expertise on cable tv installing- it's as relevant.
This will die quickly because the letter is so unconvincing. The points it raises are demonstrably fallacious- no new, substantive arguments, just the same old stuff. This letter was crafted for tabloid-readers and Fox-viewers and a passing mention in the media, rather than to persuade a presidential candidate.
Doubtful and exhausted
I'm wondering if Rutan just want's to make sure he doesn't need to apply for carbon credits for his rocket exhaust. His signing of the letter doesn't make me doubt anything but his own motives.
A long time ago when i studied GCSE Statistics the first lesson that we learnt was that statistics mean whatever you want them to mean.
This still rings true, both arguements for and against global warming can be proven correct with statistics, the major differences between proving it correct or incorrect would be the size and scale of the statistical samples used.
And anybody dealing with statistics that wishes to prove or disprove a theory with them will use the data sets that best fit their preferred outcome.
Logic Experiment for Everyone
Here's a little exercise that everyone can do.
Draw a large 2x2 grid on a sheet of paper. Label the the columns "No GW" and "Yes GW". Label the two rows "No Effort" and "Max Effort". Now fill en each of the four squares with both the expected outcome and the worst outcome.
The easy one is No GW and No Effort. Global warming is not a problem and we put no effort into combating it. Business as usual.
Next is No GW and Max Effort. Se we spend a huge sum and there was no need. I bet we'll find that we not only improved the livability of this planet, but also will probably discover new technologies. This might just make the investments worthwhile.
Now consider Yes GW and Max Effort. If GW is a fact, then this is where we want to be. Will it be enough? Who knows. But as above, we'll at least improve things somewhat and maybe save us from disaster.
Finally, Yes GW and No Effort. Global Warming proving to be real and possibly deadly, and nothing done about it is the least desirable outcome. Frankly, the minimum "worst" would be a serious downgrading of the planet's livability, and likely large-scale famine. The maximum "worst" would be mass extinctions of plants and animals, and an enormous toll on the human population, including the tiny, but nonetheless real, possibility of human extinction.
So, for me, the two No Effort squares yield Neutral and Bad results, whereas the two Max Effort squares yield Expensive But Good and Absolutely Necessary results. So even if I did not have an opinion on whether Global Warming was a real and present danger or not, logic tells me the payoff is better if we treat it as such.
There are a lot more than four boxes.
If you go with your two columns, then the "Max. Effort" column also means we make the planet unlivable for anything by massive emissions of mercury, heavy metals and all kinds of really nasty chemicals involved in the majority of the "Low/Zero CO2" technologies that are being pushed.
All in the name of "Zero CO2".
There's also more than two rows - at the very least the "Yes GW" divides into "GW, minimally anthropogenic" and "GW, mostly anthropogenic".
So in the case of "Max. Effort", "Yes GW, minimally anthro", we damaged our economy (and our environment), and still ended up with the bad effects of GW.
16 Scientists were really dumb enough to sign this?
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
This Climategate scandal lack of warming referred to lack of warming in recent tree ring derived temperature records which didn't match the warming in recent instrumented records. One or the other has to be wrong. If it is the tree rings it casts doubt on historical tree ring derived records required for all the 'unprecedented warming' claims, if it is the instruments it casts doubt on man's ability to measure global temperature at all and the claimed recent warming.
They chose to pretend the problem didn't exist and ignored recent tree ring derived records which was a scandal but not an indication they thought there had been no recent warming.
The Mice are Furious
If you think you are so clever and know everything, just reflect on that for a moment.
...those with the smarts are still making piles of cash out of this whole debacle.
Just an observation.
Meh. Essential Context.
Oreskes, Naiomi: "Merchant of Doubt", ISBN:978-1-59691-610-4
Physicists and Mechanical Engineers are Not Chemists and Climatologists
Sure they are both 'scientists,' but if you can claim to know anything about a field other than your own simply because you are a professional in another field then as a software engineer I can state without a shadow of a doubt... that POLAR BEARS CAN READ MINDS. Trust me. I am an expert at something. It doesn't matter what I'm an expert at now.
Physics is everything.
Right you warmists... here's one I prepared earlier...
Try and argue against that evidence...
It's long term cycles that add and subtract to give the overall global temperature... and we're about to go into a cooling phase...
If you look at the evidence... you'll find that there have been periods in the past few thousand years where it has been WARMER than it currently is... and it's always amusing when the warmists keep trotting out the hottest year for xxx years when you look back just before that xxx date, it was hotter and we were most certainly NOT chucking CO2 into the atmosphere at any perceptible rate at all...
What lost the warmists their argument for me was when they started labelling everybody that didn't believe them as "denialists"... a nasty label deliberately intended to bring to mind the holocaust denialists...
Starting with the premise of human activity...
The big challenge here is not to prove that the globe is warming or cooling. There are an amazing number of things that effect the global climate, and it is going to keep changing. I think most of the people on both sides of this issue agree that the climate is different from decade to decade.
The question is around man's contribution to, and possible control of, the changes. Sometimes we are ignorant of what we cause, and sometimes we are arrogant enough to think it all revolves around us. And somewhere in there is the truth.
Those who are asking that man’s production of CO2 be reduced start with the premise that man is the primary driver in the changes in global CO2 levels. There is the secondary premise that CO2 levels are the primary driver of global temperature change. Given all the variables in the second, I have so far focused on the first.
If man is the primary driver of global CO2 levels, then there should be a reasonable correlation between the changes in man’s production of CO2 (from fossil fuels) and the annual change in the global CO2 levels. Given such a correlation, it seems clear that to then reduce the levels of human CO2 production could slow, or even reverse, the increases in global levels.
Unfortunately, the current data does not show a good correlation between the annual changes in CO2 levels and the annual rate of fossil fuel consumption. The global levels, measured in Antarctica for 20 years, do show an always increasing trend. However, the rate of increase each year varies wildly. You can find the data here:
And a summary of global carbon output here:
You can build a statistical analysis to look for the correlation between the rate of annual increase in global CO2 (I use the December numbers, but the annual averages work as well) and the rate of annual increase in human CO2 production. My calculations on the data show no meaningful correlation at all, which makes it difficult to believe that they are causally related. Here is a small sample, during times of fluctuation in human activity:
Year Human CO2 Atmosphere CO2
1999-2000 up 2.46% up 0.24%
2000-2001 up 2.40% up 0.64%
2001-2002 up 0.93% up 0.56%
2002-2003 up 5.52% up 0.42%
2003-2004 up 4.95% up 0.62%
If the human production of CO2 is driving the global CO2 levels, then I am sure there is a model that explains why they are not changing in ways that are more closely related.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the absolute human CO2 emission, not the increase in CO2 emission. Even if humans hold emissions constant CO2 level would still rise. It's like filling up a bath, even though the tap is on a constant rate the water level in the bath will still rise. The absolute rate of human emission determines the rate of CO2 rise.
"The global levels, measured in Antarctica for 20 years, do show an always increasing trend. However, the rate of increase each year varies wildly"
The reason is that there's natural noise in the data from year to year. To get the signal you need to smooth it.
It's not rocket science
Politician to Scientist "the weather seems to be changing and extreme events are becoming more frequent. should we be worried?"
Scientist thinks.. mmm well looking at core samples I could tell him that the next ice-age os well overdue and the likelihood is that there will be a fir degree of instability before that "kicks off" in about 500yrs.
Scientist to Politician "well your are right to be worried however I will need funding to look at all the implications..
Scientist thinks... mmm I could spin this out for years.
I can't help but wonder what expert-at-everything Newt Gingrich's opinion is on global warming. Should we all retreat to the moon? Using a Rutan designed Virgin Galactic shuttle?
Now where did I leave my spacesuite...
Erm, what about the maunder minimum?
Remember the recent reports about the "Maunder Minimum" (400 year cyclical minimum of solar activity). Lets hope any man-made inflence global warming might have reduces the coming mini-ice age!
Whose Science is the Stronger - part 1
I find it exceptionally amusing when we get into arguments between pro and anti Anthropogenic Climate Change camps when one of the strawman arguments used is that someone isn't a climate scientist. A lot of current climate science is built upon other sciences. Also, many of the mistakes and problems in climate science have resulted from errors in the application of other sciences. One of the biggest examples of this was the hockey-stick graph. Because the climate scientists working on the analysis had failed to get their statistics properly evaluated by an expert statistician they made some fundamental mistakes. They incorrectly applied Principal Component Analysis and generated a method that if you feed in random auto-regressive data (red noise for example which is a completely random brownian motion) in 99% of the cases you get a hockey-stick shape.
There are plenty of other examples where other hard sciences could aid climate research, but by rejecting the analysis of people who aren't working directly in climate science you can end up with a biased position. For example, geologists have a lot of views about long term climate variability. Engineers can provide a lot of useful information about positive and negative feedback in models and the effects of that feedback. Most importantly though, physicists (and biochemists as well) produce more statistical models of complex systems than anyone. If anyone is in a position to peer review the statistical models that drive much of climate science, physicists should be top of the list.
Whose Science is the Stronger - part 2
Most importantly, at no point can you claim that something in science is irrefutable. To make that claim leaves real scientists in a position of incredulity. The weight of opinion in climate science at the moment is strongly in favour of the hypothesis that the Earth is warming, and less strongly in favour of the hypothesis that this is either entirely, or in large part, a result of human activity. If we look back in history, science is littered with positions that current science is largely in support of which then change: Newtonian mechanics being superceded by relativistic mechanics; the development of quantum mechanics. Also, in mature sciences there are dissenting papers being published all the time. Sometimes these dissenting papers can lead to a change in the status quo, more often though they are wrong. But allowing the dissenting papers is crucial to pushing science on. The recent potential discovery of faster than light neutrinos is a great example. I am almost certain that this experiment will not survive scrutiny. But if I'm wrong, science could fundamentally change.
Regarding Burt Rutan, while not a climate scientist, if you know him personally or those who he's contracted by and works with, the Proteus aircraft was a good platform for conducting high altitude research with specialized payloads, and Burt tends to be rather surrounded by scientists and engineers who work with an array of sensor technologies and platforms quite beyond the reach of civilians and academics. As we saw recently, he is anything but 'retired' -and more free to innovate and be Burt Rutan. His voice in this carries a great deal of credibility.
Harrison Schmitt, relevance of climate scientists
First, minor clarification. Harrison Schmitt is not just a former astronaut and senator, he has a PhD in geology and is well versed in planetary geology. Such disciplines are as important for understanding climate change as climatology. Why? Two main reasons. In terms of scientific understanding, you need historical understanding of the earth to put present observations in context. In terms of trustworthiness, let me be blunt. I have nothing against climatology or climatologists. But as a profession, they are extremely vested in anthropogenic global warming. I can't blame them for not wanting to rock the rock the boat. People from other scientific fields have a better chance of approaching the issue more neutrally. Yes, some may have different incentives, e.g., if your work supports fossil fuel development. But here's where Schmitt is particularly interesting. A few years ago, at least, he was promoting an alternative engery source, fusion power using lunar helium-3. He could have used CO2 as a supporting argument, like the rest of the nuclear industry, but he did not, because in his scientific judment, it's not a very big concern. He's not some oil company shill.