Global warming is a contentious topic. Opinions on both sides can be loud and angry.
But in the past week, the loudness and anger climbed a few more notches. When a group of so-called "skeptics" expressed an opinion, a Huffington Post blog argued they were scared of science, saying, "the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at and scorned." A New York Times blog took a more measured tone, saying that the skeptics "appear to flunk climate economics." Earth Times described their opinion as "a call to play with fire."
And who was this pack of jackals who fear science and deserve such scorn? They were members of the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the World Federation of Sciences, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and distinguished universities around the world.
To understand what prompted the anger, it's best to look at the opinion that started it. On Jan. 28, the group of scientists published a signed editorial, titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," in The Wall Street Journal. The editorial expressed a strong opinion. It asserted that CO2 isn't ruining the Earth; it even contended that CO2 is a benefit. Moreover, the editorial was steadfast in its position that many high-level scientists don't believe in global warming, and are tired of the demonization of those who speak their opinions.
"The oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true," it said. "In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."
Right now, the Internet is buzzing with anger over the editorial. Many blogs have said that The Wall Street Journal turned down a comparable editorial written by scientists who believe in global warming. It's not known if this is true; calls to The Wall Street Journal by Design News were not returned.
But forget for a minute whether you do or don't believe in global warming. Global warming -- or "climate change," as it's now called -- is an unbelievably complex subject that's deeply understood by only a handful of people. In truth, most of us rely on conclusions from various studies, done by people we trust, to determine where we stand on the subject. But, good grief, if an opinion of distinguished scientists doesn't match our own, does it deserve scorn?
Published in 1938 by the Engineer G.S. Callendar. If he had the insight based on the scanty evidence and equipment available then, what must he have thought of all this squabbling now? He must be turning in his grave!
Abstract: "By fuel combustion man has added about 150,000 million tons of carbon dioxide to the air during the past half century. The author estimates from the best available data that approximately three quarters of this has remained in the atmosphere. The radiation absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide and water vapour are used to show the effect of carbon dioxide on "sky radiation." From this the increase in mean temperature, due to the artificial production of carbon dioxide, is estimated to be at the rate of 0.003°C. per year at the present time. The temperature observations at 200 meteorological stations are used to show that world temperatures have actually increased at an average rate of 0.005°C. per year during the past half century."
Citation:G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Volume 64, Issue 275, pages 223–240, April 1938, DOI: 10.1002/qj.49706427503.
This shows what professional scientists are up against. The more references to back up the evidence, the more hostile and political the response becomes.
Watashi prefers loose opinion where one view is a valid as another, in that way the 'debate' can remain balanced unencumbered by inconvenient and embarassing facts.
Accuse your opponent exactly what you are, this is a reoccuring tactic amongst 'sceptics' yes I never used the D word!
If any evidence was needed what drives 'sceptics' there is no need to look further than the terms 'Commie' 'Red' etc. Unfortunately most 'sceptics' are smart enough not to show their hand!
Unfortunately, the global Warming industry frequently has no science to present either, and it is made up on the spot. People talk about vested interests in the sceptics' lobby, but what about vested interests in pro GW academia, who gain the sponsorship of control freak governments as long as they skew everthing in favour of GW ?
If the GW lobby did not act as if they had something to hide, if they did not continuously maniulate date to their own ends, thinking people could think better of them.
If we didn't hear the repeated lie that "all scientists agree...."; unfortunately, this particular lie seems to be based on the premise that you have to believe in GW to be a scientist, and believing in GW makes you one. Their Nazi-like zeal works against them, and there are some pretty rubbish scientists put forward to make their case.
I am making no comment as to whether GW, man-made or otherwise- is happening. Subjectively, winters seem warmer nowadays, but memories can befuddle us. The data is far less definitive than many would have us believe.
Why does the GW lobby feel the need to act in the way it does ? Why does it so frequently hide evidence and present skewed and incomplete evidence ?
"Hello kettle, this is the pot. By the way, did you know you're black ?".
The sceptics have no science to present. They certainly don't put it into scientific or engineering magazines. This article proves that. Just another Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly appeal to the ignorant masses with high sounding titles to their name.
Rutan is good at designing radical oneoff aircraft - provided you don't want to go into production. His word against hundreds of people taking real measurements - no. And then there are all those other emeritus professors (who regularly pop up with all sorts of crazy theories)
Group think in the US appears to be based on a theory of American exceptionalism and that ideas from elsewhere are "socialism". American news doesn't show half of what goes on around the planet - you have to watch AL Jazeera and the other foreign news programs for that.
Fiddling while Rome burns -- as yet another train load of carbon rolls down the track to be combined with more than it's own weight in oxygen we'd like to breath to muck up the atmosphere.
Do you seriously believe that you can keep on chucking those billions of tons of carbon in to the environment with no effect?
Consider an analogy. Some Civil Engineers assess an old bridge and conclude that it has weakened and may be unsafe. We should reduce the loads we put onto and work towards building a new bridge. Then a group of not very bright people in your town start predicting how the bridge could collapse at any moment, the town will be isolated and we will all starve! From this should you conclude that the bridge is perfectly OK just because the town panic-merchants are in a flap? Or should you go ask the engineers?
If you want to form an opinion about AGW, surely the correct approach is to look into the science. Surely this sort of approach is what we do all through life isn't it? Judge the Message, not the Messenger?
Next, who is saying you are bad. Aren't you being just a little over-sensitive. Or reading something into this that isn't there. What is being said is simple. The bridge is weak, we need to take the load off it and then build a new one. No judgements of anyone there, just a description of a necessary couurse of action.
As to a few tenths of a percent change in Solar output. Solar intensity at the edge of the Earths atmosphere is around 1364 Watts/M^2. Allow for the fact that the Earth is a sphere but the frontal area it presents to the Sun is a circle and we have to divide by 4. So average solar intensity over the Entire Earth is 341 W/M^2. 1 tenth of one percent of this is 0.341 W/M^2. In contrast, each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces a radiative imbalance of 3.7 W/M^2, for the effects of CO2 alone. Over the course of a Sunspot cycle, the sun's output varies by 1 or 2 tenths of a percent So your 'few' tenths (depending on how you define few) will have less impact than the amount of CO2 we have added already
So you don't appreciate having your lifestyle questioned? As I've said, the global warming argument has nothing to do with global warming but with our perceived place in the universe.
It is obvious that the deniers, or "skeptics", argument is a backlash against those that would question the free market by claiming that our activity causes harm. This flows from the fact that we are fundamentally a Calvinist nation, in which the free market is the only valid paradigm because it allows god's will to operate, and no man has the authority to refute god's will. Of course, for those who aren't religious there exists Ayn Rand.
So, like I said, this is about not accepting certain truths accepted by the right and nothing to do with the science. At least you admit that. This also indicates that science is trumped by belief overall, whether religious or secular because it's about "me".
One of the first reasons that I was skeptical of the cause of the alleged warming is that the same folks who were screaming the loudest were the ones previously complaining about how much better our standard of living was than so much of the rest of the world. So when these same people all at once come up with some new assertion about how bad I am because my actions are going to destroy the world, I found it all rather suspect.
And once again I ask, so how much would the "few tenths of a percent" solar output increase change our ambient temperature? I would guess by several degrees.
Patrick J. Michaels is funded by fossil fuel interests as indicated in this email. Also, sourcewatch.com states that Patrick J. Michaels "is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic". And exxonsecrets.org indicate that he has been a member of a long list of right-wing organizations and that 40% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel industry.
sourcewatch.com indicates that S. Fred Singer was funded by the Unification Church, chemical, energy companies, asbestos industry, etc. exxonsecrets.org indicate that he has been a member of a long list of right-wing organizations.
Avery studied agricultural economics.
The researchers at realclimate.org have some interesting bits on these corporate shills too, like Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind. So, look them up!
Come on "skeptics", are corporate funded and right-wing group members all you have? Where are the true climate researchers? It really seems that it's the implications of the science that is the problem and not the science simply because I don't see any scientists from the research front in your "proof" for skepticism.
I see basically four options created by the cross referencing of two variables.
(GCCS =Global Climate Change Skeptics)
(GCCB =Global Climate Change Believers)
Variable 1) Action or Inaction
Choice A) The World enters into serious action to address global warming
Choice B) The world has no or little serious action to address global warming
Variable 2)
Choice C) The GCCS crowd is correct and GCC is either a minor thing (or possibly even a somewhat "good thing" as many in the GCCS claim)
Choice D) The GCCB crowd is correct and the most dire predictions of the GCCB community are true and climate change will result (quite possibly in our lifetimes) in a much more hostile and un-inhabitable planet
So you have this grid
A (Action) or B (Inaction)
C (GCCS = True) AC =? BC = ?
D (GCCB = True) AD =? BD = ?
Let's examine each choice for it's cost benefit analysis
AC= Serious action taken but he skeptics are right
The cost is great expense taken for many projects that are needless and wasteful. The result is a needless economic burden now and a slowing economy for all. In essence the world suffers an economic depression and pointless resourse re-allocation for no other reason than the intellectual vanity of some nosy tree hugger scientists that have it all wrong)
Nevertheless, at least it turns out that we will leave a bunch of of our infinitely plentiful hydrocarbon resources safely in the ground where we can get back to using them later on once we all finally get past this GCC silliness.
BC= No or little action is taken and the skeptics are right we should not have taken any action
The cost is zero and thus the world gets to keep right on buzzing along growing and consuming and polluting like there is no tomorrow. The people that deny GCC the most are the ones that benefit the most becasue they reap great rewards of both financial and material benefit. The world has another economic boom Wooo! Hooo!
The down side to the boom is that we end up draining the last remaining easy oil and natural gas resources
AD = Well it turns out the worst GCC predictions were as bad or nearly as bad as we feared but the world has responded in time to the great crisis with great action equal to the task. Carbon emissions are slowed to a trickle, and alternative technologies are implemented the world suffers great economic strain and hardship but at least a sizable portion of society will survive in a new harsher somewhat less habitable planet. The world changes but at least our children and grand children will have a fair chance of undoing the damage that has been done.
Since we stopped emitting CO2 for fuel we have instead learned to find other better non fuel applications for our planets last remaining sources of cheap hydrocarbons and now we know that it is important to recycle those resource and instead of burning them we make a better world where plastic is plentiful and relatively cheap.
BD = Well it turns out the worst GCC predictions were as bad or nearly as bad as we feared but the GCCS crowd was just too powerful it was able to control the message long enough and delay any practical action so long that we will all be left to suffer the worst of the ravages that GCC will throw at us such as rising oceans constant severe storms in come place constant droughts fires and unbearable heat in other places. Some places rivers and lakes completly dry up and in others flooding is so severe it erases whole landscapes. Overall the severe heat and excessive humidity lower crop yields in one place and the floods and high winds destroy them in other places. Great Diaspora come about.
But to make things even worse, we don't have much hydrocarbons left even nfor emergency applications or for medicines to or plastics and all the other thinhgs we will need to deal with our harsh new world.
Now if you are a betting sort where inaction can either result in either a nightmare world we don't want to live in or another few years of boom town celebration (and remember you are betting not just your life but that of the whole of the planet.
Which of these choices seem the smarter?
I would rather risk having a needless depression than I am willing to play a game that has a 25% chance of ending the world as we know it.
This is not a Zero Sum Game.
Here in the real world actions (and inactions) have real world consequences.
Tesla Motors plans to roll out a “compelling, affordable electric car” that will sell for about half the price of its high-profile Model S by the end of 2016, company chairman Elon Musk said last week.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
40 
