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?
It is up to the proponents of the man-made global warming supposition to make their case. They have not. Jumping to politics and economic issues is evasive.
Although the fact that the earth has never been without change is not proof, there are too many other factors not even considered such as cloud cover formations and the extent of photosynthesis.
By the way, several hundred years back, Joseph Priestly was demonstrating the conversion of (what we now know as) CO2 to life sustaining Oxygen by growing plants.
I find the assertion that "the sun only plays a minor effect on the earths weather" to be an amazing statement. Plus the assertion that "a change of a few tenths of a percent would have little effect". Once again I am asking "where else does our heat come from?"
Besides that, I don't think that either Bush or Al Gore had anything to do with the aberrations in this most recent sun-spot cycle.
There are very elaborate mechanisms described for Ozone depletion, none which have been confirmed in the laboratory to my knowledge, but they were used to strike fear in the hearts of many and caused the cancellation of the development of the SST (although Britian and France were undetered). Now we are told that "the sun is not much of a factor". So an obvious corellary question to ask if the Sun is such a small contributor, why were the Ozone holes of such import (other than reduction to the ultraviolet protection). But in the science of ozone depletion, the methane of bovine flatus is not a bad player. When Methane breaks down in the atmosphere, it forms CO2, Water Vapor and Ozone. So the CO2 is bad because it is a "greenhouse" gas, but the Ozone is good because it replenishes what the CCF have supposedly destroyed. And now we are told that Water Vapor is "bad" because it, too, is a "greenhouse" gas. So the AGW folks have another one to hit us with and what will Nebraska do with the carcasses of all the cows killed to prevent global warming. Indeed, the Nitrogen compounds released from the rotting flesh may actually deplete the rest of the Ozone. There has been some recent South American studies of the Antarctic Ozone hole that cast doubts on true depletion by CCFs.
But there is another model inadequacy issue to consider. Since the last Ice Age, how much ice melted? The ice is supposed to have been a mile thick. If indeed so much ice has been melting, what effect on Global temperature does the ever reducing ice have? The latent heat of fusion is 80 calories, if memory serves me right and so every molecule of ice melted keeps 80 molecules of water from increasing their temperature by one degree. This certainly has had an affect on global temperature up to some point in history, and when did that affect actually end (if it did).
The melting of the total ice on the earth reminds me of the mortgage amortization curve. You make payments for many, many years seeing only slight decreases in the principle, then you get out to the last couple of years and bang! you suddenly pay it off fast. If the melting of polar ice has had a slowing affect on the global temperature rise, the effect will be dimenishing as the total amount of ice is reduced through melting. So we may have more than CO2 to worry about.
Again, its the models and what they consider and their fidelity to the natural phenomenon. Present models exclude cloud effects. They are CO2 centric because CO2 is the pre-ordained enemy. The models are not validated and calibrated, therefore they are speculation. I've done modeling and I'm underwhelmed with their trustworthiness.
This article was posted last Friday. Judging by the comments posted on Friday and over the weekend, it looked like we just might be able to have an intelligent and civil discussion about this -- just like we did about another controversial topic last week.
Alex Wolfe even made a comment suggesting that maybe because engineers are rational, data-driven people, we are more capable of having civil discussions than other people.
After seeing the comments posted today, I am starting to seriously doubt this. Sorry, Alex!
Post proof that the climatologists are corrupted by money.
I have to thank you for illustrating what the real issue is with regards to what drives the "skeptics", and that's the implication of accepting that global warming is real, which refutes free market ideology. This is indicated by your referring to those who accept that human activity is driving global warming, whether actually causing it or exacerbating a natural cycle, as "red".
There are two separate issues here: a) global warming and (b) policies to ameliorate its consequences. The "skeptics" attack global warming science more from the econimc implications than the science itself.
Good question. The actual quote is""the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at and scorned." So it's about laughing at and scorning those that deny scientific facts. The answer's in the details. To not agree with an interpretation of data is valid and part of the process. Also, to see fault with gathering data is part of the process. So, it's how the denial is presented, which is what happens all the time in scientific journals.
The problem is that most "skeptics" aren't part of that debate and appear more concerned about protecting their favored ideology with regards to the implications on the economy than acknowledging that global warming is indeed occurring and is driven by human activity.
So, if deniers, or "skeptics", are not going to participate in the scientific process then they should be scorned. Otherwise, we must consider creationism as valid as evolution. The scientific process must have standards.
I don't usually call out trolls, but what the heck -
Your many posts (this must be your day job), with a multitude of links (propaganda at the ready), use of derogatory terms for those you disagree with, and your 'new' status to the site shows that you are most likely a professional activist who happened to find this blog via web search. You attack the subject of the article based on who picked the article up and the only evidence to refute his claims comes from your links to AGW propaganda sites.
Really - follow the money.Traditional energy companies have no need to hype the debate. They will make money just as they have always done.The AGW crowd is the insurgent group seeking to destroy their industry without a shred of evidence that there is an issue that can be addressed.
AGW supporters come in two varieties: Global socialists (commies) that want power and crony capitalists that would sell their mother to make a buck.As an old "cold warrior" I am well aware of the environmental movement's founding in the 60's after pro communist movements were forced underground.Not coincidentally, the goals of the two movements are basically the same: Destroy (over-regulate) the industries of developed nations to gain economic control over them, effectively eliminating their ability to resist external forces.As they used to say: GREEN is the new RED.
Sorry to the other regular posters on Design News for this rant. I just couldn't sit by while some of the respected, regular contributors were maligned.
At first I figured a response to people who wanted references would simply stoke the fire, but this afternoon I reconsidered. I recommend three well-written books:
1. Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, by Patrick J. Michaels.
2. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.
3. Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, revised 2nd ed., by S. Fred Singer.
Each book includes many references to refereed professional journals. I have read these three books and some of the references, which make scientific sense. I remain skeptical about mankind's effects on any global temperature increases and attribute them to natural and cyclic causes. Of course, other papers and books take different sides in this argument. As far as science goes, the conclusion remains unproven.
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 
