"If you look at the signatories of the op-ed, you won't find people more qualified than that," William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University and a signatory, told Design News. "These people are really heavyweights of the scientific world." (See a list of the scientists below.)
It's worth noting that the 16 scientists who signed the editorial aren't alone. Happer told Design News that after the editorial appeared, he received calls from colleagues who wanted to know why they weren't given a chance to sign.
The signatories aren't making a case for coal, oil, nuclear, wind, or solar power. They don't mention whether we should buy electric cars or gas guzzlers. By most measures, their opinion seems apolitical. They just believe that CO2 isn't a problem.
"The demonization of carbon has really distorted everything we do," Happer told us. "If we could back off and say, 'CO2 is probably good,' it would change the way we do things. We'd like to get back to an honest economic discussion not based on carbon footprints or assumptions about 'evil CO2.' "
Whether we agree or disagree with that assessment, it has the potential to affect everything that engineers do. Every day, engineers make decisions about the design of cars, trucks, furnaces, refrigerators, washers, dryers, and all kinds of industrial products. And the emission of CO2 plays into all those decisions. So a solid understanding of global warming science is critical.
In the wild world of the Internet, many bloggers argue that the science is settled. It's "incontrovertible," they say. But is it? Most scientists would acknowledge that the First Law of Thermodynamics is incontrovertible. So is the Second Law, Ohm's Law, Newton's laws, Bernoulli's equation, and a lot of other bedrock scientific principles. But does anthropogenic global warming really belong in the same breath as those?
Citing Evo1: "but at higher levels (CO2)it is in fact extremely toxic and does lead to several deaths every year, particularly in children..." with due respect, that kind of affirmation is plainly wrong. CO2 is NOT toxic per se, it is the displacement of O2 by excess CO2 that can produce Hipoxia in a closed, overcrowded room. but CO2 is NOT a poison as CO (Carbon Monoxide) that is the one that is poisonous because it causes hemoglobin to become unable to carry Oxygen.
Your assumption that "CO2 does lead to several deaths every year, particularly in children..." is completely false as there is absolutely no evidence of children deaths caused specifically by CO2 inhalation in ventilated spaces.
You would be extremely surprised to know that CO2 has even been purposefully used in the manufacture of Carbogen, a mixture of Oxygen AND CO2, because the CO2 causes the body to try to battle suffocation and stimulates the recovery when the individual has suffered poisoning by Carbon Monoxide. It is interesting that Carbogen mixtures for asphyxia treatment include a full 5% of CO" and 95% Oxygen, when the normal atmospheric content of CO2 is well under 400 parts per million, volume... go figure! Only in densely packed, closed, underventilated spaces, it can become suffocating, but not poisonous. (ten times the normal atmospheric concentration is commonly reached).
Those are the kind of false claims that cloud polemic subject discussion and prevent a clear understanding of the true phenomena (if it happens).
William K, all of those issues are well understood and your assertions are hilariously wrong. Where do you get that we've reached equilibrium? 0.01%?? More CO2 is needed???
Solar output is very well known and it has slightly decreased, not increased. The effect of adding 50% more CO2 (excess), which we've done since the start of the industrial age through the burning of fossil fuels (and also deforestation), is to upset the energy equilibrium by holding more solar radiation energy in the atmosphere, not the opposite.
Search for solar output and global warming and you'll find that yes, researchers have measured the sun's output and have taken that into account. There is alot out there such as this from NASA.
I attacked your grammar after I attacked your idiotic question (which is not the same thing as calling you an idiot--I am not doing that, so please don't get confused). All of your grade school teachers should have attacked any such misuse. The word "at" is redundant. Would you say "Where are my keys at"? Not a federal offense, of course, but it sounds funny and doesn't help your case to argue bad science and then write like a fourth-grader.
Choosing to not cite any examples of wrong conclusions drawn from "obvious patterns" is poor science! Stick to the subject and post where global warming science is wrong, thus supporting your concern for poor discussion on the part of the anti-denier side.
So, your job is to peruse the published literature to show that there are indeed two sides to this debate. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that the deniers don't like are the implications that anthropogenic global wamring poses, that our behavior can produce negative consequences that therefore refutes both religious theologies and economic ideologies that claim that a) the universe was crated expressly for our use and therefore cannot fail, per god's plan, (b) the market solves all problems, or (c) we are too insignificant to affect an entire planet.
Their problem is not with the science per se, but with the implications of that science.
Sorry, but any polarization that you perceive is due to the deniers simply not accepting data. There aren't two sides with regards to global warming as the deniers who have nothing to back their denial up with don't count.
The only example of bad research is seen when a person either performs research that contradicts another's or writes to the publication to present his or her refutation to published research.
Aside from the large roar of emotional screaming, I have been wondering about the possiboe change that might have occured in the amount of heat being delivered by the sun. Considering that most of the heat energy on this planet does come from the sun, it is obvious that the amount is quite large. Now consider that the planet is also losing a large amount of heat energy, and that over the past thousand or so years has reached some sort of equilibrium point. Now, if the energy input were to increase by 0.01%, how far would that equilibrium point shift, and how long would that shift take? Based on my understanding of process themal kinetics, my guess is that it would take a while, and based on my understanding of instrumentation, it is not likely that any measurements accurate enough to allow a determination that the energy input has changed that small amount could have been made long ago enough to allow any valid conclusions. But now my question is about how anybody is going to do anything about any changes in the solar energy impacting the earth. One method might be to increase the amount of carbon dioxide, which may tend to reflect the energy back into space.
My other thought is to repeat that old axium, "Correlation DOES NOT equal causation". Many engineers understand this, while many in the media don't even understand what it may mean.
My position is that we, as professionals of the engineering branchs, have the ethical obligation to use our knowledge and skills to adopt a responsible position...
You have failed your principles. Neither you nor your hero Mr. Rutan are climate scientists. You are both disqualified from having authority to challenge real climate scientists who have analyzed and dismissed all your weak challenges. You may have an opinion, but it is based in ignorance and probably other conflicts of interest as well, as you probably don't want anyone telling you what to do with your unearned privilege of having a fossil fuel-heavy lifestyle. Typical addict denial, probably heavily influenced by hatred and fear of "big government intrusions."
--What temperature is the earth supposed to be at?
--P.S. Is your grammar always as bad as your scientific observations?
Charles, I see you've chosen to attack my grammar. I suppose that you're refering to above quote as an example. While English is my first language, I'm not an English teacher. So please enlighten me as to what my error is. I'd be glad to learn.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
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 ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
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
12 
