The 16 scientists who signed the Wall Street Journal editorial are a minority, but they're not outliers. They're not "flat earthers." They're not "scared of science." They are, quite simply, distinguished scientists with a dissenting opinion.
And their opinion deserves our respect.
Following are the scientists and engineers who signed the WSJ editorial.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder 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 University
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meterology
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Tech University
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former US 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
Great, thought provoking post, Chuck. I am no where near schooled or well-enough read to profess any kind of substanitive opinion on the reality (or not) of global warming. I am human enough to see that there are gigantic weather pattern changes and an alarming uptick in natural disasters--all enough to warrant an on-going and thorough examination of the connection between these events and the possibility of global warning.
I recently spoke with some experts on a story for a different topic and the point was made that industry is so focused on the impact of carbon to the exclusion of other, very real and compelling environmental concerns, including design for disassembly. Recyclability and waste, they argued, might be a bigger environmental factor than carbon.
It is possible that man made items are causing global warming / climate change which is changing the world in which we live. It is also possible that it is not. As an ME, I am not really not in a learned enough position to know the answer. However, it is repulsive that one group of scientists would so agressively demonize a different group of scientists for offering a dissenting opinion. Hopefully, both sides can come to some sort of a middle ground, but I am not too optimistic.
I teach my students in Engineering Ethics that global warming should be thought of in terms of RISK. Codes of ethics for engineers direct engineers to keep risks to the public within acceptable limits. There are no certainties with global warming, but given the evidence that specialists in climate have amassed, it seems clear that the probability that our activities are heating the planet is quite high, certainly greater than 0.5. Further, given the evidence we have so far, the probability is high (again greater than 0.5) that an increase in the average global temperature of the lower atmosphere (and oceans and lakes) of even 2 or 3 degrees C compared to pre-industrial times will cause a great amount of harm overall. The risk (probability of harm multiplied by the magnitude of harm), then, posed by global warming is quite high even if nothing is certain. It is prudent and morally responsible to do something serious to reduce these risks. It is imprudent and morally irresonsible to do nothing.
If we do little or nothing to control the causes of global warming because it isn't certain that we are causing global warming or certain that it will cause a lot more harm than good, isn't it a little like a drunk who says it's OK for him to drive because it's not certain that he will get into an accident?
Instead of engaging in ad hominem arguments to demonize scientists who believe global warming is a serious problem ("global warming alarmists"?) or to demonize those who do not, we should focus on the evidence and the risks.
The key thing to understand here is that even this group of scientists and engineers who signed the editorial are not denying that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, they are simply saying that those who are directing the debate are overstating its significance. They, in fact, are tacitly agreeing that it IS occurring, just not as rapidly as many claim. And the conclusion they draw from that is that we may not need to panic over it, even though it is real and will cause some changes in the world around us.
@eb1225: I like your approach to mapping out the engineering problem as a means of mitigating risk. I agree with your assessment of it being a moral and prudent responsibility to factor it into design just as you would any other requirement or criteria. To ignore completely, would be dangerous disregard.
Tim's point about demonization is one reason I've always been, quite frankly, scared to engage on global warming and to some extent on the biz regulation issues vis-a-vis our U.S. manufacturing debate earlier this week. These are highly charged subjects where political beliefs tend to make data-driven, objective discussions difficult. I am actually heartened by the mostly sober comments here and on the manufacturing thread (here). Maybe this means engineers, being engineers, can have more mature debates and discussions than some other groups.
I share your feeling about this, Tim. I was educated as an ME, too, and don't feel I'm in a position to know the answers to the mysteries of global warming. If I were forced to bet on it in Las Vegas, I'd probably go with the majority, which means I would bet that global warming is a problem. But by no means do I feel this is a closed discussion. And I'm offended by the demonization of those who don't agree with the majority. Those of us who haven't cemented a belief on one side or the other shouldn't be lumped in labeled categories such as "deniers" or "flat earthers." I dare say that many of the engineers who are still forming opinions on this subject have more scientific background than the people who are applying these labels. As I mentioned in the blog, I believe in the laws and principles of science that were taught to all engineers in school. AGW doesn't fall in that category.
@Beth: That's a really good point. Environmental sustainability is a complex subject. Reducing it to carbon footprint can be extremely misleading. That kind of thinking allows you to justify all kinds of wasteful and inefficient practices provided that you plant some trees somewhere.
I think the evidence for global warming is compelling, and as evo1 points out, so do the scientists who signed the editorial. Their argument is that the extent of global warming is less than some models have predicted, and the consequences may not be as dire.
(Their argument is also that those who disagree with them are like Stalinists and that they are motivated by greed and selfishness, so clearly there's more than enough demonization on both sides).
But eliminating waste and increasing efficiency are things which I think everyone can agree about. These things make sense economically, not just environmentally. And conservation of natural resources for future generations is something which has wide support across the political spectrum. Angry rhetoric sometimes distracts us from just how much common ground there really is.
I really do like your level-headed approaches to this sometimes overly reactive debate. It doesn't sound like the debate is about whether there is global warming, so much as, the root causes, rates, and impact. Naturally all these models go out the window if we have one major volcano or large asteroid hit dumping mega-doses of warming CO2 and sulfur, follwed by mega-doses of shadowing/cooling dust globally throwing us into a period of perpetual winter.
Thinking in risk probablility terms it seems prudent and responsible for us to minimize our environmental impact. This puts CO2 generation, recycling, waste minimizing, raw material conservation, and energy conservation (among others) all under consideration. We should not take radical steps to minimize one, at the expense of ignoring resultant abuse of another cause for concern. Naturally, balance is much harder to promote than a radical single pronged campaign.
Concurrently, it never hurts to plant some grass and some trees (as long as we don't dry-up our western aquafers to do it). Green plants work well as God engineered them. These will generate CO2 and O2 in balance, scrub some pollutants, and moderate temperatures. They warm-up the winters and cool the heat in the summer. It's always interesting to experience this first-hand during a motorcycle ride in the country. (e.g. - On a hot day, it is almost always more comfortable, perhaps 5-15 degrees cooler, to ride under shady trees than around concrete buildings. During a cool, clear evening, it is 5-15 degrees warmer when you pass under the canopy of trees than on the open road.) Perhaps that is food for thought.
Your article is really quite surprising, Chuck. For years we've listened to the claim that 95 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and that it is man-made. This certainly changes the perception that the science is done on this subject.
California’s plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isn’t the first such undertaking and certainly won’t be the last. But as the Golden State ratchets up for its next big step toward zero-emission vehicle status in 2018, it might be wise to consider a bit of history.
By now, most followers of the electric car market know that another Tesla Model S caught fire in early February. The blaze happened in a homeowner’s garage in Toronto. After parking the car, the owner left his garage. Moments later, the smoke detector blared, the fire department was called, and the car was ruined. To date, no one knows why.