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
In this paper the author concludes "...that the contribution to climate change due to the change in galactic cosmic ray intensity is quite significant and needs to be factored into the prediction of global warming and its effect on sea level raise and weather prediction."
So, this is not a "skeptic" example, but an example of the scientific process.
I looked at The Earth is Cooling, and that's all I needed to see. There's no support for their contention nor any reference to the source of the graph. So I'll give their stuff another look.
As for your claim about "skeptics", you had better assemble what you consider the relevant papers that support your claim. I see that in the "sun" section, there's a bunch of papers that may not say what you think they do. I've read many papers that take issue with certain points of others that really don't debate "global warming" per se.
As for global warming science, it's not my point of view, it's the researchers'.
It's obvious you didn't take the time to look over any of the information on the website -even if you did look it over you would still find a way to dismiss it, I'm sure. There are a large number of journal published papers which are referenced at the site. I'm sure the work YOU reference is the only valid work in the field, however.
It's people like you with a snooty attitude that give your cause a bad name - but you're too arrogant to realize it. Do yourself a favor and present your point of view and then respond to others without your mega-ego doing it's best to belittle what they say. You'll gain a lot more converts this way.......
Believe it or not I share your view that it's impossible to get people to change their ways. I think that absolute catastrophe will occur that will force change.
For example, the only reason that the earth can currently support so many people is because so many do with so little. Although quite oversimplified, as the U.S. is roughly 5% of the global population and uses roughly 25% of its energy resources, we'd need more than one earth to support all at the standard of living that we enjoy and that's impossible. Or, we would have to chose to reduce our use by 4/5s to allow all to share equally. Again, it aint going to happen.
Also, the only reason that we have been able to meet the world's demand is due to cheap fossil fuels. If you look at the Total Energy Flow graph, you'll see that in order to meet an ever-growing demand for food and the economy in general, we'd have to replace the fossil fuels with "green" sources (I include nuclear power in "green") before a) peak energy source rears its ugly head at any great scale and (b) global warming drives the current equilibirum to a point at which moderation is impossible.
So, while I argue that the global warming science is solid I do not argue that we will make the required changes in time. China cann't feed itself and grow its economy and is more concerned with stabilizing its internal politics than solving global warming. Add to that the "skeptic" argument that if China won't act then there's no point in us doing it unilaterally, and you have a recipe for economic collapse when peak energy source (oil or coal) occurs.
So, until we chose to reverse our population growth AND reduce our energy consumption, the global warming discussion is moot.
Well I was just looking for a solution that wuld be possible to implement. As I mentioned before and it is not an original thought, it will be nigh on impossible to get enough people on the planet to concentrate on reducing CO2 emissions. Tell me how you will accomplish that? Convincing enough people that it is the right thing to do is a very big problem. You just cannot dictate that everyone implement CO2 reduction strategies without a lot more cooperation and honesty in the debates and research.
I had another thought and have yet to research it but has anyone heard of an experiemtn to show the effects of GH in a lab simulation?
I was thinking about crreating a test facility, say a large room with a sun source, land and water and the ability to radiate energy to space, essentially 4K I think. then fill the room or simulation chamber with air, dry nitrogen, H2O, CO2 and so on and vary the conditions to show exactly how much the CO2 concentation affects the thermal characteristics. One might even adjust the pressure and thereby the density of the GH gas so as to obtain addional measurements.
From this crude physical model surely some useful data could be obtained that would show how the CO2 concentration affects the temperatures.
Obviously I cannot afford to do such a simulation but perhaps two competing groups could try it out or soemthing similar and try to show with real data that the CO2 effect is real.
Keep in mind we are not debating whether or not the earth's climate is changing. We really want to know if the CO2 being released by antrhopogenic sources is in fact causing an increase in measured temps worldwide. If we can show it is through some simple experiments it would help the cause greatly, if the results don't support the conclusion of AGW then we should focus our dollarson other ways to mitigate climate change.
Good point, Jeffbiss. Through most of my adult life, I have assumed we could bring technology solutions to environmental problems (bacteria that eats spilled oil). But you're right, that attitude simply enables us to continue bad behavior.
Your suggestion that we use an engineered "solution" to the global warming problem is like a smoker waiting for a pill that allows him to continue smoking. This makes absolutely no sense.
Global warming is but one of a number of problems caused by human activity and human overpopulation. The only valid solutions lie with stopping our irresponsible bad behavior. Considering anything else is delusional.
Volkswagen AG is developing a lithium-air battery that could triple the range of its electric cars, but industry experts believe it could be a long time before that chemistry is ready for production vehicles.
Californiaís plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isnít the first such undertaking and certainly wonít 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.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.