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
Irishmuse, thanks for such an imfomed and rational evaluation, and thanks for repeating my thoughts so very well.
Emotional reations based on uneducated evaluation of uncertain data is often prone to not winding up being the best choice.
And I would add to your statements the fact that for many years prior, some of the loudest voices claiming that something must be done were the same folks screaming about how guilty we were for having a standard of living so much better than some other parts of the world. So one other thing is to consider carefully the source of all this noise and panic.
Yes, that is a record for us, GTOlover. It's especially interesting when you consider that the story was written 18 months ago today, and comments are still appearing. When it comes to global warming, there's no shortage of emotion.
The reason being is that AGW is inevitable REALLY? PROVE IT
CO2 up 43% already AGAIN, PROVE IT (and pay attention to data collection methods, accuaracy, and calibation)
probably 100% within 50 years BASED ON WHAT?
and when AGW finally does kick in, SO IT HAS NOT "KICKED IN"?
Why should the position of so many be 'we must be absolutely sure that a train is coming and it will run over and kill our kids' before we say 'hey kids, don't play on the train line'? ANOTHER EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT EQUIVALENT TO "WHY ARE YOU KILLING MY KIDS!"
NOTE THAT I NEVER SAY THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE, OR THERE IS NO IMPACT FORM CO2. BUT I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF REDUCING WORLDWIDE GDP BY SIPHONING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO CO2 REDUCTION BASED ON EMOTION.
THE DATA FOR YOUR "up 43% already" IS POOR AND THE MANIPULATION ARBITRARY, and "probably 100% within 50 years" IS BASICALLY NOTHING MORE THAN A TALKING POINT, FOLLOWED BY PURE EMOTION.
I hear nothing but emotion here. Classic lines of derision without substance. For example "shit in thier own nest". Let's try some logic for a moment.
First, the raw data.
Folks the data we have is extremely poor, insufficient in quality to draw such conclusions from.
The best data we have is satellite data for a relatively short period. This data is primarily augmented by ground based measurements that for a variety of reasons may be accurate for location, but invalid over time. The algorithms used to "correct" them over time have no solid basis and we have no statistically valid way of establishing the accuracy of the "correction". So our best data, is not particularly good over time, and covers a short period of time.
Most of the balance of our data, and all of the longer term data is implied or derived from localized measurments. Examples are tree rings, ice cores that provide some useful ideas of what may have been happening, are nearly impossible to assign the kind of accuracy we need in short or long term views.
All of the data above has been used with various algorithms that are generally held as privately as possible by the groups doing research. Some of the software embodiments of these algoriths that came out demonstrated that they produced the same results without regard to the data entered. In short, these algorithms have no sound scientific or statistical basis.
So, let's review the data; we have poor data, collected in a variety of methods lacking any reliable method of mutual calibration, manipulated by algorithms with no validation.
Now let's discuss the variables in the various climate models.
We have a wide variety of actors that utilize CO2 in a wide variety of ways. Nearly all of these actors operate in non-linear fashions, and most of them we have done no substative research into. So, how much CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere by a particular actor in the ocean at a particular concentration is unknown. The there are a large number of these actors. We believe that the oceans are be primary location that CO2 is captured, so this is significant.
So how is all this missing data dealt with in the climate models? Algorithms have been inserted for them in mass, based on getting the "correct" result. So, the climate models predict what is expected because they are "corrected" until they do! Must be a different kind of science than what the rest of us use!
So here is the bottom line.
Bring data, RAW DATA not "corrected" ie. massaged data.
Discuss openly methods used to calibrate and the experimental basis for doing so.
Bring the experimental basis for the relationships for actors involved in CO2 capture and the experimental basis for inclusion/exclusion of actors from the model.
Lastly, any model that does not accurately predict past climate behaviour accurately is not worthy of discussion as a predictor.
Without ALL of these, we are not even ready to have a discussion of the science sufficient to draw conclusions. Without ALL of these, we do not even know what we know.
Currently, our raw data is poor, our use of the data arbritrary, our models faked, and our arguments emotional. In short, you have every right to believe in man-made climate change, but that belief is NOT scientific, as you have insufficient science. It is a belief based on faith, in short it is a religious belief.
The fact it is faith is given away by the statements made.
"the science is settled" by who? do you hear these statements in any other field of science?
"If we don't so something NOW it will be to late!" based on what? and what are the consequences of doing something NOW, nothing is free.
"they are just shitting in their own nest" Emotional derision and insults.
"But our actions must have SOME effect" probably, but the question is what, and how much?
"My doubt is that we on earth are significantly contributing to that warming."
Bob, if that is the case, it is very bad news. The reason being is that AGW is inevitable from our interfering with the historical 'status quo' of the atmosphere; (CO2 up 43% already, probably 100% within 50 years), and when AGW finally does kick in, it will be ON TOP OF your 'natural' global warming.
Hang on to your seats!
Why should the position of so many be 'we must be absolutely sure that a train is coming and it will run over and kill our kids' before we say 'hey kids, don't play on the train line'?
Apparently enough eyeballs on ads to justify perennially repeating the lie. Ironically, much of this industry's growth is tied to lower carbon emission technologies. Count how many times you see the word "green" in product blurbs, often with a graphic of a green leaf of some sort. Constituent pollutants (traditional non-greenhouse toxins which can be removed) are not the big problem being addressed. It's all about carbon emissions, the burning of fossil fuels. This is the problem.
Many big polluters and fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, even like to brag about lowering carbon emissions all the while they deny there's any problem at all resulting from GHGs! Why do they spend millions to say they're reducing them??
Do the proponents of that position (or anybody) have an indefinite pass (from god, perhaps?) to shit in their own nest? I can assure you that responsiblity for knowingly promoting damaging false theses will be unlimited and indefinite.
Design News (one of my favorite websites, for its normally 'scientific' approach) is discrediting itself, by continually running this long discredited story. How much do you get for running it?
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.