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
It's important that you read up on this issue because we just had some of the hottest temperatures during a solar minimum (see 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade). The sun is the source of the energy that heats the planet with the oceans, atmosphere, and land holding that energy to varying degrees.
That you would claim that the global warming "movement" has discounted the possibility of natural causes indicates that you have not read the research. So, do yourself a favor and read the research before you start trying to discuss issues that are covered very well in that research.
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.
Now we're getting someplace interesting. I believe this only partially correct. Up until recently I believe solar activity had been at relatively high point, and ony recently has begun to decrease - something on the order of the past 5 years. If I recall correctly the last low point was Europe's "Little Ice Age", which was the 16th to 19th century.
I find this piece of the puzzle interesting - and concerning. The problem with the global warming movement, IMO, is that they discount any possibility of natural causes. I think that, by comparison, a minor hiccup for the sun is a major problem for us.
About anybody dying from carbon dioxide inhalation: That has to be a lie made up to back some fallacios argument. I see quite a few of those lies. And, a while back, I did an experiment just to see what the effect of breathing it would be. After two deep breathes of 90% carbon dioxide I found that I was panting as my body was working to get back to a more normal condition. Nobody could intentionally inhale enough to be damaging unless they had a tank and breathing mask, a setup unavailable to kids. So cross out that "urban legend" lie.
Next, it seems very unlikely that solar energy measurements were accurate enough even just fifty years ago for there to be any means to determine a change.
And about the equilibrium having been established, equilibrium is what you get when a system has stablized, which is what the earth has seen as the avarage temperature did not vary a lot over a whole bunch of years.
Besides all of that, those same people who started screaming so loud about global warming are the same ones who for years have been complainng about how much better some countries are living than other countries. They were also advocating the redistribution of wealth, by other names, of course, based on the thinking that if we are that much better off, we must somehow be moraly wrong. The fact is that while all people may be created equal, ( with equal rights, at least), does not in any way mean that they will stay equal in their standard of living. And that is not my fault, you see.
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.
I believe there is a saying about arguing with people like you, so I will just end this with "good luck with all that".
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.
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
23 
