Global warming is a contentious topic. Opinions on both sides can be loud and angry.
But in the past week, the loudness and anger climbed a few more notches. When a group of so-called "skeptics" expressed an opinion, a Huffington Post blog argued they were scared of science, saying, "the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at and scorned." A New York Times blog took a more measured tone, saying that the skeptics "appear to flunk climate economics." Earth Times described their opinion as "a call to play with fire."
And who was this pack of jackals who fear science and deserve such scorn? They were members of the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the World Federation of Sciences, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and distinguished universities around the world.
To understand what prompted the anger, it's best to look at the opinion that started it. On Jan. 28, the group of scientists published a signed editorial, titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," in The Wall Street Journal. The editorial expressed a strong opinion. It asserted that CO2 isn't ruining the Earth; it even contended that CO2 is a benefit. Moreover, the editorial was steadfast in its position that many high-level scientists don't believe in global warming, and are tired of the demonization of those who speak their opinions.
"The oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true," it said. "In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."
Right now, the Internet is buzzing with anger over the editorial. Many blogs have said that The Wall Street Journal turned down a comparable editorial written by scientists who believe in global warming. It's not known if this is true; calls to The Wall Street Journal by Design News were not returned.
But forget for a minute whether you do or don't believe in global warming. Global warming -- or "climate change," as it's now called -- is an unbelievably complex subject that's deeply understood by only a handful of people. In truth, most of us rely on conclusions from various studies, done by people we trust, to determine where we stand on the subject. But, good grief, if an opinion of distinguished scientists doesn't match our own, does it deserve scorn?
I'm not a climate scientist, I just play one in front of my computer.
However, I find it difficult to believe that the rapid release of carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years in only a few hundred has not had an effect on the atmosphere and the climate.
To claim otherwise is like those that thought they could dump industrial wastes into the rivers and Mother Nature would cleanse itself.
So, you think that the researchers have an agenda behind their data. Where's your evidence? More importantly, if they are cooking the numbers, then you should be able to show that as the numbers wouldn't stand scrutiny as they would be fabricated and not from the real world.
Do us a favor and stop this nonsense unless you can support your disbelief with your own evidence that refutes their data.
A persons personal agenda affects everything that they say and do, much like their religion. So there is no way that a individuals motivations and wants can help but color the way they utilize data and science in general. In short, one is what one believes. Not what they believe in, that is different, but the personal agenda is the motivation for most of what most people do.
You really need to read the existing climate change literature as the scientists discuss the CO2 driver/driven issue.
As for misrepresentation of data, that is exposed in the greater discussion as a letter to the editor, new research refuting previous research, etc. Bad science can't hide.
As for the accuracy of the data, your belief isn't good enough. You must support your position, which questioning doesn't do. Where's your data that refutes the data you can't accept?
Cap and Trade is an economic issue and has nothing to do with the global warming science. But I'm glad that you brought it up as it illustrates where the real problem lies with regards to the global warming science, in economics andeconomic ideology.
A person's agenda is irrelevant as an agenda cannot support bad or contrived data. So, if you're "cynical", then support your cynicism with data that refutes that which you don't accept or believe in. There's absolutely no other path than supporting your hypothesis or theory with evidence. Science is about evidence, not belief.
It is also quite probable that global warming causes increased carbon dioxide levels. In fact it is quite probable.
It is possible that you have never seen data misrepresented to back an in-valid supposition, while I have seen data mistreated that way on a number of occasions. The Chrysler Corp Elecronic fuel metering project was one of them. The "method of selected data points" is another way that data is used to seemingly validate assertions that are incorrect.
And the answer is NO, I don't believe that older solar energy data is as accurate as the current data, and probably the solar energy data from a hundred years ago is probably less accurate than that. How could it be as accurate?
One other thing is that I forgot to mention how incredibly much profit a few individuals would reap if "cap and trade" ever gets into law.
Of course I am quite cynical about the whole thing, and I almost always consider a persons personal agenda when I listen to them making claims about almost anything. What I do trust most people to do is to cheat when they can and lie when they need to, in order to get what they want. Of course some have higher standards and some have lower standards, and just because somebody is a very elequant and persuasive speaker does not mean that they have a clue as to what they are talking about.
So you don't think that solar measurements were accurate enough? It's obvious that you haven't read any of the published scientific literature. Why post then, if you're not informed enough to know?
Thanks for providing an example of what I posit drives deniers, that they on't like the implications of global warming (that redistribution of wealth thing). The fact is that our behavior has affected the earth's system and is driving the equilibrium to a different point than we evolved in as well as other negative effects on the life that we share this planet with but choose to disregard as we satsify our desires.
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".
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
11 
