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
Another non sequitur. It has never warmed this quickly and it's never happened with 7 billion exposed to the effects and such warming (or cooling) has never before been caused by human activity. Hmmm, why would you ask such a meaningless question?
That's a nice thought, but I haven't seen any denier, who also claims to be an engineer, present anything to support their contention that AGW is not happening or is due to something other than human activity. So, I can't see why you allege that the anti-denier side stop calling deniers corporate shills when your point appears to be that everyone present rational arguments and data. They don't. Researchers do.
I'm an engineer that has done quite a bit of computer modelling. The results from a computer model are only as good as the science, engineering and data that goes into the model. In the case of climate models these have been refined over many decades as new satellites measure temperatures around the earth, levels of various gases in the atmosphere and energy flux from the sun and reflected energy from the Earth. This combined with ice core samples and billions of Earth based measurements and studies have contributed data and science to refining these models to the point that the general trend is undeniable.
Then you get engineers and scientists that doubt this glossal mountain of data when this is not their area of expertise. I call this their Shockley moment when they grab a few little fragment of contrary data and jump to a conclusion contrary to the huge mountain of data amassed supporting the generally accepted theory. This puts them in the same league with Creationists, believers in ghosts, leprechauns and little grey saucer men.
Good observation, Glenn. Apart from the mentioned effect, there is a couple of others (Overconfidence, Illusory Superiority Etc.) But there is a difference between the findings of those Psychologists, which were based on the execution of relatively simple tasks (reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis..) and the extrapolation of their findings and its application to a group of professionals like trained and knowledgeable engineers.
Even when a real debate on a polemic subject like the so called "Global Warming" will provoque uncontrovertible polarization into two large opposing groups, we can expect that, at least, the debate among engineers will have much more serious and complete arguments that a similar debate between the general population, simply because engineers do usually have a better understanding of scientific matters.
More than that kind of phycological distortions, it will be the overheated, absolutist positions adopted by some individuals (engineers or not) what will cause wrong conclusions.
One thing is clear: Both sides have strong interests in imposing their viewpoint; "Green" business is no better/worse than the petroleum/energy industry... both sides will do whatever they deem necessary to impose their dictates. People tend to identify themselves with the "green" movement simply because it appears to be an intrinsically "good" position. But this has caused a good deal of counterproductive measures. Politicians that proclame themselves as "green", are frequently the worst decision makers, confirming the "Law of unintended consequences" more than anybody else. There are examples of fanatical postures adopted by that kind of politicians and governants. Like religious extremists, those kind of "leaders" end up causing more confusion and actual damage than anyone else.
As engineers, we certainly have abilities that can make us better informed and critical, so we need to keep studying and analyzing the various postures on this subject. But one thing is clear: Being too pasionate is not the proper way to tacke a scientific task, and let's beware of the hidden interests of BOTH sides!
BTW: The " Dunning-Kruger Effect " was nominated and awarded the 2000 satirical Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology for their paper, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".
You Earthlings look like a buch of rightfull guys at the Titanic discussing if the water is coming in from the left or the right side and considering if it finally will sink the boat, while a few guys make money sell deck chairs and declare that the boat is not sinking.
From the narrow human perspective, it will be too late when the boat is underwater.
During the last 300 years mankind has been burning millions upon millions of tons of fossile fuels as there was no tomorrow, blindly deniying that "IT HAS MUST HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONSEQUENCES".
Has anyone considered the thickness of the thin breathable layer of gasses that sustain life in earth, if the earth was an apple; the breathable atmosphere will be thinner than the apple skin, but a few stupid still thinking thak they can alter the atmosphere forever without CONSEQUENCES.
Well.. we will see who WAS RIGHT; when the boat sinks... in a cloud of smoke. just matter of time, irreversible.
And it would appear that the global warming crowd is using every tool at hand to prevent evidence from being presented. Why is that?
They, whoever "the global warming crowd" are, are not doing that. Your question is a non sequitur. It's the denial crowd that has no scientific legs to stand on. Where is their science? Whatever it is has been debunked so thoroughly as to make your side a laughingstock, were the damage it's getting away with not so catastrophic.
I'd say you're part of the "global warming crowd", doing your best to shout down and mock anyone who dares to express a dissenting opinion. Regardless of their excellent qualifications to do so. Regardless of the criminal fraud (yes criminal) committed by members of the "global warming crowd" to back up their opinion.
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.