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
I have yet to see any "scientist" show their results of Step #4 of the Scientific Method as applied to "global warming". And I'm fairly certain no one will ever be able to. Therefore it will always be an open ended theory that only long term history can give any creedence to. And considering the last 16 years have shown a net "flat line" on global temperatures, with some major drops in global averages during that period, I'm definitely skeptical. Whatever happened to the "global cooling" scholars of the 1970's?
The basis of the belief in global warming or global climate change is a set of computer models predicting certain changes due to an increase in greenhouse gases, principally CO2 and CH4, but also including H2O. The validity of the belief rests in part upon the accuracy of the models. Recently James Hansen, a NASA scientist and advocate of global climate change stated the average temperature of the earth has been essentially unchanged for the last 10 years. This does not agree with the computer models and their predictions. If the trend continues, the error between the prediction and the observed data will exceed the tolerance limits of the models. This does not necessarily mean the global climate change theories are wrong or the skeptic are correct. However, it does mean that the global climate change advocates do not understand the reality of our climate as well as they claim to and the science is not settled.
If you are a scientist and are presented with data that does not match your theory, you can refine the theory or show how the data is not applicable or show how the data is wrong. What you can NOT do and still claim to be a scientist is to resort to ad hominem attacks on your critics. That is not the act of a scientist but of a fanatic.
First and formost, my main concern is who really support the idea of global warming and how the plan to deal with it. First, many of the most vocal supporters of "climate change" are the green and pink hair, body pierced "OWS" crowd (The "lady gaga" types). The individuals that were critical of the editorial probably never seen, much less solved a differential equation (ok, I havn't solved one since the 80's, but at least I once could). Most of the supporters of "climate change" have an agenda. Heck, it has recently come to light that Al Gore's net worth matches Mitt Rommneys. Folow the money and power and you will see some other their motivations for the Green Economy. The oil companies may be "greedy", but the other side is just as every bit dishonest and greedy. My concern is how they want to "solve" the problem. By transfering all economic control to the government, who with its infinite wisdom, will then dole out resources to each of us "according to our needs" (and our party affiliation).
So, you still have nothing to refute global warming science I see . Instead you post absolute nonsense.
If you are a physicist, and that is becoming a rather large if, then you know that you are required to provide evidence for this "theory", not simply state it. Those that performed the research supporting anthropogenic global warming have done that. Their data aligns very well with the theory that we have caused this climate change event through our use of fossil fuels.
Your problem is that you can't refute their science. It's very sad that you continue this nonsense rather than acting like a physicist.
My theory is that there is a race of green people who live in the core of the Earth and from the time when the surfrace humans had the technology to detect them (early siesmographs for instance) and the methods they use to live in such a harsh environemtn, they have employed advanced shielding techniques to remain mostly undetected. However, there is a telltale sign of their presence and that is the heat produced by the shielding. There is a warming trend that began at the time the shielding became necessary. The correlation is nearly optimal and far better than the green house gas correlations.
According to to you, if you disagree it is now your job to prove that my theory is not correct. You can not simply point out flaws in my methods or errors in my measurements and demand more details. You must prove the green people do not exists or at the least, do not produce heat with shielding. Please give references to your research and detailed refutations.
(Note: You will fail. This is the grue-bleen paradox of the phiolosophy of science. And the reason it is not my job to prove alarminsts are wrong. This is also why the true believers are a serious PITA).
So, you claim to be a physicist and haven't provided any valid refutations to the the theory that humans via the burning of previously sequestered fossil fuels have added energy to the earth's system, due to the release of greenhouse gases that were not part of the existing carbon cycle, and so are the primary cause of this observed increase in temperature. Is this how you did physics?
That you say that you're a skeptic, it's your obligation to put your refutations in writing, to allow others to objectively evaluate your claims and thus judge previous claims and findings. It's that simple.
So, you still have nothing to refute the current research I see, which means that you've shown no flaws . That's pretty sad for a person who claims to be a physicist and who purports to understand the process.
I suggest that you stop this nonsense until you have something to offer to support your position, other than nonsensical opinions.
A last comment. Your schoolbook idea of strict scientific method science can't even apply to this situation. With a time machine, a planet duplicator and 4 billion years you might be able to do it.
It is the job of the climate alarmists to prove their case. Like everyone in science, they are highly prejudiced towards their theories. If they are not, they should be in a different profession. And it is the role of every other qualified scientist to be skeptical of their claims. It is not the skeptic's job to produce a proof or research to show the alarmists wrong. This is how it works. The critics point out problems and ask for explanations. Either a satisfactory set of results is demonstrated or it is not. Besides, many of the critics are more qualified than the leading alarmists. This notion of a consensus is both a fiction and of no particilar value. Science by consensus would still have a flat world at the center of a crystal dome.
The moving target response is really boring. "Show the flaws", flaws are shown, "Where is your research", research not needed, ...........
No, I'll make it simple. CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. So, what theory are you referring to that is wrong with regard to greenhouse gases?
So, you're claiming that increasing the energy of a system will not result in a different equilibrium and an alteration of said system. On what grounds can you as a physicist make such a claim?
That humans have released greenhouse gases via the burning of fossil fuels is irrefutable. That those greenhouse gases were sequestered and thus not a component of any carbon cycle after they were deposited and prior to their release is irrefutable. So, what do you base your argument on? Where is any study that supports your contention?
General Motorsí glitzy public unveiling of the Bolt concept car this week shows commitment to the future of electric vehicle technology, but it also heaps pressure on its engineers to meet a challenging set of technical goals.
Toyota Motor Corp. made its case for a hydrogen future this week, rolling out the hydrogen-powered Mirai and saying that it will grant royalty-free use of thousands of fuel cell patents to competitors.
A bold, gold, open-air coupe may not be the ticket to automotive nirvana for every consumer, but Lexusí LF-C2 concept car certainly turned heads at the recent Los Angeles Auto Show. Whatís more, it may provide a glimpse of the luxury automakerís future.
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.