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
My point is all of these theories had scienctist behind them and at the time were thought of as major issues that must be dealt with if you disagreed you were claimed to be back by industry and a hack. Yet not 1 of the 5 although their have been more like 10 in the last 50 years happened. Why should I only belive those who say it is happening and ignore the others. This has been a theory now for 20 years yet their is no hard facts that exist.
sea levels are the same again not 1" of rise in 20 years yet just wait in the next 20 it will be a foot. I call "bull****"
Non of the storms or droughts or floods are historic other than their are more people to be affected. Read history of the US and you will find periods of major storms even in yes the northeast.
As an engineer i deal in facts. the fact do not support this and as I have show when that happens it has a tendancy to end up on the list.
I don't see anything in your post that refutes the AGW theory or that you've read anything in the scientific literature, as your "ice age" comment indicates. All I see is a person who doesn't like the implications that AGW poses, that humans must act responsibly to reduce their negative effects on the earth's systems because a) the earth wasn't designed to accommodate whatever we do, (b) ethical egoism is no way to run a planet, (c) we aren't insignificant and what we do has effects far greater and more negative than we thought possible.
I suggest that you take hard science course so that you can find some of those answers for those rhetorical questions you ask, because the answers are readily available. Get to know a researcher or become one yourself!
Instead of going to blogs for your information, try the scientific journals or sites such as www.sciencedaily.com, that provide good overviews and links to the source articles and the researchers' sites, if they have one. Science is a democratic endeavor that you can participate in, so participate.
Also, don't use economics for information about AGW as economics is competent to discuss how we behave and interact to meet our needs and satisfy our desires. It isn't competent to discuss AGW per se.
It is interesting how a with this "Theory" as it is a theory, those who disagree or question are derided.
I am have lived a while now and have become skeptical if these "Theories" as I have seen so many come and go that will end the world as we know it.
History lesson for the younger, the older can add many more to this list I am sure
- Acid Rain, we were told in 20 yrs (1980's) the forests of the northeast would be dead, lakes would be dead.
- Overpopulation: 80's again we were told by 2000 the world would be so overpopulated that starvation would be everywhere (that was 4bill, now 7bill) starvation occurs were lack of stable goverment and freedom exist
- Dead oceans (Jacque Custo <spelling> by 2000 ocean life would be virtually non existant
- Ozone hole (watch roboCopI movie for SPF 2000)
- Run out of oil by 2000 (again see hollywood movies for a laugh here)
- One of my favorite from early 90's run out of places to put our garbage
- New Ice (because we are cutting down the rainforests) yes look it up from mid 1980's
These are a few their are more many more, all had their day in the sun and industries built up around them to one extent or another. The truth is this "theory" is far from proven.
1. For the years we have heard how sea levels will rise they have yet to rise 1" yes 1"
2. I find it interesting how extreme weather is reported as it proof like it never happend before (Dust bowl 10+ yr drough), Hurricanes (1911 or 13 cannot remenber 2 of the top 10 deadlist hurricanes hit were else New Orleans in the same decade)
Conclusion: It must be nice to be able to claim anthing that is not average as proof of your theory.
to dry GCC, to wet GCC, to hot GCC, to cold GCC, to many hurricanes GCC, to few hurricanes GCC, to many deer tick GCC (yes this last one is real, I have heard that the abundance of deer ticks and aliaments they cause is GCC, it could not be that with reduced hunting the game population is the largest in 2 centuries and therefore more critter living on the critters)
your criteria for believability is unbelievable. Since research takes time and equipment which require money, lab space (or at least computers and desk space) demanding counter research that is published in journals is disingenuous at best. Further, the mechanism in science publishing is 'peer-review', and the political pressure to adhere to the consensus view means that there are no peers who will give non-consensus research a fair shake (either for fear of losing their jobs or funding, or because they are busy bullying their own 'peers' to adheer to the consensus). The model is pretty much identical to AIDS research, where you couldn't even get an application for funding or a job if you didn't start by saying (as the US made Law under one or another of the Bushes) that "HIV is the virus that Causes AIDS.
The IPCC's seminal document on climate change claims the agreement of 600 scientists as its authority. And yet, from the time that the last scientific paper was finished to the time that the document was ready to publish, lots of 'rewriting' was done by the political section bosses. Look up the timetable. Why would they need that long?
I'm finishing up my third associates degree at the local technical community college. The reason for three is immaterial, but it does mean that I've been there for a lot of years. And I've been constantly shocked at the activism on global warming which is attended with slogans like "The science is done, it's time for ACTION!!" and "Don't discuss, Act!!" Would that my little college were alone in this zealous and blind jihad. Science is never done, they teach us in our lab-science classes: theories can always be overturned by more or better information. Then the Jihad fires up and there's no allowance for non-consensus opinion, questions or consideration.
It's far easier to document the things that are wrong about the current politically-driven, consensus AGW jihad than to produce suppressed research. The requirement on the part of the True Believers that anyone who doesn't agree is a 'denier' to start with. Since when has science been operated on the basis of elementary-school-yard bully politics? (Since about 1970, apparently.) All it takes to see it is to read (actually read, not skim or read what someone else wrote about) various internet 'sources' of truth and justice: Realscience.com, Wikipedia, etc. In the RealScience.com discussion fora, you find people who claim to be knowledgeable treating people who ask questions as if the askers are criminals bent only on causing mischief. Wikipedia has closed a long list of subjects from further editing based on "community consensus." (I've edited on Wikipedia for about a decade. No one asked my opinion to form this 'consensus', which leaves the question of who, exactly, the community in question might be?)
I'm not young. I graduated in 1972 from highschool. I was a radical activist back then, and reading and paying attention. I saw the reports that were absolutely positive that we were on our way into an ice age, and the lists of actions we had to take to avoid it... which were just the actions we're told we must take to avoid global warming. Oddly, the absolute surety hasn't changed. Only the artificial crisis.
Here's a question: we have all been forced to cut down on use of chlorofluorocarbons. We're stuck with lead-free solders (which don't work as well as tin-lead did, require heavy metals to stabilize and give properties 'like' tin-lead, some of which are a lot nastier than lead was) organic flux removers that don't remove flux (but make your hands smell good!) and cleaning fluids that, at best, push things around without actually cleaning very well. And yet, I've never seen a mechanism that explained how those really heavy Chlorofluorocarbon molecules make their way into the upper atmosphere to kill Ozone. Have you? Has anyone? I doubt it. In the mean time, in the name of saving the world, we've taken a major step backwards in reliability, quality and usability.
My suspicion is that the hard sciences have been invaded by the practitioners of the soft sciences. Psychologists insist that it is not reality, but perception of reality whcih is important, while physicists used to say it was the other way around. Add to that a cadre of politicians who think they have the right to pontificate about science without actually ever having more than a glancing aquaintance with it, and you have a recipe for where we are: science by name calling. I can prove my science if I can convince enough other people that you are a 'denier' or 'alarmist', or conspiracy theorist. It makes no difference if the people in question have experience with science as long as they've watched something like it on TV.
Singer et all have estimated the total contribution to the greenhouse effect to be a mere 0.28% due to the totality of human activity. The human CO2 contribution is roughly half of this miniscule amount. Water vapor is by far the dominant effect at 95% of the total.
CO2 is not chemically reactive. The EPA declared it a "pollutant" only after several states and "green lobby" groups sued for it. In a narrow 5-4 2007 Suprement court ruling, the court gave no scientific opinion but ruled that the EPA was the official government entity which carried the authority to make such a determination. While "CO2" was a word appearing in the ruling, there is no reference anywhere to other greenhouse gases, including water. This was a temporary victory. There are two GOP inititaives in both Houses of congress to remove EPA's authority to declare CO2 a pollutant - but is opposed by Democrats.
THE SEMINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER on this appears in the Library tab of the ICECAP website: "Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics" by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (Sep 2007) - 114 pages and 204 references. If you read this and can follow the math at just a top level, you'll be convinced that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect - unless one believes in a perpetual motion machine (thus ignoring the second law of thermodynamics).
For the landmark book on the subject of climate history and its implications, read "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming - the Missing Science" by Ian Plimer (2009).
Why do I have to be a defined as a "denier" or as an "alarmist"?
A little tale:
Joe was a creative and successful Engineer. In his spare time he enjoyed his hobbies of studying global warming and betting on NFL football games. This year he was doing especially well on his football picks until he decided to go for broke and make a huge bet. He picked the Pats over the Ravens in the playoffs and now owed his mob connected bookie $500,000 . He was in a panic when he heard that knock on the door. The rest was just a blur.
Joe awakens with a splitting headache and finds himself lying in a pool of water in his basement. His arms are free, but his feet are encased in a block of cement. Looking around he discovers the source of the water. The pipes have been broken and the water level in his basement is quickly rising. He is doomed!
What should Joe do?
A) Only make bets he can cover.
B) Use the pen in his pocket protector to mark the rising water level on the wall and write a diary about what is sure to be his torturous end as result of his gambling.
C) Ignore the rising water and wait for help.
D) Use all of his strength to try and pry the grate off the basement floor drain to increase the flow of the drain even though it's obvious that volume of water rushing in is greater than what the drain can handle.
What happens to Joe?
Joe is an Engineer so it's in his nature to look for solutions beyond the obvious and those that are offered by the "establishment". As a result, Joe crawls to his tool box, removes his sledge hammer from the bottom drawer, smashes the cement, frees himself, and gets the heck out of the basement.
Some cars are more reliable than others, but even the vehicles at the bottom of this year’s Consumer Reports reliability survey are vastly better than those of 20 years ago in the key areas of powertrain and hardware, experts said this week.
As it does every year, Consumers Union recently surveyed its members on the reliability of their vehicles. This year, it collected data on approximately 1.1 million cars and trucks, categorizing the members’ likes and dislikes, not only of their vehicles, but of the vehicle sub-systems, as well.
A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.
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.