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
Jeffbiss, I suppose an ad hominem attack on me is to be expected. It does fail the purpose for which it is intended. It is actually not a fact that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
I never set out to disprove AGW as you claim, proving that you read into my reply what you wanted to see. Since I've completed two ASs in hard science and am completing a third in Computer Science Technology (which places me in my third year minus a couple of non-science humanities requirements which can be completed just by continuing to take music lessons privately and giving a concert or two) I don't feel any need to defend myself against your inference that I haven't had any hard science courses.
Since I can read English and also write it, I'm unaffected by your claim (based on nothing, since you don't know me from adam) that I haven't read what I said I have read.
Oh yes, ScienceDaily.com is definitely the place to go to get both sides of the AGW debate. After all, it is popular! And it has earned the respect of loyalty of students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, educators and the general public around the world! After all, it tells us on it's "About ScienceDaily" page. Kind of reminiscent of Sir Joseph Porter, KCB, or realscience.com "Real science by Real Scientists!" I'm so impressed. Why, the editor has served as the senior Science editor for Grollier's Book of Knowledge!!!! Wow!
Science is a Democratic endeavor, indeed. Note to self: Ignore all of Einstein's theories because the democratic vote in his own time was against him. Sorry, wrong again. There may have been a time when Science was democratic. The fact that we don't still adhere to theories like phlogiston and the aether proves pretty conclusively that Science is uninterested in your vote, just what Nature presents and, for the moment, what theories do a good job of modelling. When the model proves to be inaccurate, it gets updated or cast out...except recently.
You say to read. Have you read all (yes, all) of the reviewed literature on the Hockeystick graph? Talk about cherry-picking. Have you read both the papers and leaked info from the scientists exposed by the Argyle leaks? Or just the media reports? It's one thing to try to win an argument by suggesting that your (obviously intellectually deficient) opponent is un-lettered and ignorant. It's quite another to take your own prescription.
Maybe, instead of relying on "good overviews" and bragging about links to sources, you should read sources and forget the overviews. And, in fact, maybe you ought to forget letting ScienceDaily filter the links you access. It could just be setting you up to appear biased by insufficient exposure. Along the way, you can answer the major question that you avoided by the adhominem response:
If the publishers of the papers are either in the 'consensus group' or are being pressured by the consensus group to toe the line, how will _anyone_ read a paper about the non-consensus view, ever? Yes, politics has a valid place in this discussion, and the politics of the situation stinks.
One last thing: 'economics' isn't 'competent to discuss anything, yes. Economics does not discuss. Economists are arguably not competent to discuss economics. However, when the hand that holds the money bags is in a position to determine who gets funded and bases that on their own preconceived notions, it's necessary to discuss it. If you believe it is not, quit your job, and build your lab in your den. If you can't afford to do that, or your first thought is, I can't do what I'm doing now without support from my company, then you have just admitted that ecoomics has a part in the discussion.
As usual at this juncture, the trolls have unleashed themselves from out of the woodwork. The planet is in too much peril to put it any nicer way: You people fall somewhere between liars and ignoramuses.
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.
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.