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
Excellent post. It's very obvious from the number of comments that global warming is a topic followed by many, if not most, concerned engineers and other technical individuals. I also am an ME and certainly don't feel qualified to deliver an opinion that can be backed up with hard data. I think the evidence is very conflicting at best. I have a friend who teaches math on the doctoral level. His specialty is formulating algorithms for defining chaotic processes. Some months ago we were discussing global warming and he indicated he feels, we will be decades, if ever, from structuring "working and predictive" math models relative to weather forecasting. It's just that complex. We also agreed we are stewards of the world we were born into. You make your bed, wash the dishes, dust the house, fix the roof, maintain your car, mow your lawn--why not make decisions that foster insuring favorable environmental conditions for your kids, grandkids, etc. There is certainly a growing awareness among the engineering community that this trend will continue and designs will not be accepted in the marketplace if they damage our ecological system. It just makes good sense.
God has everything to do with science. Who do you think put the earth in its perfect orbit? Who put life here? Certainly not some swamp who decided to break the laws of thermodynamics (chaos). You ignore the obvious, my friend, when you give all power to man or chance. Yes, there is a God and He has called prophets and Apostles in these last days to help us understand His creations. Don't think man is so smart or lucky. As an engineer I use his creations to better mankind. I guess to you I might be a reactionary, or maybe peculiar. I can live happily with that...
2005 - high # hurricanes proof of GCC since 2005; extremely few hurricanes proof of GCC Flooding of 3 years ago proof of GCC drought last year proof of GCC to hot true to cold true to many ticks true to many weeds true
What do you think weird weather describes??? It's CLIMATE CHANGE, silly!!!!!!!!
Does Rush have you thinking that climate change cannot be accepted until everyone on the planet is simultaneously uncomfortably warm, year-round? The effect of Climate Change (aka Global Warming) is that there is much more extreme and unstable weather. More storms, more floods, more draught, more heat, more snow, more tornadoes and hurricanes, more hail, etc. This is exactly what has been happening, and warming has just begun! Also there's enough literal warming, though seemingly small in average temperature rise, to move frost lines northward, trigger mass wildlife extinction for plants and animals, and cost us billions per year in agricultural losses. Considering property damages and wildlife costs, it may very well cost less money to end our oil dependency, which carries many other justifications besides mitigating climate change.
Here in the south our normal January temps used to range from about 10 degrees to about 45 degrees F, with extreme weather extending about 5 degrees above or below that. In the last 10 years, however, it's usually in the 40s or 50s with a lot of periods in the 60s. A couple of weeks ago we had temps in the 70s and yesterday morning it was 69 degrees at 7am. We received 3 inches of rain over the day and the region saw eleven (11) tornadoes! Tonight, snow is forecast.
Before you think this is just fluky weather, realize that fluky is fast becoming the norm. Too many 20, 50, 100, or 1000 year weather events have become regular occurrences with each successive year. Dangerous tornadoes, which almost never occurred while I was growing up here, have become normal and are occurring IN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE FOUR SEASONS!
This stuff just didn't used to happen. Even if you live in a bubble, you would know from following the news of the entire world that this is not just anecdotal observations about my region. Global warming = global weirding, not just "warm"!
Again,we are talking pollution, which is limited in scope. The anti-humans (name calling is fun!) are always scrounging to manipulate the poor data, using the natural climate changes that go on a 70 year cycle, and taking local events and manipulated models to cry wolf and blame civilization. God said the earth is full and ready for harvest. Yes, we need to take care of it (His words were to "dress and keep it"), and that is one of our failures, but we are to advance mankind and not say "I have mine and that is enough".
If that is good enough for the Master Engineer, then that is good enough for me. I will do my part to protect it, as we all should. We need to stop the large international Fascist-run corporations from running roughshod over the earth. I agree. But we, as humans, are NOT changing the climate.
First; If 97% of experts in the field tell you that an asteroid that will hit earth, but there is an expensive way to prevent it, are you really going to risk your life or that of your progeny on the 3% who think we have to do nothing? I think not.
Second; how many kilometer sized mirrors would humans have to put in space to reflect more concentrated sunlight on the Earth before one could say humans changed the climate? Then, what is the difference between that and huge number of molecular sized ones?
Lastly and thirdly for those fools who think they know better than the experts; what kind of slob wants to spew anything into the atmosphere without doing something about it? Do you clean your dwellings? And, does the wastewater not go to where it can be processed and restored? Conservation is CONSERVATIVE, not the nonsense spewed by these phony, religious reactionaries who try to pass themselves off as conservatives today!
The fact is that the science provides data that supports AGW. If you don't think that it does, then by all means, link to it and discuss why that data doesn't support AGW.
Why don't you deniers ever post anything in the scientific literature that supports your position? Because you have nothing. This is due to a) you never reading any of the scientific papers and (b) you aren't competent to comprehend those papers if you did.
Pretending that the science isn't settled is not good enough. That works only for ideologues who are anti-science and have an ideology to protect and those that are not knowledgeable about the science behind AGW.
Sorry, jeffbliss .... the "hockey stick" graph, has been proven to be erroneous and a fraud; a perfect example of data manipulation and selective application.
Your comments to warren also clearly illustrate the tactic of the typical leftist/environmentalist which is to demonize and name-call (eg. "right-wing ideologue", corporate shill") to bring discredit to your opponent. Your second paragraph begins by basically telling us to ".. pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.". There continues to be further evidence of a lack of warming over the last 10-15 years, but AGW has almost become a religion it seems. To deny or oppose it is worthy of nothing but scorn and condescending mockery.
The best thing for us "deniers" to do, is to just continue to examine and study the evidence (ALL THE EVIDENCE, not just the selectively reported information by the media), call attention to it, and ultimately learn from it. There is way more to learn about our earth's atmospheric and climate processes than is already claimed to be known with absolute certainty. I hope that we can ALL keep our collective minds OPEN to whatever the research uncovers; the science is NOT settled.
Excellent summary of the issue that we all face with this AGW hoax (might as well clearly indicate where I personally stand, at the outset here).
That said, I find a problem with ANY party involved in an issue of scientific study, especially with the level of complexity and depth as the study of atmospheric processes and climate, that claims anything with absolute certainty (e.g..."the science is settled.."). Those of us that believe this is a hoax, do so based on a careful and very broad-based examination of ALL aspects (scientific, social AND political) and the players involved. The "hoax" is not that there is, or is not "global warming, or "climate change", but that human activity is virtually the sole cause.
One of the few "certainties" that have been established is that the earth's climate IS changing, but more importantly HAS done so since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so, regardless of what we do. Can we, with enough certainty, PREDICT the global temperature 50 or 100 years from now? We CANNOT even predict to the degree of precision presented, the local temperature 2 weeks from now.
There has been too much selective reporting, manipulation of results, and data mining (suppression and ignoring of contrary or conflicting data) that has been exposed (e.g. the University of East Anglia emails, the selective data mining of the tree ring studies, etc.) to NOT call into question the motivations and goals of those perpetrating the fraud. THAT is the truly unfortunate result; the corruption of scientific practice, and protocols. It calls everything into question, or at least it should! Can anyone explain the change from "global warming" to "climate change"?.....I submit that the latter term is cover for when we actually find that there is no actual "warming". In fact, we are seeing exactly that; some recent reports based on ACTUAL measured data over the last 10+ years show NO WARMING. So, why is it that we virtually NEVER hear of such results in the mainstream media?... I leave all to ponder that one.
It is heartening to at least see some recognition and acknowledgement of these contrary viewpoints in a well-respected forum such as this.
A recently released government report has raised the hopes of automakers looking for a break on future fuel economy regulations, despite the warnings of an Environmental Protection Agency official who said the agency is unlikely to back down on its goal of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
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.