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
Charles--I agree completely. Well said. I have not idea as to how this discussion will ultimately "shake out" between those who choose to respond but I certainly hope technology leads the way and not those who stand to gain. Many thanks for a great post.
What evidence? Remember, the only raw data set that showed a link between CO2 and climate was destroyed before it could be peer reviewed. So everything we have is based on reports done from that data set, by a very small group of scientists. The same group that wrote an internal email saying, in effect, that the raw data didn't match their theory.
I am not impressed with the list. Richard Lindzen is one of the few actually within the relevant field, and if I recall correctly, he is betting everything on clouds to save our bacon. Burt Rutan is a hero to me, but how could he know what is going on with the climate just by observation and intuition?
What would my kids and grandkids think of me if I used my credibility or fame to disrupt corrective action on climate change? There are other compelling reasons to not continue burning hydrocarbons at the same rate or faster, after all.
Farewell Design News. I can't abide providing cover for those who don't care to take responsible action.
I also am an ME and certainly don't feel qualified to deliver an opinion that can be backed up with hard data.
I agree. Like all of the commenters here, neither you nor your friend are climate scientists and are thus unqualified to deliver an opinion that can be backed up. Moreover, we are all addicted to cheap fossil fuels that enable our low cost, high standard of living and thus we all have a conflict of interest when we deny the existence of global warming. We only hurt our reputations further when we use what science and engineering backgrounds we have as an excuse based on the grounds that we're showing open-mindedness.
Real climate scientists are unequivocal about the clear and present danger posed by global warming, aside from the 2% or so who have mostly financial, political, or religious conflicts of interest.
A person of science can't honestly look at the >97% of best experts who say the planet is facing a critical tipping point impacting hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars in costs and then logically conclude that the science is unsettled and that no action is the prudent course.
We might know our own areas of non-climate science, but we ignore the best climate science at our own peril.
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"!
Tesla Motors plans to roll out a “compelling, affordable electric car” that will sell for about half the price of its high-profile Model S by the end of 2016, company chairman Elon Musk said last week.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.