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
And it would appear that the global warming crowd is using every tool at hand to prevent evidence from being presented. Why is that?
They, whoever "the global warming crowd" are, are not doing that. Your question is a non sequitur. It's the denial crowd that has no scientific legs to stand on. Where is their science? Whatever it is has been debunked so thoroughly as to make your side a laughingstock, were the damage it's getting away with not so catastrophic.
ChalresM - So you claim, now support it with evidence. That is the problem with the whole Global Warming business. The support is that a "consensus" of scientists support the claim, but science demands that evidence supports the claim. And it would appear that the global warming crowd is using every tool at hand to prevent evidence from being presented. Why is that?
It's embarrassing for this industry that a major science trade publisher is so biased toward the political right. What else is going on? A more direct connection to the fossil fuel industry and its vast disinformation propaganda network?
UBM's credibility on every other topic can only be called into question. Can it be relied upon to report anything accurately if it can't get the most easily settled science right?
The issue of global warming--the rising termperature of the planet's atmosphere due to human activity--is a scientific question. As an engineer, I know that scientific questions are resolved through analysis, experimentation and data collection. An "opinon" has no relevance to the question unless it is argued on the basis of scientific inquiry. I don't ask my oncologist if it is "his opinion" if I have cancer. No, I ask for the results of the scientific and technical tests that answer such a question. Same for global warming.
But even if you are not a direct participant in the scientific inquiry, you can still use your engineering training to do a rudimentary investigation, such as does the hypothesis of global warming pass basic questions of plausibility?
I was raised north of the 64th latitude and am pushing 60 now. I have first hand knowledge of the dramatic changes in climate, flaura and fauna in those parts over the decades. That does not answer the question of cause, but it does answer the question of for-realness.
Look, without even having to become conversant with the technical issues and data, it's easy to get to the root of the matter. The global warming alarmists (see, both sides can use pejorative names to poison the well for the other!) act in the ways that liars act, ergo they must be liars.
For me, any investigation into the technical aspects has served only to confirm that suspicion.
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.
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.