Global warming is a contentious topic. Opinions on both sides can be loud and angry.
But in the past week, the loudness and anger climbed a few more notches. When a group of so-called "skeptics" expressed an opinion, a Huffington Post blog argued they were scared of science, saying, "the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at and scorned." A New York Times blog took a more measured tone, saying that the skeptics "appear to flunk climate economics." Earth Times described their opinion as "a call to play with fire."
And who was this pack of jackals who fear science and deserve such scorn? They were members of the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the World Federation of Sciences, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and distinguished universities around the world.
To understand what prompted the anger, it's best to look at the opinion that started it. On Jan. 28, the group of scientists published a signed editorial, titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," in The Wall Street Journal. The editorial expressed a strong opinion. It asserted that CO2 isn't ruining the Earth; it even contended that CO2 is a benefit. Moreover, the editorial was steadfast in its position that many high-level scientists don't believe in global warming, and are tired of the demonization of those who speak their opinions.
"The oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true," it said. "In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."
Right now, the Internet is buzzing with anger over the editorial. Many blogs have said that The Wall Street Journal turned down a comparable editorial written by scientists who believe in global warming. It's not known if this is true; calls to The Wall Street Journal by Design News were not returned.
But forget for a minute whether you do or don't believe in global warming. Global warming -- or "climate change," as it's now called -- is an unbelievably complex subject that's deeply understood by only a handful of people. In truth, most of us rely on conclusions from various studies, done by people we trust, to determine where we stand on the subject. But, good grief, if an opinion of distinguished scientists doesn't match our own, does it deserve scorn?
So, you claim to be a physicist and haven't provided any valid refutations to the the theory that humans via the burning of previously sequestered fossil fuels have added energy to the earth's system, due to the release of greenhouse gases that were not part of the existing carbon cycle, and so are the primary cause of this observed increase in temperature. Is this how you did physics?
That you say that you're a skeptic, it's your obligation to put your refutations in writing, to allow others to objectively evaluate your claims and thus judge previous claims and findings. It's that simple.
So, you still have nothing to refute the current research I see, which means that you've shown no flaws . That's pretty sad for a person who claims to be a physicist and who purports to understand the process.
I suggest that you stop this nonsense until you have something to offer to support your position, other than nonsensical opinions.
A last comment. Your schoolbook idea of strict scientific method science can't even apply to this situation. With a time machine, a planet duplicator and 4 billion years you might be able to do it.
It is the job of the climate alarmists to prove their case. Like everyone in science, they are highly prejudiced towards their theories. If they are not, they should be in a different profession. And it is the role of every other qualified scientist to be skeptical of their claims. It is not the skeptic's job to produce a proof or research to show the alarmists wrong. This is how it works. The critics point out problems and ask for explanations. Either a satisfactory set of results is demonstrated or it is not. Besides, many of the critics are more qualified than the leading alarmists. This notion of a consensus is both a fiction and of no particilar value. Science by consensus would still have a flat world at the center of a crystal dome.
The moving target response is really boring. "Show the flaws", flaws are shown, "Where is your research", research not needed, ...........
No, I'll make it simple. CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. So, what theory are you referring to that is wrong with regard to greenhouse gases?
So, you're claiming that increasing the energy of a system will not result in a different equilibrium and an alteration of said system. On what grounds can you as a physicist make such a claim?
That humans have released greenhouse gases via the burning of fossil fuels is irrefutable. That those greenhouse gases were sequestered and thus not a component of any carbon cycle after they were deposited and prior to their release is irrefutable. So, what do you base your argument on? Where is any study that supports your contention?
OK, I see it it has to be really simple. The experiment is humans adding gasses to the atmosphere and the theory predicts certain results. The results are not agreeing with the theory and the theorists now say that is because they need another 20 to 50 years for the data to average out.
As for the amount of carbon, do you know how much coal is being burned in China and India? How much natural gas in Russia and the old Soviet countries? No. Nobody does. How much methane hydrate is subliming out of the oceans? How much natural gas and oil is seeping from the ocean floor? Are you satisfied with plus or minus 50%? What does that do to a model? Have you done any numerical analysis? Is instability easy to introduce into most techniques or are they inherently robust?
I'll give you a personal example. A friend was at a Geophysical Union convention before the Moon landings. A NASA spokesman was saying that with a Moon rock they could discover the origin and makeup of the Moon. Z.F. Danes stood and asked "What if it is bassalt?". He was asked to repeat the question and after a pause, the speaker moved on. The NASA people were talking up their sleeves and had no idea what they could learn form a Moon rock. Danes did not have to go to the Moon to show that they were making wild claims. QED.
If you're a physicist, then you know how the system works. You know that you haven't presented any evidence to refute any of the published research, period. Now you claim that "the experiment is underway in a rather sloppy form" and don't indicate which experiment that is! You claim that no one knows how much carbon (CO2/CH4?) and don't identify any study or outline how the data collection is flawed for any study!
So, you have revoked my physics credentials. A new theory needs to both explain observed results and predict new behavior beyond any older theory. The experiment is underway in a rather sloppy form - no one knows how much carbon humans are putting in the atmosphere - and the results are not well predicted by the theories. The proponents say they need another 30 or 50 years. Do I need more evidence than that? Why do YOU think this is a done deal? Feynman demonstated the shuttle solid booster failure with a c-clamp and a glass of ice water.
But you haven't shown any flaws in the research. You've merely stated your opinion, without anything to back it up. You claim to be skeptical, say about the increased ice free Arctic Sea during summer, but haven't shown that the seas are NOT as recorded. That's not acceptable for a physicist or an engineer.
So, again, where's your evidence that the researchers' findings and data are wrong? Nothing else is relevant.
Finding flaws in methods and data does not require that I launch a billion dollar research program. I didn't need to build a big lab to know there were serious problems with Cold Fusion, just very poor understanding of their instruments and circuits. And how many promises of "20 years and truckloads of burning money will get you fusion reactors" will you fall for? If anyone is influenced by funding, it is the ones who get paid to not produce. (I wonder how much power you could generate by burning all the fusion research money as $1 bills?)
My friends are not longer in industry, government, or university (also government) research. Have you ever read "The Limits to Growth" and analysed what went wrong with the predictions?
I suppose trippling the arable land on the Earth would be bad if you hate farming. It sounds OK to me. By the way, do you have links to your work that verifies the published claims? Or do you just believe it because they have pictures of ice bergs and a swimming polar bear? I see charts of ice cores and satelite measuremetns through the stratosphere and dozens of other things, and they do not fit together. Through most of the Earth's history there was apparetnly no solid water on the planet except perhaps on the highest peaks. And then totally frozen ice ages. What has caused it to be different now? Basically the distribution of the continents. I don't know what you can do about it, but the next time the ocean currents are pinched off it won't matter how much carbon is in the atmosphere.
Here is a test. Do you think the people of the Maldives would trade their islands for land in, say, Argentina? They have asked for funds to mitigate sea level rise. Do you think they really believe they have a problem? Would the researchers urge them to take the deal? I'll put together a group to make the trade and run the islands as resorts untill they are under water. Want to invest?
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
19 
