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
So, I see that you still have nothing to refute the current science and nothing to refute "The global warming myth". Enough of your opinions. Either you have something material to back up your opinion or you do not, and apparently you do not. I doubt that you had anything to do with science, at least at any level that required you to back up your opinion.
"The Global Cooling Myth" monograph is like reading Carl Sagan to learn astronomy. Then I'll watch Al Gore's movie for the hundredth time (If you teach physics and chemistry, every time you sub during your planning period for a bio teacher, they have the kids watch his movie. Just the bio teachers for some reason - the ones who never took calculus.) Stop kiddin around. Have you read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky? You should recognize the technique of rewriting history.
I was in college when that article was written and I well remember the many stories and papers on the subject. There were plans put forth by NASA "scientists" and many accademics to prevent the coming catastrophe. Cover the ice of the poles with carbon soot, seed the atmosphere at 90,000 feet with great fleets of U2 type planes and on and on. What would it be like if they had gotten what they wanted?
Luckily, the government and accademic "scientists" of today are so much smarter and this time we ARE doing what they want. Part of it, and they want much more. I know it is going to be just peachy since this time they are really really right! How do I know? Because some of them claim there is a consensus. In the old days, when reason and thinking were popular in accademia, if you had proof you didn't need a consensus. Today we know better. By thinking correctly and not letting our minds wander into improper areas, we can vote instead of think. It is so much easier and sounds good on the news. The real clincher is the Commedy Central mock news politicos make fun of those who are called skeptics. And if you can make a joke about it, it MUST be true! Or False. Whichever way the joke goes. And one of the great features of Consensus Science is that you can weed out the problem people and outliers when selecting who can vote until you get that consensus you need. And you can feel good about it. You are saving the planet. I think they mean the Earth when they say that. A staggering notion. You, by sitting instead of jogging or running or even walking, or even better, dying, without having children, will cut your carbon footprint and save the planet!
If the true believers have their way, the generation being born today is going to despise you.
I am not a distinguished climate scientist, but those who know me will admit that I do have some understanding of science and technology, as well as a lot of experience differentiating fact from blown smoke.
Armchair basic physics would indicate that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere MIGHT cause the average temperature at the surface of the Earth to increase. When and by how much is up for grabs, however.
Following the research over the past 30 years (in both scientific literature and popular media) has indicated that results leading to the conclusion that we are headed for a climate catastrophe are inconclusive at best. In fact, the most likely conclusion is that the effect is miniscule, and drowned out by other drivers. The reports of imminent disaster smack of politically motivated pseudoscience.
Those who like to confuse correlation with causation should note that historically warm periods (e.g., the medieval warm period) correlate with good times for human society, and cool periods (e.g., the Little Ice Age) correlate with social disruption, famine and disease. So, if CO2 warms the planet, what makes you think it's a bad thing?
J. Williams, your last paragraph points out something that I have also pointed out, which is that the personal agenda of many of the fanatics seems to be based on something other than climate concern. Aren't some of these the same folks who were screaming about how guilty we were that we were living in comfort while others weren't, perhaps 15 0r 20 years back? Does anybody else recall that bunch of noise? And now they have something that at least has a scientific sound to it, correct or not.
Remarkable post Charles. As I am looking at the responses, i.e. comments, I see 46 screens with various viewpoints. In my opinion, this is one of the best things that could happen--we discuss the pros and cons of the argument. Personally, I feel the documentation supports global warming as a fact. My doubt is that we on earth are significantly contributing to that warming. Quite frankly, my mind is not made up and I'm still looking for the "smoking gun" that tells me we are the culprits. Great post Charles.
C'mon, Jeff. CO2 is heavier than air. That's why it's down here, and not up there. All the plants love it, and so I'm a big fan. You'll have to work harder to prove your theory, if you think you can.
Global warming is not proven by some incidental correlation with the modern generation of so-called greenhouse gasses. Do I need to say the words? Correlation is not causation. How do you explain the correlational melting of the ice caps on Mars? Little Green SUV's? That's just snarky, and I'm sorry.
Ok, I'm not a climate scientist. But I am old enough to remember the big Global Cooling Scare of the 1970's. Do we really think we are all so much smarter now? In my investigation I have found that the effects of CO2 holding in atmospheric heat are a log. Once you get near the top, the warming effects are barely perceptible even if you double the atmospheric gas. It flattens out due to physical or chemical response in the system and is actually counteracted then. The anthropogenic global warming elite seem to believe their science story is infallible. They probably also believe we can finally make Marxism work. Ok, that's another cheap shot. But that is the nature of colleagial debate at this level, right?
Let us not totally succumb to the conceits of our chauvinism. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Thank you. A very well written and thoughtful response. I am totally with your line of thought. To be sure there are fanatics on both sides of almost any issue and climate change is no different. As usual, the real truth, will lie somewhere in between. I am of the opinion, that folks who believe the data and theories are incontrovertible are fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks for a minute that they have complete understanding of a highly complex system with many thousands of degrees of freedom is daft. As engineers we have trouble getting a handle on a system with four or five degrees of freedom.
Is the climate changing? Yes, by all appearances it is. As an avid downhill skier, I lament the lack of snowfall in the Northeast (in general). How much of that is due to human involvement is another question all together. Unfortunately, the climate change studies was changed from an academic pursuit to a political one in large part by Al Gore and his army of people determined to save the world no matter what it costs.
The cynic in me also tends to believe that the most fervent supporters, are also in positions to have the most to gain from a professional and/or financial point of view.
I have yet to see any "scientist" show their results of Step #4 of the Scientific Method as applied to "global warming". And I'm fairly certain no one will ever be able to. Therefore it will always be an open ended theory that only long term history can give any creedence to. And considering the last 16 years have shown a net "flat line" on global temperatures, with some major drops in global averages during that period, I'm definitely skeptical. Whatever happened to the "global cooling" scholars of the 1970's?
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