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
As any person (born and) raised near the arctic circle and now in his fifties knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, the climate has warned radiclly in those areas. Big changes in flora and fauna from the days of my youth are obvious, when I visit my ancestral homes now. There have been dramatic changes in people's life styles and clothing. I wonder if sellers of recreational and sport clothing can corraborate this with their sales figures because gas grilles, chaise lounges, t-shirts and shorts are ubiquitous there now (in summer) but were unheard of then.
So, FACT is, significant parts of the globe have warmed up over the last few decades.
As a side fact, mines have gone into operation in Greenland in recent years that just a decade ago were inaccessible, buried underneath 60 feet of ice that now has melted.
But is it manmade or man contributed?
It matters not that the globe has gone through periods of cooling and warming before human habitation. It matters only if the habitation of humans is generating the effects that can cause warming, whether just like those that have occurrred naturally or new modes.
My understanding is that experiments have been conducted that prove that CO2 in an "atmosphere" receiving sun light radiation has a significant heating effect, i.e. the green house effect is, again, FACT. It therefore stands to reason that if human habitation releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmophere it can have a heating effect.
How big an effect? Well 40 million barrels of oil bunred 365 days a year for 5 decades or so might have an effect, I'd say. Does any minimally scientifically educated person think that 40 million barrels of oil per day for decades HAS NO (warming) EFFECT? Add to that deforestation/tree burning, coal burning, gas combustion, etc. Still conclude it has NO EFFECT?
To convince me that GW is real and not a boon doggle all the forecaster's have to do is publish the assumptions on which they have based their predictions and the method(s) they are using to calculate their predictions. I can judge for myself if said assumptions and methods are reasonable. I have never seen any info on what they are basing their predictions. I really doubt that their predictions can stand in depth examination.
40 years ago I led a comparision study of the various solar heating and cooling simulation programs that were in vogue. The differences in assumptions and input data were amazing as were the outright programing errors.
There's a big difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist. Climatology is about the signal, and meteorology is about the noise. Also, many weather people are simply talking heads and not meteorologists, so don't expect too much.
You really should do some research before you post. Most of what you claim is more than likely due to you not being a climatologist, so why post them, or at least let the researchers speak for themselves by providing links to their work. And your claim about global cooling prediction in the 1970s is just not true!
My local Weatherperson can't predict the temperature within 1 degree C beyond today, much less 10 days - and I'm expected to believe in predictions of tens of years? Back in undergrad days, circa 80s, Ohio State University measured Ice Core samples and one of the parameters of interest was temperature. The fluctuations were significantly larger (defined as greater than 10 degrees C) change in temperature as compared with what we're arguing about (less than 3 degrees C) over a fairly short time span (defined as between 50 and 200 years). While I'm no Geologist or Climatologist, if these changes occcured pre "man-made/caused" interference, I'm sure we'd all (humans) be more certain the Scientists of today knew what they were talking about if they could identify, explain, and define / model the cause of these changes and incorporate them sucessfully into their current working (? not sure how well it's working - neither is my local Weatherperson, so this must be a subjective term) model of the earth's environment.This model would be able to plot the large increases as well as large decreases and accurately (within 1 degree perhaps - or is that asking too much?).
Bottom line, I'll have more confidence when my local Weatherperson can predict daily temperatures a year in advance and be more than 3 sigma accurate. I'm expected to be within 3 sigma in my calculations / tests / and predictions in my job. Heck, just to give them the benefit of doubt, make it very simple and only predict the daily temperatures 2 weeks in advance and be within 2 sigma accurate. At that point, then I'll have much more confidence in their predictions of tens of years. The best my Weahterpeson can do is a 3 degree F guarantee for tomorrow (not any further out than that and it should be noted that the prediction is given at 11 pm the night before) - and they are no where near 99% accurate. Based on this demonstrated peformance - I can only expect the current estimations of Climate warming will have similar results.
One last thing; the reason so much effort was put into the ice core studies back in the 70s - 80s is because during the 70s it was predicted by these same Scientists that we were going to see temperatures dropping.
It gives me hope that some people are capable of seeing the bigger picture when it comes to GW. I agree with all your thoughs. Here is one more to add to your list. Weather or not GW is the end result, what about all the man made posions that a being dumped into our world everyday?
As the article stated, this is a very complex issue and only a handful of people understand it deeply. I am not one of them. A lot of this climate change witch hunt revolves around whether or not it's man made. As such, things like volcanic activity, the sun, and many other "natural" influences are discounted. This is why I say this is a witch hunt and not science. There is little if any evidence that the last 10 years has yeilded any global warming. Man made or otherwise. Core samples and the like can give us pretty good information to help construct a historical record of how things were. We were in an Ice age. Of course we have warming... We can make some educated analysis but that doesn't mean we know everything. The witch hunters say we have to take action now. If that's the case, we should be moving away from the shore.
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.