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
You see pretty graphs but still refuse to participate or do anything for yourself, as evidenced by your question about needing to be told. Do yourself a favor and read the literature! Start there. There's tons.
Well, we are seeing actual data plots now... Where is the one i asked for -- someone has the information. Simple chart -- sources for atmospheric CO2 for a year (or w/e) -- shown by percentage. I think it would answer a lot of questions...
I see pretty graphs -but what is behind them? they look very much like the dubious "hockey stick" graph. Are they based on modeled data (i.e. ficticous) or real measurments? I see a lot of technical looking things from you - but no actual data or reasoned explanations to answer our questions.
And can you tell me how you come up with a "gloabl temperature"? There will never be a consensus if we can't agree on the basics!
You did "this"? Your compalint is that they present no data? You believe?
Have you ever tried to look anything up? Have you ever went to your local library and delved into the scientific journals kept there? Have you ever contacted a researcher for their source data? If you're dissatisfied with their data, have you ever tried to perform your own research?
I have to thank you for presenting a great example of the average denier. I don't know where you get your information but science is all about participating, and it is obvious that you have no such inclination. If you did, you would have done something more than listening to right-wing talking heads and reading right-wing blogs.
Stop being lazy and do some work. You claim to be an engineer yet have chosen to be spoon-fed denier talking points and have chosen to not do your own work, including understanding how climatologists have looked at the implications of solar activity on climate. So, how can you engage in a meanful discussion?
What I am saying, is that the sun is the primary heat source for our solar system and planet. There is evidence from other planets in our solar system that the earth's warming/cooling trends are not unique. The arbitrary decision to not consider the sun to a greater degree appears to be a suspect choice of "climatologists".
Indeed all the forcings are taken into account and the solar component, which is insignificant anyway, has been diminishing for some time.
However, less well publicised are the indirect and direct influence of aerosols mainly from poorly regulated coal burning sources which reflects sunlight and cancels a lot of the warming out. Reduce this to improve air quality in China for example, and the forcing gets even higher! This is our dilemma.
I did about 10 years ago and the temp data correlated nicely with the measured solar activity. This was, of course, from an astronomy perspective with objective data and data collectors at a limited number of sites.
My primary complaint with the whole "consesus" crowd is that they present NO DATA, just their analysis. I don't take any analysis at face value without the raw data available to back it up.
I also beleieve that their analysis is based on flawed or skewed understanding of basic physics principles. There is always room for discussion over the applicability of one principle over another, but the AGW crowd demands that we all bow at their alter instead of addressing valid complaints with their methods.
The end may not yet be near, but recent statements by two of the world’s biggest automakers point to the fact that the industry has begun to plan for a dramatic decline in vehicles that are powered solely by internal combustion engines.
At the recent Autodesk Accelerate event in Boston, the director of product development for a niche hypercar firm replied "no, no, no" to three answers he got for what makes a car go faster. What was the right response?
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.