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
Haven't there been enough fact-based articles in DN over the last few years to allow UBM to permanently retire this dangerously ignorant piece from inclusion in the DN Daily that keeps being sent out in email, as it was again today? I know controversy is good for web traffic, but it seems like UBM would ultimately care about its credibility eroding every time this piece gets seen.
I've never understood why so many people have a need to believe in pending disaster, but the symptoms are unmistakable. Maybe it's guilt over how much better off we are than even 100 years ago, let alone 200. But the fuss over man-made global warming will not go away, until the disaster freaks find something new to panic about.
The real unfortunate part of this "debate", is that POLITICS and ECONOMICS have for the most part overshadowed the actual science. It has skewed the data analyses to, in many cases, seek a pre-determined or desired outcome; it has provided economic incentives (and disincentives) based on a desired outcome or answer. When these things happen, resources are squandered or misdirected and ultimately detract from the true advancement of the state of knowledge. In addition, it casts the dark shadow of doubt over all legitimate research efforts as to the honesty and integrity of the reported results. Worst of all, I have clearly seen a "runaway train" effect where this questionable conclusion of man-caused global warming has fostered trends in targeted research and adaptation planning that seem way out of proportion.
We have heard or read the stories of episodes of data mining and selective application of data and ignoring of contrary data (e.g. the U of East Anglia email disclosures); the climate models have not even been able to successfully validate against known data. The ice core data (as referenced by GregV) does show variations in global temperature that are clearly cyclic. I also recall that there is historical data suggesting that temperature rise was FOLLOWED by a rise in CO2 levels, not the other way around, as is the established claim.
I think in the end, we will see a measure of reality emerge, based on the eventual accumulation of enough evidence and data that simply CANNOT be ignored. It will take time and much effort to get control of the runaway train, but with the National Academies appearing to recognize that their overall reputation and integrity must rise above political correctness, there is real hope. One can ONLY hope.
There are ice bores that have been studied and show the variation in the earth's temperature over the last 800,000 years. They indicate an approximate 120,000 year cycle of heating and cooling of the earth. It appears we are in a a part of the cycle where the earth is heating up, so it all may be just a natural cycle that the earth goes through. Here is a link to a graph that demonstrates this:
"The idea that human wickedness has some sort of effect on climate has long been a staple of some religious thought and it is yet another way in which modern environmentalism is actually similar to a religion. Both Al Gore and your garden-variety End Times lunatic believe that humans are being punished for their sins with more extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes. It is sad reflection on modern society that the former is on his way to becoming a billionaire while only the latter is dismissed as a crank."
I came across this quote some time ago and, unfortunately, do no know who to attribute it to. If anyone knows the source, please let me know.
It seems to me that journalist are rather careless when refering to natural laws. Shouild they relly be lumping th First Law of Thermodynamics the Second Law, Ohm's Law, Newton's laws, Bernoulli's equation, sometimes even "Moore's law" together? Don't they range from interesting temporary observation to observations with no common known deviations? Perhaps none with the standing of say QED.
What has not been presented adequately about the whole climate change perception and the resulting changes proposed and enacted already ib the amount of profit that some stand to acrue. Cap and trade was one of the first ones pointed out to me by an individual who compared it to the stock market. The brokers will certainly be few, while the value of the product that they sell will be great, and the competition will be non-existant. So they would be the small group of multi-billionaires, not a bad income for mere brokers. And all of that wealth would come without delivering one speck of actual value, which means that it would be at the rest of society's expense.
The other area is in the power that would be vested in some organization that would be similar to the EPA, except for having the ability to decide which businesses could operate and which could not. Would that be a position that could lead to a bit of corruption? I think that it could. We know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So those are two additional hazards that we will be facing as the battle against what is perceived as a man-made problem is pitched.
And now has anybody checked to see if just possibly the thermal output of our sun has increased just a little bit over the past hundred years? Of course, it is possible that the measurements of a hundred years ago were not quite as accurate, so we may have as much as 1% uncertainty. But that is a separate discussion area.
We can do without the condescension here, danharres. Second, I think you misunderstand science. I don't want to get too hung up here, but scientists don't stop at presenting hypotheses, nor do they do it so that other scientists can agree/disagree with them. They support (or refute) their own hypotheses as the essence of what they're publishing; that's where the science is. And "persuading those not in agreement" is not part of the process. Perhaps you're thinking of politics. I'll leave the rest of your scientific process delusions for someone else to get snookered into a long, winless argument.
As for the subject at hand, you've got your analogy backwards. It's the climate deniers who are clinging to ancient dogma in the same way you're referring to the "settled" geocentric science as promulgated prior, and it's climate scientists who have applied modern science to understand the climate issues at hand. It's the real scientists who have settled the science by actually applying its principles. I get it, though. You think government is inherently wrong, so anything it adopts or promotes is wrong too. So what of the anti-science fossil fuel patsies that occupy the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the U.S. House? They represent the last vestige of climate denialism just like you do. Do you think they're defending the vanguard of science that challenges the status quo?
A recently released government report has raised the hopes of automakers looking for a break on future fuel economy regulations, despite the warnings of an Environmental Protection Agency official who said the agency is unlikely to back down on its goal of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
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.