It's embarrassing for this industry that a major science trade publisher is so biased toward the political right. What else is going on? A more direct connection to the fossil fuel industry and its vast disinformation propaganda network?
UBM's credibility on every other topic can only be called into question. Can it be relied upon to report anything accurately if it can't get the most easily settled science right?
The issue of global warming--the rising termperature of the planet's atmosphere due to human activity--is a scientific question. As an engineer, I know that scientific questions are resolved through analysis, experimentation and data collection. An "opinon" has no relevance to the question unless it is argued on the basis of scientific inquiry. I don't ask my oncologist if it is "his opinion" if I have cancer. No, I ask for the results of the scientific and technical tests that answer such a question. Same for global warming.
But even if you are not a direct participant in the scientific inquiry, you can still use your engineering training to do a rudimentary investigation, such as does the hypothesis of global warming pass basic questions of plausibility?
I was raised north of the 64th latitude and am pushing 60 now. I have first hand knowledge of the dramatic changes in climate, flaura and fauna in those parts over the decades. That does not answer the question of cause, but it does answer the question of for-realness.
Look, without even having to become conversant with the technical issues and data, it's easy to get to the root of the matter. The global warming alarmists (see, both sides can use pejorative names to poison the well for the other!) act in the ways that liars act, ergo they must be liars.
For me, any investigation into the technical aspects has served only to confirm that suspicion.
Charles--I agree completely. Well said. I have not idea as to how this discussion will ultimately "shake out" between those who choose to respond but I certainly hope technology leads the way and not those who stand to gain. Many thanks for a great post.
What evidence? Remember, the only raw data set that showed a link between CO2 and climate was destroyed before it could be peer reviewed. So everything we have is based on reports done from that data set, by a very small group of scientists. The same group that wrote an internal email saying, in effect, that the raw data didn't match their theory.
I am not impressed with the list. Richard Lindzen is one of the few actually within the relevant field, and if I recall correctly, he is betting everything on clouds to save our bacon. Burt Rutan is a hero to me, but how could he know what is going on with the climate just by observation and intuition?
What would my kids and grandkids think of me if I used my credibility or fame to disrupt corrective action on climate change? There are other compelling reasons to not continue burning hydrocarbons at the same rate or faster, after all.
Farewell Design News. I can't abide providing cover for those who don't care to take responsible action.
I also am an ME and certainly don't feel qualified to deliver an opinion that can be backed up with hard data.
I agree. Like all of the commenters here, neither you nor your friend are climate scientists and are thus unqualified to deliver an opinion that can be backed up. Moreover, we are all addicted to cheap fossil fuels that enable our low cost, high standard of living and thus we all have a conflict of interest when we deny the existence of global warming. We only hurt our reputations further when we use what science and engineering backgrounds we have as an excuse based on the grounds that we're showing open-mindedness.
Real climate scientists are unequivocal about the clear and present danger posed by global warming, aside from the 2% or so who have mostly financial, political, or religious conflicts of interest.
A person of science can't honestly look at the >97% of best experts who say the planet is facing a critical tipping point impacting hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars in costs and then logically conclude that the science is unsettled and that no action is the prudent course.
We might know our own areas of non-climate science, but we ignore the best climate science at our own peril.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
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.