
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - llambda
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?
======
sambeau
This calls it:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkabl...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-
editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/)

 _The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not
only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a
remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an
opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading
arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance
because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”_

(Note: I wish he hadn't put the word "scientists" in quotes as it, sadly,
undermines a good editorial piece.)

~~~
ceejayoz
Hell, just start Googling people from the list of contributors. The first is
"Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth,
University of Paris".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_All%C3%A8gre>

> In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the
> Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing
> concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists". The campus'
> asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health
> problems in 130 others.

I think I'd pass on his endorsement, personally...

~~~
radu_floricica
Isn't it accepted fact right now that removing asbestos creates more cases of
cancer then leaving it where it is? What happened at the time was a very un-
rational and unproductive response - the removal of all asbestos everywhere,
with no regard to costs and side-effects.

~~~
ceejayoz
Given that he's also arguing with a Nobel Prize winner in physics that
atmospheric drag doesn't affect falling objects, I doubt his opposition was
that nuanced.

Leaving asbestos where it is _can_ be better, but it'd depend on how well
contained it is. If it's in a building that's showing its age, removal might
be the only option.

~~~
glenra
He was also right about Kilimanjaro - changes in snow cover there likely did
relate to longer-term trends and to local agricultural deforestation reducing
the amount of moisture in the air and likely did not significantly relate to
local or world temperature changes.

I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt on "nuance" given the number of
filters we're seeing things through here. (It's bad enough relying on
wikipedia for climate-related info at all, but when it's on a relatively
obscure topic based on source material in another language, that's a whole new
level of indirection.)

------
_delirium
This article is a bit high on polemics and low on science for my tastes
(unsurprising since it's a WSJ editorial, but still). Is there a more sober
whitepaper version that spends less time explaining that CO2 is colorless
(true but irrelevant) and talking about the ominous drumbeats of their
opponents, and more time on their thesis? Not just a rhetorical question; it
seems like they might have a defensible thesis, especially about the
cost/benefit profile, but it's hard to tell as presented.

~~~
gavanwoolery
You will find most arguments for and against global warming a bit high on
polemics, and a bit low on science. Asking whether or not the earth will be
warmer in 100 years is about as fruitless as asking whether or not it will
rain in 100 days. The earth has warmed and cooled dramatically long before
human existence, and will continue to in spite of us. Our CO2 output is only
one of many factors in a very difficult to compute equation of thermodynamics.
Keep in mind, its not just activity on earth, but the state of the sun that
largely determines temperature, and both are very complex systems that are
virtually impossible to model accurately.

Downvote this if you agree with me. :)

~~~
gavanwoolery
I should add that in spite of what anyone's stance might be, we should still
reduce our dependence on coal and fossil fuels for a number of reasons.

~~~
hobin
Agreed.

A curious question that immediately popped in my head was: would it be ethical
to use the fear of the public for disruption by global warming (whether it's
true or not)? This fear could be used for good purposes, such as trying to
increase funding for fusion. (I mean, good graces, it'll be at least 2033
before DEMO becomes productive!)

Understandably, I'd prefer all people to be scientifically (and
'engineerically') literate on these issues and be able to make good decisions
for the good reasons. However, I'm also realistic enough to see that this
probably won't be happening anytime soon.

(Also, on a more personal note: no, I would not consider this ethical.)

~~~
InclinedPlane
"I'll only use this power for good, it's ok."

The problem with that line of thinking is that there's no monopoly on such
abuses. Once the "good guys" do it then what's to stop the "bad guys" from
using the same power. And now that you no longer have the backing of truth on
your side how do you prove to the public that you are in the right?

How is this any different from the police planting evidence on someone they
KNOW, but cannot prove, is guilty?

------
gaurav_v
Googling the cosignatories names revelas that several work for Exxon. I don't
see how the WSJ didn't consider this relevant information to disclose, instead
presenting them only as 'distinguished scientists.'

~~~
ceejayoz
> I don't see how the WSJ didn't consider this relevant information to
> disclose...

It's a WSJ editorial. They probably wouldn't consider it relevant info if the
_article writer_ worked for Exxon.

------
jeffreymcmanus
it is a common tactic of climate change deniers to line up some number of
scientists to convey the sense that there is some question about climate
change. but this isn't how science works; it's not the case that because one
or 10 or 100 scientists have questions about gravity it means that gravity
doesn't exist.

the existence of climate change caused by humans is settled science. no amount
of wall street journal editorializing or smears by conservative politicians is
going to change that.

~~~
cicero
I'm curious what would it take to overturn "settled science," or are you
saying that is impossible. I was not aware that science took that kind of a
dogmatic stance.

~~~
jonhendry
Look at what's been going on with the "faster than light neutrinos".

That would really overturn settled science. But to do so is going to require
more than 16 people writing an op/ed saying that the results were correct and
the effect was real. It's going to require more than articles in
newsmagazines.

The scientists behind the original results have examined their work for
mistakes, and rerun the experiment controlling for possible confounding
issues. The apparent effect remained.

Now other labs are going to try to produce a similar result.

If you want to overturn "settled science", you need data to clearly back up
your claim. It's not enough to have a contrary interpretation of existing
data. You need more data to support your interpretation as the correct one.

~~~
melonakos
What world have you been living in that you think climate science is as
"settled" as the speed of light limits?

------
themgt
"Easter Island 2: Earth" is going to be so much more entertaining for the
people 1000 years from now. We didn't get to read through all their "why
cutting down the last tree won't be so bad - plus we need more Moai statues"
hack WSJ op-eds from concerned islander scientists

What I learned from this letter: CO2 emissions are good for plants and poor
people; controlling CO2 emissions is Stalin

~~~
shingen
Humans won't be around in 1,000 years. Our shelf life is nearly at expiration.
We'll become some other configuration of life.

~~~
gus_massa
Modern humans appeared 100.000 / 200.000 years ago. We probably won't evolve
into a new specie in the next 1.000 years.

~~~
Zancarius
However, we're fully capable of annihilating ourselves or at least
obliterating a significant chunk of our population. I believe that's what
shingen may have been alluding to.

------
dantheman
Flagged - this type of article doesn't really belong on HN as there isn't
really anything new presented in it and will merely cause a flamewar.

~~~
snowmaker
It is news that the WSJ is continuing to print articles of this nature.
Regardless of the truth or quality of the op-ed, the fact remains that the WSJ
has a large audience and this article will be influential. Such an event
warrants discussion.

~~~
intended
By that criteria, many wsj op Ed pieces will be food for discussion.

I agree with the parent post, this is not suitable for hn and is flame bait.

------
saulrh
Sixteen Thousand Concerned Scientists: Get These Posers Out of Our Hair and
Let Us Save Your Food Crops

~~~
saulrh
Two small notes.

First, this is a serious problem. People don't seem to realize that "sixteen
scientists" _don't matter_. Sixteen thousand would have; just sixteen is a
drop in the bucket. The problem is that headlines like that sell ad
impressions. Our media has a conflict of interest, and the news is losing.

Second, this post has been bouncing back and forth between 6 and 14 karma for
the last two hours, which I find amusing.

~~~
glenra
It only takes one scientist to be right about something. We don't measure
scientific truth by weighing or tallying up the numbers of religious adherents
on each side, we do so by evaluating the arguments and the evidence given.

------
ghouse
As a society, we know how to take action under uncertainty and imperfect
information. It makes no sense to me when people argue we should take no
action. The only rational viewpoint I understand is taking action (and
realizing cost) proportionate to our confidence. Risk-based cost-benefit
analysis.

The "It's took expensive to address the problem" argument doesn't hold water;
it presumes the outcome is binary.

~~~
tomjen3
But the longer we wait the more certain we are of the exact changes, if any,
and we will have better tech to deal with it.

And dealing with it does not mean cutting down on CO2 -- just because the
environmental groups contains a vocal minority that feels guilty by not being
a hunter/gatherer -- it means building dikes, transport water, etc, etc.

~~~
ghouse
I agree, but that statement will always be true. The longer you wait, the
better you'll be informed. Forever. That statement is a perpetual excuse for
inaction.

The other factor that changes over time is the cost (if any) to address the
problem (if any).

As an example, if burning oil does lead to global warming, then why do we as a
society subsidize the price of oil to encourage its consumption?

------
unabridged
My #1 doubt always comes from what constitutes a statistically significant
temperature change on a 100-150 yr scale (or however long we have had
consistent measurements). What is the variance in 100 yr temperature
differences over the last 100K to 1M years? Even if the current historical
models are accurate do we really have accuracy at this resolution? 2 or 3
degrees C change over 100 yrs may be a common occurrence.

To me it like trying to judge whether a stock price movement over the course
of 10 minutes is significant based on historical daily stock prices.

~~~
grannyg00se
As far as I'm aware, there is (indirect) data on that. In fact I believe part
of the concern is that the data suggests that when the planet was in fact 2 or
3 degress off, it was a rather less hospitable planet.

Regarding your stock analogy: People make real money decisions based on ten
minutes of stock price movement and historical daily stock prices.

------
pg_bot
I find climate projections to be very similar to financial projections of
startups. A typical chart will show hockey stick like growth (temp vs revenue)
over a long period of time. Since both groups need to prove that they will
have an impact in order to get funding they are motivated to show the most
drastic/promising future. As a statistician I tend to discount any long term
projections for complex systems because I know that there are too many factors
that will influence the results.

------
tripzilch
BREAKING!

 _"Same group of people again proves willing to go on public record to agree
on position they've already agreed with on public record in the past"_

"Astronaut, CEO, ex-US Senator, Chemist, Cardiologist, former Exxon Manager of
Strategic Planning, Electrical Engineer and Rocket Scientist remain
unconvinced by Climatologist Research on Climate" [1]

in other news,

\- - - - - - - -

[http://online.wsj.com/article/plumber-discovers-higgs-
boson....](http://online.wsj.com/article/plumber-discovers-higgs-boson.html)
\-- HONORARY PLUMBER DISCOVERS HIGGS BOSON _"When the LHC folks called me in
to fix their toilets, I knew it wasn't something ordinary clogging their
pipes. So I got to work, and there it was, hiding in the drains"_ , tells the
plumber, honorary member of the New York-based Royal American-Italian Society
for Interdimensional Drainage and Fungal Kingdoms. Recently, the Society has
come under fire by animal-rights group PETA for allegedly wearing raccoon fur-
suits[2]. _"These guys never give up, do they? You accidentally step on a
turtle once, and they'll hound you forever."_

\- - - - - - - -

[1] As wel as 2 or 3 people who's credentials I've been completely unable to
verify except for being a "honorary" or "life" member or fellow of some
(always US industry funded) scientific foundation or other and having worked
closely with ExxonMobile in the past.

BTW weird how it's always ExxonMobile, not other oil corporations such as
Royal Dutch Shell or BP, anyone know why it's specifically Exxon being
involved with all the climate research?

[2] True story: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/peta-super-mario-
ta...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/peta-super-mario-
tanooki_n_1096101.html)

------
gerggerg
_The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas,
exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the
biosphere's life cycle._

Ok lets play this game. The fact is that H20 is not a pollutant. It's a
molecule that sustains life and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

Bring on the ice age!!

~~~
radu_floricica
The point they made is that more CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing. It's not
my place as a non-specialist to judge how likely global warming really is (so
I'm not judging) but I do wonder if it's really a bad thing. I mean,
everything I know tells me making the earth a bit warmer and richer in CO2 is
a good thing. And there is a distinct lack of credible apocalyptic
scenarios... most I've seen say basically "there will be losers", i.e. there
will be countries where the climate change will make things hotter and more
arid. But for me, in central/eastern europe, warmer winters would be great...

~~~
gerggerg
Ok, here's the issue. We don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

The problem: If it's a good thing... whatever. If it's a bad thing... Mass
Death. Seriously, that's not an exaggeration. Any slight imbalance and we're
talking catastrophe. Unless you don't think natural disasters matter much.

We're not _saving the environment_ we're saving our goddamn selves. The
environment isn't even a thing. But humans are, and we need a stable
environment to get on with our lives.

~~~
radu_floricica
I strongly subscribe to the idea that extraordinary claim require
extraordinary evidence. Your reasoning also suggests that LCH should be shut
down and dismantled immediately, because of the prospect of destroying the
Earth or ending the Universe. Also that I should be a believer, because even
if the chance is slight, spending an eternity in hell is not an option.

In order to take the "Mass Death" scenario seriously I want to see some
credible indication that our environment actually is that fragile. What I do
know (and again, I'm not a specialist) is that most catastrophes that actually
happened in the distant past would be expensive for our civilization, but not
"catastrophic". Worst case scenario would be something like making a 20 degree
belt around the equator a desert, while at the same time making Norther
Europe/Asia/America greener (or the other way around). Bad? Depends who you
ask. Definitely catastrophic for the equator countries, but not for the
humanity as a whole.

------
jmmcd
> The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless
> gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of
> the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that
> greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of
> three or four to get better growth.

Yes, and ozone is a poison, but in the high atmosphere it still protects you
from skin cancer. This arguments seems calculated to appeal to the most
scientifically ignorant of audiences.

> This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations
> were about 10 times larger than they are today.

Yes, because evolution happened at a single point in the past, and no
evolution at all happened in the many millions of years since CO2
concentrations dropped below that level.

------
darksaga
I actually have two points about this.

First of all, I still remember reading articles from the 1970's from
scientists who were convinced we were headed for another ice age. That's
right, another ice age. The exact opposite of the what climate experts are
telling us now - less than 40 years ago.

My other point is this - let's just assume all these scientists are right.
Wouldn't it be better if we just did what they suggest and reduce our impact
on the planet? If they're wrong, we help the planet. If they're right, we're
still ok. I would prefer this outcome to not doing anything then finding out
they're right and then we're really screwed.

For reference, here's the Time Magazine 1974 article about the coming Ice Age
- <http://bit.ly/zNZfI8>

~~~
dantheman
Unfortunately - reducing our impact in the way many advocate has serious
consequences on the poor and impoverished. In fact the best way to lower
humanity's impact on the environment is to reduce third world poverty and thus
reduce population growth. Many scientists advocate a mixed approach - where we
work on improving crops so that they'll grow in warmer climates, improve water
processing, and in general improve humanity's ability to handle climate change
all the while allowing developing countries to use fossil fuels to improve
their standard of living. As technology advances they'll move to other means
of energy.

~~~
ThaddeusQuay2
"In fact the best way to lower humanity's impact on the environment is to
reduce third world poverty and thus reduce population growth."

False. When you reduce poverty in a third world population, they simply breed
more. This has repeatedly been observed. If you want to loosely throw around
words such as "fact" and "best", then I submit that the following, although
potentially unpleasant to you, is closer to the correct usage: "In fact the
best way to lower humanity's impact on the environment is to eliminate third
world population."

~~~
steve_b
Gapminder has some good data on this, and it doesn't support your claim. It
shows that population growth decreases slightly as income per person
increases.

Gapminder link: www.bit.ly/AiTWsG

~~~
ThaddeusQuay2
Animated, colored bubbles aside, history supports my claim. Gapminder's data
is flawed because it mixes Whites with unwhites. For example, when Whites
arrived in South Africa, there were so few blacks that the place was pretty
much empty. Whites proceeded to create a first world country, resulting in the
best economy in sub-Saharan Africa. This drew a large number of blacks, from
other countries, despite apartheid. Segregation was just fine with them
because their lives were otherwise much better in SA. This led to a rampant
increase in breeding, which continued in post-apartheid SA due to the momentum
imparted by foreign aid (which wasn't necessary when Whites were in control).
Now, the total population of SA is more than 50M, with Whites accounting for
less than 5M.

Increase income per person in the third world as much as you want, but there
will be no permanent, negative effect on population growth for as long as the
population is mostly unwhite because income has nothing to do with character,
culture, IQ, and all of the other factors at play.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa>

------
pbreit
The editorial is confusing. On one had, it seems to be suggesting that while
human-caused global warming is happening, it is not necessary to panic and in
fact it would be better to divert resources away from global warming
mitigation and back to regular ole projects.

But then it also makes a number of suggestions that global warming is not
happening or that if it is, it is not human-driven.

I do think scientists questioning aspects of the global warming debate should
be able to have their say but they need to make sure their arguments are sound
and fact-based.

------
kristofferR
I wouldn't be surprised if WSJ starts promoting Intelligent Design as a real
scientific opinion soon too.

------
jl6
Well the headline at least is correct: even in a dire emergency, panic is the
wrong response.

~~~
jonhendry
The problem is, by doing everything they can to delay any response or
preparation, the WSJ is in fact making panic more likely.

The WSJ approach would insist that it would be a mistake to insure your home
against fire and buy fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. That would be
"panic".

------
vannevar
Flagged for containing deliberate falsehood:

 _Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well
over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see
from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The
fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes
computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds
greatly amplify the small effect of CO2._

This is demonstrably false, and it is at this point impossible for those who
published the article to be unaware that it is false if they made _any_ effort
whatsoever to verify it. The quote given has nothing to do with the overall
rate of global warming, and it has been made abundantly clear since the quote
was made public that it did _not_ refer to global warming.

------
prawn
Here is a thread on AskScience regarding this article:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p04l4/how_accura...](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p04l4/how_accurate_is_this_article_on_global_warming/)

------
etfb
I think the heading is wrong. Should be "Sixteen Concerned Physicists,
Administrators, Politicians and a Couple of Ex-Climatologists: No Need to
Blame Us For Obama Getting Re-Elected"

------
melonakos
Not all scientific fields are created equally. Some simply have access to
better experimentation methods than others. Climate scientists have
ridiculously poor measurement methods, historic records, and computational
models to possibly be coming up with any conclusions.

An article on this topic: Err on the Side of Bologna – According to
Scientists, <http://bit.ly/wYbEIB>

------
lukifer
It's quite possible that the dangers of climate change are alarmist and
overstated. But to think that aren't serious side effects to over a century of
industrialization is to be short-sighted and willfully ignorant. There's a
reason that geologists now refer to the current era as the "Anthropocene".

------
mathattack
It would be interesting to follow the money trail on these 16 scientists.

I do somewhat buy the plausibility of the economic arguement that reacting to
global warning is more efficient than trying to stop it.

The "it's not proven" crowd seem to be in the same camp as the folks claiming
you can't prove smoking causes cancer.

------
InclinedPlane
This editorial seems weak and poorly constructed. What does that say about the
degree to which anthropogenic global warming exists and will be a significant
hazard in the 21st century and the courses of action that are sensible to do
anything about that, if any?

Absolutely nothing. One way or the other.

------
molecularbutter
More Global Warming denialism from a Murdoch news source? I'd pretend to be
shocked, but really the only thing surprising is that the WSJ is still even
vaguely respectable considering it's ownership and bizarre bias.

------
gavanwoolery
I love how religious everyone gets about this.

What does that mean? A group of people preach one thing, and everyone takes
their word for it. Your college professor told you anthropomorphic climate
change is the real deal, and you took their word for it. Your conservative
talk show host told you the opposite, and you took their word for it.

I do not care what f_cking side you are on. Yes, that's right, I called your
"science" a religion. It is religion when you use more faith than reason or
logic. Its a religion when you get emotionally involved in your belief.

Think for yourself. What does a REAL scientist try to do? Disprove their
hypothesis. Look for holes in your argument, fallacies, unknown variables,
false positives, etc.

<end rant>

~~~
shingen
One case where the rant should have continued.

That they don't spend as much time and effort trying to disprove their owns
theories, is the prime indicator that something is wrong with the conclusions
being drawn.

------
melonakos
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton,
<http://bit.ly/vZX5si>

------
jvandonsel
Seems to be the standard three-pronged argument:

1) The climate isn't warming.

2) But if it is warming, it's not due to man.

3) But if it is due to man, it might be a Good Thing.

Very tidy.

------
mkramlich
It's possible to get 16 people to come forward and back any particular claim
or position. So take this with skepticism.

~~~
TiredGrump
I have 16 experts who strongly disagree with your position.

------
tomjen3
Even if the oceans were going up 10m in a week it seems counterproductive to
panic -- it might be better to buy a boat or build a dike.

~~~
jonhendry
If you wait until oceans were going up 10m in a week, you're going to have a
lot of people panicking and fighting over boats.

In order to avoid panic, you have to prepare well ahead of time. Airlines tell
you what to do in an emergency when the flight starts, they don't wait until
the plane hits the water.

