Wall Street Journal and Anthropological Global Warming?

This week a rather unknown and obscure newspaper published this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Of course it has caused a little stir, the question is when will this "settled science" wake up and find its a has been?

A Face Book dialogue: Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming online.wsj.com

Sixteen scientists write in The Wall Street Journal that there's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

· · · Share · 4 hours ago

• 
  
• • 

    John Martens Seems like truth is always inconvenient, and it is better to be hot or cold as opposed to luke-warm.

    4 hours ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey Great retort John, blessings to you and yours...

    4 hours ago · · 1
  • 

    Rod Murphy As usual more opinion than science

    2 hours ago ·
  • 

    John Martens

    My concern is more with the motives behind the science/opinions. It seems to me that those opposed to the concept of global warming are seeking to avoid the responsibility to be good stewards of the global resources; they seem greed driven....See More

    2 hours ago ·
  • 

    Nils Ek

    It is crucial to distinguish between
    1. the question of climate change, whether it is actually getting warmer or colder and over what time scale, and
    2.the more contentious theory that man-made CO2 is the culprit for an alleged dangerous warming during the most recent decades.
    
    A large number of very qualified scientists consider over-simplified, the theory that CO2 is the major controller of global average temperature fluctuations. Unfortunately, the vast majority of journalists bought into the prophecy according to Al Gore, and they just can't follow the scientific debate, which was never "settled". One can "deny" CO2 as the major climate-change factor, and still favor reductions in pollution.
    
    Scientists are only human, and many of them will fight for funding for their pet research, to the point of blasting the opposition with any means available, e.g. ridicule, personal insult, etc. The so-called "deniers", in my opinion, hold the scientific high ground.

    45 minutes ago · · 1
  • 

    Owen Abrey You are my hero Nils, I want to be like you when I grow up!

    5 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey ‎@Rod, with respect sir, may I suggest that we weigh who's opinion? These scientists are credible at major Universities around the world--universities you would probably be honored to have your degree through. One by one there are qualified scientists who are risking their careers to come forward and question the paucity of evidence, and point to the hundreds of billions in funding that awaits those who line up with the status quo.