Rebuttal??

[Dave Allison]

Mr. Strong;

S.E. Thompson's comments are warranted, as is his very moderated
expression of his opinion. Mr. Sowell is a dedicated opponent of rational
conduct by industry and governments to address global climate change. Mr.
Sowell, much like the green-washing organization "greening earth society,
advocates unbridled growth of fossil fuels and makes continuing
unjustified and unwarranted attacks on all environmental organizations.

The "greening earth society", which I hope you were referencing as an
example of dialectic worthy of a response equal to the response Thompson
proposed to Sowell, is a promotional effort advocating expansion of CO2
emissions, denying damage to the world climate from burning fossil fuels
and advocates a Cato Institute-like absence of regulation of any kind of
emissions. Those emissions are loading the ocean as much as they are
loading the upland forests. Their positions are all short term greed and
profit and disregard of long term harm that results from fossil fuel
burning.

It is good to see NOAA personnel interested in this issue.

Dave Allison
Fish Forever


>From: Al Strong <Alan.E.Strong at noaa.gov>
>To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>Subject: Rebuttal??
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:27:29
>
>S. E. Thompson -
>
>Before you finalize your response to Mr. Sowell I would hope your emotions
>in your rebuttal would not be as evident as they were in your statement to
>coral-list below...e.g. 5th sentence??
>
>Also note:
>
>http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v6n20/feature.htm
>
>AE Strong
>
>Coral listers,
>Last Sunday’s paper contained the following syndicated column about 
>Global
>Warming by Thomas Sowell, "senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford
>University."  Just when it seemed the scientific community has reached
>enough consensus to put the reality of global warming beyond debate and
>allow intelligent policy decisions to be considered in light of scientific
>fact, this kind of obfuscation and chauvinistic, industry-friendly 
>dismissal
>appears in the paper and attempts to undermine any responsible efforts to
>deal with the problem by confusing the average, voting citizen.  I am
>drafting a rebuttal to this article.  Obviously, nothing is going to change
>Mr. Sowell’s mind, considering the tone of his piece.  As an
>arch-conservative African American, he and his motives are unfathomable to
>me.  But I think it is important to counter such articles in the media as
>soon as possible.  Before I submit my response, I wanted to invite the
>comments of those of you on the coral list.  Since sea surface temperatures
>are among the first signs of climate shifts and coral reefs seem to 
>function
>as the canary in the mine shaft of global warming, the members of this list
>would be among the best informed to debate this issue.  How would you 
>refute
>the claims made by Mr. Sowell?
>Here is his article:
>
>Global Warming Report is Nothing but Hot Air
>
>A new political dogma is being spun by the media.  "Science," they say, has
>now "proved" that global warming is a real danger and that human beings are
>responsible fort it, so that we need to take drastic steps to reduce
>greenhouse gases.  This had been the widespread response to a recent
>publication by the National Academy of Sciences, which many in the media
>have
>taken as proof that we need to follow the drastic requirements of the Kyoto
>accords, in order to reduce the threat of global warming.
>The stampede toward draconian changes in our economy and in the whole
>American way of life required by the Kyoto accords is all too congenial to
>the mindset of the intelligentsia in general and the liberal media in
>particular.  Anything that requires their superior wisdom and virtue to be
>imposed by government on the benighted masses has a favorable reception
>waiting in those quarters.
>Back in the 1970s, the hysteria was about global cooling and the prospect 
>of
>a new ice age.  A National Academy of Science report back then led Science
>magazine to conclude in its March 1, 1975 issue that a long "ice age is a
>real possibility."  According to the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek, "the
>earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."  A note of urgency was part of
>global cooling hysteria then as much as it is part of today’s global
>warming
>hysteria.  According to the February 1973 issue of Science digest, "Once 
>the
>freeze starts, it will be too late."
>Nothing is easier than to come up with mathematical models and doomsday
>scenarios.  Politicians and government bureaucrats have been trying for 
>well
>over a decade to sell a doomsday scenario of global warming, which would
>enhance the powers of -- you guessed it -- politicians and bureaucrats.
>Among scientists specializing in the study of weather and climate, there 
>are
>many differences of opinion, reflecting the complex and uncertain data.
>Among the prominent scientists who do not go along with the global warming
>hysteria are Richard S. Lindzen, who is professor of meteorology at MIT, 
>and
>Dr. S. Fred Singer, who created the American weather satellite system and
>whose book "Hot Talk, Cold Science" is must reading for those who want
>scientific facts rather than a political stampede.
>Although Lindzen is one of the big names listed in the National Academy of
>Science report, he disagrees with the global warming hysteria.  As Lindzen
>notes, "the climate is always changing." Innumerable factors go into
>temperature changes and many of those factors, such as changing amounts of
>heat put out by the sun during different eras, are beyond the control human
>beings.
>Certain gasses, such as carbon dioxide, have the potential to affect
>temperature, but that is very different from saying that a particular rise
>in
>temperature during a particular era is necessarily due to "greenhouse
>gasses."  A major part of the rising temperature over the past century took
>place before World War II - which was also before the large increases in
>carbon dioxide emissions in our time.
>The National Academy of Sciences report itself tiptoes around the fact that
>the timing of temperature increases does not coincide with the timing of
>increases in greenhouse gasses.  As the NAS report puts it: "The cause of
>these irregularities and the disparities in timing are not completely
>understood."
>Even if we were to cripple our economy by carrying out the radical steps
>proposed by the Kyoto accords, this "would not result in a substantial
>reduction in global warming," according to Lindzen.  He laments the use of
>science "as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political 
>opponents
>and propagandize uninformed citizens."  Unfortunately, many of these
>uninformed citizens are in the media.
>Thomas Sowell
>
>So, there you have it.  I will resist the temptation to include my own
>stinging rebuke until the coral list has had a crack at it.  Thanks!
>S.E. Thompson
>Research Associate, Oregon State University
>Director, Tropical Marine Biodiversity Trust
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>~~~~~~~
>For directions on subscribing and unsubscribing to coral-list or the
>digests, please visit www.coral.noaa.gov, click on Popular on the
>menu bar, then click on Coral-List Listserver.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

~~~~~~~
For directions on subscribing and unsubscribing to coral-list or the
digests, please visit www.coral.noaa.gov, click on Popular on the
menu bar, then click on Coral-List Listserver.