[Coral-List] The Great Global Warming Swindle
Andy Collins
andy.collins at noaa.gov
Sun Mar 25 21:05:30 EDT 2007
It seems to me that the single most salient point that many of these
movies, and discussions fail to point out is "why not become more
efficient, and why not change the way we live and do business." So
much time is spent arguing the finer, extraordinarily complex aspects
of this issue, but to the naysayer, or the person who views this new
film and uses it as an anchor point to attach their stubborn
complicity to the status quo and business as usual, to comfortably
leave their head in the sand, I say why not change? It is like the
groups who lobby against MPA's, who try and push through legislation
that forces the burden of proof upon the proponents of MPAs, and say
we have to prove it will work before we establish it, I say why not
try something new, obviously what we are doing now does not work.
From the earliest of human times when hypothesized huge climate shifts
drove major evolutionary changes in our ancestors, to the great
explorers who ventured into the unknown against conventional wisdom,
to societies which supported invention and creativity and were thus
propelled beyond their counterparts, change from the comfortable, and
the known, to the unknown has frequently proved beneficial to the
human species. Of course, this isn't always the case - lest we forget
the Neanderthal or nuclear weapons. But it is change which has driven
us forward as a species, and in the face of uncertainty about who is
causing what in the atmosphere, why not try and become more efficient,
have cleaner air, more efficient cars, and minimize our influence in
the overall atmospheric equation? We all know the cynical answers to
these questions, but the other side of the coin is let's try a new way
of doing things, if not to make things better (don't fix what ain't
broke), then just to say we could...and did.
Andy Collins
Education and Technology Coordinator
NOAA Papahanaumokuakea
Marine National Monument
6600 Kalaniana'ole Hwy. # 300
Honolulu, HI 96825
-------------------------
Ph: (808)397-2660 xt 222
Cell (808)347-8144
Fx: (808)397-2662
[1]http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov
[2]http://www.hawaiianatolls.org
***************************************************
Subscribe to the Monument's listserve and receive
information on current Monument activities, news and
events...send an email to [3]requests at willamette.nos.noaa.gov
with "Subscribe nwhi" in the subject line.
****************************************************
The views presented are my personal opinions and do not reflect the views or po
sitions of the U.S. Federal Government.
Alan E. Strong wrote:
All of this great discussion reminds me of the time, nearly 10-15
years ago when I attempted to present both sides of these
arguments, obviously not as well-developed back then, to my
students at the US Naval Academy in our Climate Change class (that
the less conservative administration -- at the time -- often tried
to shut down from year to year). At the end of the semester when
we had the students "vote" as to whether they saw climate change as
a major issue or not...the responses, from year to year, were most
notably mixed [undecided]. I often think predicting future climate
is like the present state of weather forecasting....that has gotten
much more improved over the last 20 years with improved
models...but still the best forecasts at the moment seem to come
from to "ensemble" forecasting...any individual model is simply not
good enough on its own. Forecasters have advanced from 2-3 day
forecasts with good skill to10 day forecasts...but even those do
not ALWAYS work (to the satisfaction of many of the public who need
reliable ones). When our skill is anything less that 100% there is
always room for improvement. Until the skill score of these global
models used to foresee climate change as far as 50 to 100 years
into the future improves -- and the various outcomes narrow in
their results, the opposing views in this debate will always have
some credibility...until those views become accepted...OR rejected
with facts that support one decision.
So, as Scott has stated...each of us (at least those in the debate)
need to read this all for ourselves and understand where we stand.
This may be easier for young students who are by their vary nature
curious and open minded, than it is for many of us
scientists...many who do not adequately understand all the issues
and possibly more important...their relative importance.
...at this time in my global climate class I would remind the next
generation that I was teaching that there is still more to learn,
understand, and promote. When folks on either side of this debater
are not open to correcting and or debating obvious errors in their
presentations, as slick as they may be, one has to suspect motives
that are less than pure (notice that I kept from using the word
"political").
So as Mark says,
/I suggest that you skip the opinion web sites and read the IPCC
report. The 4th assessment report is now coming out. It was
developed by more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100
countries. This is an intergovernmental body, meaning that
scientists involved were cleared by their governments./
...not just see the latest Hollywood awarded movie or its counter
from the UK!!
Cheers,
Al
William Allison wrote:
This message should not be interpreted as critical of
well-intentioned
responses to my initial posting on this issue. I wish to make my
intention
clear and to indicate why we should be paying attention to the
documentary
and other communications like it.
The intention of my initial posting was to bring the documentary to
the
attention of the list because from where I sit, it seems to be
influencing
public opinion. I have since managed to download and view the
documentary.
It is clearly a polemic, often employs the same emotional bag of
tricks the
alleged climate-change conspiracy is accused of using, and the
charge that
scientists and activists discerning climate change are are
motivated by
vested interest cuts both ways, to say the least. Ignoring the
documentary's
rhetoric, it presents some aspects of the problem that are not
addressed in
the on-line available IPCC Summary for Policy Makers for Working
Group I
"The Physical Science Basis". Particularly noticeable by its
near-absence in
that section of IPCC report is empirical evidence about solar
forcing. In
the documentary this issue is convincingly presented with
supporting
evidence as a coherent sun-based explanation for global warming
that appears
to relegate CO2 to a minor role at best. Regardless of whether it
is valid
or not, it is easily grasped by, and therefore is in principle
appealing to,
a general audience. It is effective communication, even if perhaps
it is not
good science; I'll leave that to the experts to decide, and
doubtless it is
covered somewhere in the IPCC report. Even so, it does not seem to
have been
widely or effectively disseminated at this point in time, rather is
the
perspective of the documentary that is being effectively
communicated to the
public. If the perspective presented in the documentary is being
more
effectively marketed (a deliberate choice of words) than is the
IPCC
perspective, then it should be a matter of concern to those seeking
rational, fact-based public discussion.
Sincerely,
Bill
From: Mark Eakin [4]<Mark.Eakin at noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:09:00 -0400
To: Coral Listserver [5]<coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] The Great Global Warming Swindle
It continues to amaze me when reputable scientists rely on partisan
or opinionated sources as reliable references for scientific
discussions. NGOs and politicians on both sides of this, and most
other, debates often use selective data to make their points.
Journalists may go even farther to maximize their draw.
I suggest that you skip the opinion web sites and read the IPCC
report. The 4th assessment report is now coming out. It was
developed by more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100
countries. This is an intergovernmental body, meaning that
scientists involved were cleared by their governments.
The Summary for Policy Makers for Working Group I "The Physical
Science Basis" was released in February and is available from
[6]http://
[7]www.ipcc.ch/. If you really care about the issue, you can
manage to
read the 13 pages of text plus figures.
Working Group II on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability will be
released on 6 April.
Cheers,
Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
------------------------
C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Coordinator, NOAA Coral Reef Watch
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Satellite Applications and Research
Satellite Oceanography & Climate Division
e-mail: [8]mark.eakin at noaa.gov
url: coralreefwatch.noaa.gov
E/RA31, SSMC1, Room 5308
1335 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226
301-713-2857 x109 Fax: 301-713-3136
The contents of this message are mine personally and do not
necessarily reflect any position of the Government or the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[9]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[10]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[11]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[12]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[13]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[14]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
References
1. http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/
2. http://www.hawaiianatolls.org/
3. mailto:requests at willamette.nos.noaa.gov
4. mailto:Mark.Eakin at noaa.gov
5. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
6. http:///
7. http://www.ipcc.ch/
8. mailto:mark.eakin at noaa.gov
9. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
10. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
11. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
12. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
13. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
14. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list