[Coral-List] The Great Global Warming Swindle
dustanp at cofc.edu
Mon Mar 26 08:26:20 EDT 2007
I've watched this discussion unfold and keep thinking that no matter
who is correct, it would be prudent to invoke the precautionary
principle and work towards reducing the potential that humans might,
just might, have a role in climate change.
The wars of the last century, including the ongoing, predicted-to-be
long drawn out war on terror will look like a birthday party compared to
the ravages of of a hotter planet's climate system. And don't forget
about the costs- they will completely overwhelm our economic system.
Just look at what a few inconveniently placed hurricanes can do in a few
Global bleaching, melting glaciers, acidified seas, etc are just a
prelude. Even if 2000+ scientists are totally wrong, wouldn't it make
some sense to deal with the issue as best we can instead of putting our
heads in the sand?
Have a great day,
Phillip Dustan Ph.D.
Department of Biology
College of Charleston
Charleston SC 29424
(843) 953-8086 voice
(843) 953-5453 (Fax)
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!!
> 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
>> clear and to indicate why we should be paying attention to the
>> 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
>> public opinion. I have since managed to download and view the
>> 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
>> scientists and activists discerning climate change are are motivated by
>> vested interest cuts both ways, to say the least. Ignoring the
>> 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
>> to relegate CO2 to a minor role at best. Regardless of whether it is
>> 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.
>>> From: Mark Eakin <Mark.Eakin at noaa.gov>
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:09:00 -0400
>>> To: Coral Listserver <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 http://
>>> 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.
>>> 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: 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
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
More information about the Coral-List