[Coral-List] The Great Global Warming Swindle
Robert Miller
rjmiller1 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 12:27:34 EDT 2007
For a brief explanation of why the sunspot theory is wrong, please see the
following article in the Guardian:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html
On 3/26/07, Phil Dustan <dustanp at cofc.edu> wrote:
>
> Hey Listers,
> 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
> days time.
> 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,
> Phil
>
>
> 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!!
> >
> > 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 <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.
> >>>
> >>> 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: 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
> >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list