[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

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
     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
     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
     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 that
     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
     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
     perspective   of   the   documentary   that  is  being  effectively
     communicated to the
     public.  If  the  perspective presented in the documentary is being
     effectively  marketed  (a  deliberate  choice of words) than is the
     perspective, then it should be a matter of concern to those seeking
     rational, fact-based public discussion.

     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
     [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.
     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

     Coral-List mailing list
     [11]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov


Coral-List mailing list
[13]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov


   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