[Coral-List] carbon offsetting AND slowing down

Anne Theo anneheloise.theo at gmail.com
Fri Jun 21 07:36:36 UTC 2019 

Hi everyone,

Most of what has to be said has been said already. However, going through
the original email again I feel like the argument being made is really
vague, and any scientific debate needs to has clear cut points.

When the writer says they are suspicious of the recent climate models, is
it the severity of change predicted or climate change in general? Because
if it is the latter, we have real time evidence such as the increasing
frequency of extreme weather events and the melting ice caps, in the
tropics we have shorter winters and more severe summers. I think clearer
questions with solid evidence backing up the assumptions or criticisms is
needed from the questioner in order for this to be a proper scientific
discussion, otherwise its just our opinions.

And as mentioned earlier an un-referenced data point of ten years in a
small part of the world is hardly convincing evidence.

Regards
Anne

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 5:11 PM Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:

> Ulf,
>     In the US, the National Science Foundation is the main funder of
> scientific research, though individual Universities and Colleges do a
> little funding.  Various corporations do lots of funding of scientific
> studies (which may be more or less tied to trying to find new profitable
> products, I remember Bell Labs, part of the Bell Telephone Co., produced
> the first working transistor, and if I remember also the discovery of the
> cosmic background radiation that got a Nobel Prize, so they can do some
> pretty fabulous basic science research sometimes), and some government
> agencies fund research on topics they need info on.  So, for instance NOAA
> Coral Reef Conservation Program funds some activities, though most are for
> conservation purposes as the program title indicates, which is totally
> appropriate in my view.  And their budget is truly tiny compared to the
> problem.
>     National Science Foundation grants are incredibly competitive.  They
> use a peer-review system, using top scientists to review proposals.  If a
> proposal doesn't beat the competition, it won't get funded, and there are
> vastly more scientists who want funding than those that get it.  Most of
> those that apply do not get funded, and that is in all areas of science,
> nothing in particular to do with climate change denial, everything to do
> with limited budget, loads of good science proposals, and intense
> competition from very bright and hard working people.  My guess is that
> other countries have somewhat similar situations.
>      But cheer up, the fossil fuel industry funds deniers, and has vastly
> more funding available than puny programs like NOAA's coral reef program,
> just check out Mike Risk's email.  Lots of funding there for anything that
> supports climate change denial.  Does any of it go to serious, real
> science?  I don't know, I doubt very much they want the public to know what
> they fund, this is all private funding and part of the purpose is to keep
> it hidden.
>      Science is all about testing hypotheses, and climate hypotheses need
> testing just like everything else.  I have no doubt of that, and I'm sure
> that actual publishing climate scientists agree, and much of what they do
> is exactly that.  Proposals based on good reviews of existing evidence and
> good logic and good ideas are probably the most likely to get funded.
> Crackpot stuff from people who don't know what they are talking about
> rarely if ever gets funded (and most of the intermediate proposals, good
> science but not better than the competition, doesn't get funded,
> unfortunately there is not enough money).  True in all areas of science.
> If the people who like to call themselves "climate skeptics" actually had
> good evidence, logic and ideas, they'd get funded.  There are HUGE
> incentives for scientists and academics in general to discover new things
> and upset old or existing theories and ideas. Same goes for the funders of
> studies that discover totally new things or overturn well established
> ideas.  But things like cold fusion generally don't get funded, since there
> is a near zero chance they will pass muster as solid evidence.  But Google
> just funded 3 years of science on cold fusion.  And not surprisingly they
> came up with no evidence to support it being real and lots showing it
> wasn't.  Google can do what it wants with its money.  NSF has a
> responsibility to taxpayers not to waste their money.
>       And who knows, maybe the US gov't will start funding anything it can
> find to support its pre-conceived notions on climate change.
> Cheers, Doug
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:41 AM Ulf Erlingsson <ceo at lindorm.com> wrote:
>
> > Doug,
> >
> > it is attitudes like the one you expose below that makes skeptical
> > scientists stay quiet. Scientists who have no funding from the industry
> and
> > wish to have no funding from the industry, but they cannot get funding
> for
> > their research because the climate change lobby is sucking up all the
> > oxygen. It's like the Catholic Church and the heliocentric work view, the
> > conclusion is already decided so any research that risks putting the
> > conclusion in question is unwanted.
> >
> > It is NECESSARY to fund skeptics with REAL science money.
> >
> > Ulf Erlingsson
> >
> >
> > On 2019-06-18, at 17:48 , Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >      I can't think offhand of the fossil fuel industry trying to block
> > research (but maybe that is something I'm just unaware of).  The fossil
> > fuel industry is trying to mislead the public and trying to stop any
> > government action to fix the problem, and some in the US gov't appear to
> be
> > trying to suppress information they don't like.  The fossil fuel industry
> > has also been financing a legion of people to come up with all kinds of
> > reasons why global warming and climate change aren't real and humans
> aren't
> > causing it.  That denier industry is the one that has produced the 179
> > bogus arguments debunked on "skeptical science."  Yes, your points No. 1
> > and 3 are very much related, No. 1 is financing and egging on most of No.
> > 3.  There IS, legitimate questioning, and that's fine.  There was a
> > scientist who wasn't convinced, who was concerned about the "island heat
> > effect" that cities heat the air around them, and that many of the
> > temperature monitoring stations were around cities.  He investigated,
> more
> > data was collected, and after quite a while, he was convinced that the
> > earth's surface as a whole is indeed warming up.  That's real science,
> and
> > it is good.  But the majority of it is not, it's all about coming up with
> > bogus excuses to mislead people to protect giant profits of dirty fossil
> > fuel industry.
> >       There are parallels in other settled scientific issues.  For
> > instance, there is a huge portion of the US population that thinks that
> > there is no evolution, the world was created 6000 years ago, and Darwin
> was
> > all wrong.  All the evidence is that those people are wrong.  On the
> other
> > hand, there is lots of legitimate discussion about evolution.  There are
> > other processes involved in evolution besides natural selection.  Darwin
> > himself discovered sexual selection.  Genetic drift is an important
> aspect
> > independent of selection.  There are theories like punctuated equilibrium
> > and selfish genes and sociobiology.  There are even modern data that
> show a
> > few things that follow Lamarkian evolution.
> >       There is a vast difference between a huge industry-funded effort to
> > protect their profits with disinformation propaganda campaigns, and
> > legitimate discussion based on actual evidence.
> >       Cheers,  Doug
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:33 AM Ulf Erlingsson via Coral-List <
> > coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes Steve, but this is not a two-sided debate, it is a three-sided
> debate.
> >>
> >> 1. Industry that is trying to block the research
> >> 2. Researchers who are working with theories and data
> >> 3. Other researchers who are being critical for good reasons.
> >>
> >> If you are conflagrating 1 and 3 you are making 1 a favor.
> >>
> >> Ulf Erlingsson
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 2019-06-14, at 17:06 , Risk, Michael via Coral-List <
> >> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some context as to who is David and who is Goliath:
> >> >
> >> > "Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas
> >> companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to
> control,
> >> delay or block binding climate-motivated policy." (Forbes, Mar 25/19)
> >> >
> >> > -and this doesn't count the Dark Money from dark places. (No, not
> >> THERE, Steve-get your mind out of the gutter.)
> >> >
> >> > It's no mystery why action on this front is so difficult.
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From: Coral-List [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] on behalf
> of
> >> Steve Mussman via Coral-List [coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov]
> >> > Sent: June 14, 2019 3:38 PM
> >> > To: coral list
> >> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] carbon offsetting AND slowing down
> >> >
> >> > I have no problem with Gene’s post being allowed on list. To me it’s a
> >> first amendment issue. However, I do take issue with the fact that the
> post
> >> used an anonymous source to make a rather serious accusation about the
> >> veracity of the SST data analysis and projections compiled by NOAA - all
> >> without bothering to cite a reference to the data that the author claims
> >> refutes the warming trend. Such tactics should be condemned by all.
> >> > This egregious modus operandi is nothing new, but it certainly runs
> >> counter to the ideals generally adhered to throughout the scientific
> >> community. As for bullying, one has to be totally disconnected and/or
> >> somewhat confused not to realize that we are living in an era of
> >> unprecedented attacks on science and scientific integrity. The post in
> >> question clearly epitomizes this unfortunate state of affairs.
> >> >
> >> > Steve Mussman
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Coral-List mailing list
> >> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> > https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Coral-List mailing list
> >> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> > https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Fenner
> > Ocean Associates, Inc. Contractor
> > NOAA Fisheries Service
> > Pacific Islands Regional Office
> > Honolulu
> > and:
> > Consultant
> > PO Box 7390
> > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA
> >
> > A call to climate action  (Science editorial)
> >
> >
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6443/807?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2019-05-30&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=2840296
> >
> > New book "The Uninhabitable Earth"  First sentence: "It is much, much
> > worse than you think."
> > Read first (short) chapter open access:
> >
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/read-a-chapter-from-the-uninhabitable-earth-a-dire-warning-on-climate-change
> >
> > Want a Green New Deal?  Here's a better one.
> >
> >
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-a-green-new-deal-heres-a-better-one/2019/02/24/2d7e491c-36d2-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.a3fc8337cbf8
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Douglas Fenner
> Ocean Associates, Inc. Contractor
> NOAA Fisheries Service
> Pacific Islands Regional Office
> Honolulu
> and:
> Consultant
> PO Box 7390
> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA
>
> A call to climate action  (Science editorial)
>
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6443/807?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2019-05-30&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=2840296
>
> New book "The Uninhabitable Earth"  First sentence: "It is much, much worse
> than you think."
> Read first (short) chapter open access:
>
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/read-a-chapter-from-the-uninhabitable-earth-a-dire-warning-on-climate-change
>
> Want a Green New Deal?  Here's a better one.
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-a-green-new-deal-heres-a-better-one/2019/02/24/2d7e491c-36d2-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.a3fc8337cbf8
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

More information about the Coral-List mailing list