It would be much easier to swallow some of the Gospel According To Moffett with regard to global warming were it not for a few minor points.
A. Scientists are people who have been wrong about things like this in the past. I won't bore you with the global cooling story or the rubric of accepting predictions 50 years out when the weather cant be accurately predicted for next week. Suffice it to say many past predictions for global catastrophe have not come to pass.
B. Scientists are people who by their very nature are among the worst of the herd type animals. They go to the same schools, learn the same concepts from the same instructors. They want to be respected by their peers and their mentors and you don't achieve this by going against the accepted consensus of the day. Look where the Nobel prize went this year for goodness sake.
C. Scientists are people and people lie. Mr. Schwallers post provided fine examples of this phenomena. Another fine example would be a certain Nobel prize winning movie.
D. Scientists are people and people like to be in the spotlight. The spotlight shines brightest on those who proclaim gloom and doom. There isn't much attention for those who express the notion that things will most likely sort themselves out. Anyone from the "it'll be OK" crowd get a letter from Oslo?
E. Scientists are people who want to be taken seriously. One of the easiest ways to achieve this is to make serious predictions. I predict that the sea will rise up so high that dead polar bears will be washing up in Washtucna. Where's my check for $1.8 mil?
I don't know if human induced global warming is a reality or not. I do know that accepting every word that falls from the mouth of a scientist as a divine message from on high is probably not a great idea. I mean really, I'm guessing that most of the folks on this list know a scientist or two. I'm related to a few. I wouldn't modify my day based on their predictions. Why would I drastically alter my life based on their prognostication skills?
I know this comes across as being all medieval and anti-science and all but, enough with the endless doomsday carping that we have been subjected to for the past few years. We have heard you. Endless repetition is not a solution. How about if the eggheads get together with the real heroes of the information age, the engineers and come up with something that more closely resembles a solution. (I mean a real solution. Not the walk, ride a bike, and car pool eye wash) I'd rather listen to a few years of here's the plan, guys, then anymore repetitions of here's the problem.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Moffett
To: lfalen ; J Ford
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:07 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability
All-
One of the main road blocks that must be addressed to solve the global warming crisis, is the large number of people who, for one reason or another, do not accept that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that significant action is necessary to prevent substantive negative impacts. The choices these people make as consumers, in lifestyle, and as voters, are hampering efforts to mitigate this crisis. They would rather not bother to study the science, or only choose to believe the small minority of scientists who insist the consensus is in error. Or maybe they don't believe the scientific community or the scientific method is to be trusted, or is reliable. Or for many, even if they fully acknowledge the problem, they are too dependent on their current lifestyle to make the changes required to transition away from a fossil fuel/energy dependent way of living.
For those who insist they do not believe the scientific consensus, the hundreds of scientists who have spent years of their life studying this issue, and have emphatically concluded that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet, it appears that reasoning with a brick wall might be more rewarding... At least the bricks will not respond in a manner that insults a person's intelligence.
Studying the minority views of the scientists who reject the scientific consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet is necessary to continue to test the veracity of the consensus. Indeed, as this process of skepticism on this issue continues, the self corrective mechanism of replicatability of findings by other scientists, perhaps the most fundamental principle of the scientific method, to insure that the science on this issue is not corrupt, fabricated, politically biased, etc., the consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet has only increased. And the claim that human induced global warming will not have drastic consequences is more and more an incredible position.
At the bottom of the PDF document at the first link below are approximately 70 published papers on climate science that support the conclusions on the science of climate change in the Stern Report. No doubt Al Gore and other environmental loonies have conspired with these scientists in political subversion to spread socialism and other dastardly nefarious plots, in a vast global cabal to undermine the free market system, using global warming as a boogeyman to scare the bejezzus out of the naive gullible hoi polloi.
And I've fallen for it!
Chapter 1: The science of climate change:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf
Stern Review on the economics of climate change:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
--------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 10/19/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
Ted
I don't think that you should so easily dismiss George Willl's comments. He is just a journalist and a lay person on global waming but Lomberg whow he sites is a scientist and his statements should be taken seriously. Global warming has plusses an minuses as Will pointed out. Not everything is negative. Glogal warming by itself may be a benefit overall. What problems there are are better solved by the free market system(with some government guide lines) not draconian government regulation which would stifle the economy. This is not to say we should not be concerned about air pollution. It is a problem and measures should be taken to curtail it. There has already been some improvement in this area. As an example, in the 1960"s you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly ever smell it from just acrose the river. Efforts to find cleaner fuel should be continued.
Roger
-----------------
Ok, I'm going to bite on this one.
As much as I really hate the nay-sayers regarding the "global warming" -so-called-issue, I'd like to ask this:
IF the ice caps are melting as quickly as is being stated, (a) doesn't this put more water into the atmospher, i.e., through evaporation; (b) doesn't this mean there will be more water to fall as rain; (c) the areas that are experiencing drought right now - won't they in fact see an increase in water through rain and/or the swelling of rivers, creeks, water-ways; (d) what are the pro/cons of using ocean water, processing it and putting it into pipes as un-salted water for communities in need? I see adds where a company is saying they "capture" billions of gallons of water a year for use - in what way?
And no, I really don't care to get into it about the "global warming" alarmists. I'm just asking the above questions.
Thank you.
J :]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/84ab9eed/attachment.html