[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability

[Ted Moffett]

On 10/20/07, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:


>   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.
>

It is apparent from your reply that you, and many others, do not respect the
scientific consensus, among climate scientists, on human induced global
warming.  Given this rejection of fact and reason on this issue, which is
disturbingly widespread, an even more aggressive education effort regarding
the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is indicated.  Thank you for
your outspoken rejection of the integrity of the scientific community, given
how many with your point of view keep quiet.  You are an inspiration to
continue the effort to champion science and reason!

And what if the scientific consensus regarding the dangers of human induced
global warming are wrong, and we reduce greenhouse gas emissions
significantly?  What great harm will result?  We will be well on our way to
the non-fossil fueled future, which we should be preparing for anyway!  T.
Boone Pickens, oil industry expert extraordinaire, just declared peak oil
has occurred.  And oil just passed a new record $90 a barrel, though this is
in part due to the devalued dollar.  But even if global warming is a hoax,
the transition to significantly increased energy conservation and
alternative energy sources, is urgent nonetheless.  This urgency can be
addressed at all levels, from city to county to state to national and
international policy and planning.  The connection to local decision making
is obvious... As is which candidates in the next Moscow City Council
election are likely to address these issues substantively:

http://www.time.net.my/channel/news/article.cfm?Types=International&Related=Business&ID=208536

http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1254

Ted Moffett



>  ----- Original Message -----
>
>  *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> ; J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
> *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>
> :
>
>
> 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  :]
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/66847703/attachment.html