[Vision2020] Climate Scientists Invite Debate Online

[lfalen]

Ted
Thanks for acknowledging that there are a few dissenting views on global warming, how about acknowledging that along with all the dire consequences  there may be a few beneficial effects. Instead of continually reiterating the problem in "the sky is falling" terms. let look at possible solutions using the free market system. I don't think anyone would argue that oil is infinite or that there is air pollution  While ethanol and the electric car are not cost effective at this point we need to keep working on them. We also need to look at other forms of clean energy such as nuclear and geothermal. By not looking at market driven ways to solve the problem you seem to be saying that we should go back to the horse and buggy or to the cave. These are not realistic alternatives. As Lomborg says "no one is going to go back to driving 5 miles an hour".
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:39:00 -0700
To: "Paul Rumelhart" godshatter at yahoo.com
Subject: Climate Scientists Invite Debate Online

> Paul, Roger et. al.
> 
> Given I suggested you inform climate scientists I have been referencing (i.
> e. the majority of climate scientists involved in the conclusions of the
> IPCC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, insofar as they comment on climate
> change, the Stern Report, etc.) of the errors of their climate models, you
> might find this web site, welcoming discussion online with climate
> scientists, an easy way to follow my suggestion.  I'm not sure
> how submitting comments works on this website.  But I'll include an
> "article" submitted, offered at Realclimate, at a web link below, that I
> found interesting, on "Suppressing Dissent" in the political, media,
> economic and scientific web of discussion on global warming.  You, along
> with Roger Falen, will find ammunition in this article for your
> skepticism about the "consensus" scientists working on global warming.
> Consider that the climate scientists who sponsor Realclimate fall into the
> "IPCC' mold, as far as I can tell.  So they are sponsoring a web site that
> allows their own work to be sliced and diced.  One way or the other, this
> web site is an amazing resource to study the subject of climate science,
> from beginners to Phds.:
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org
> 
> If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a
> relevant commentary, or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis,
> please email RealClimate <contrib-at-realclimate.org> (replace -at- with @).
> -----------------
> Link to article "Suppressing Dissent" found at Realclimate:
> 
> http://gerberatetra.blogspot.com/2007/05/suppressing-dissent.html
> 
> -----------------
> Ted Moffett
> 
> On 10/22/07, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Paul wrote on global warming:
> >
> >
> > > But that's not what I'm
> > > hearing.  "Something our grandchildren will have to deal with" seems to
> > > be another way to say "our worst predictions could end up that way if
> > > nobody does anything about it for the next century and our models are
> > > correct".
> >
> >
> > Given it "seems" you are not taking seriously the empirical findings, and
> > predictions, regarding global warming, supported by the scientific consensus
> > among climate scientists, well...
> >
> > Maybe you should, if you have not, study MIT climate scientist Richard
> > Lindzen's skeptical approach to the IPCC.  Though most climate scientists
> > disagree with Lindzen, he might agree to some extent with your approach to
> > modeling of climate science.  I have heard him interviewed, and his
> > arguments sounded somewhat like yours.  Lindzen is one of the favorites
> > quoted by the "global warming is too uncertain to take dramatic action on
> > greenhouse gas emissions" club.  He can make a convincing case, to a layman
> > such as myself.  But I have read too many other climate scientists who
> > disagree with him, to believe his skepticism is based on the best science,
> > and not his motivation to be a "brilliant iconoclast" in the scientific
> > community.  That's OK.  Science needs brilliant iconoclasts to question what
> > might otherwise be a too comfortable and complacent conformity.
> >
> > http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
> >
> > Again, I suggest you contact climate scientists who are issuing the
> > science based warnings on greenhouse gas emissions that I reference,
> > scientists working with the IPCC, or the Union of Concerned Scientists, or
> > the Stern Report, to inform them of their errors.  Because according to many
> > of these scientists, we are already committed to disruptive climate change
> > with current atmospheric CO2 levels at about 430 ppm.  And doing nothing to
> > lower emissions till the end of the century...well...  You can read the
> > predictions.
> >
> > Ted Moffett
> >
> >
> 
>