[Vision2020] "I have no...obvious evidentiary reasons for trusting climate scientists..."

[Ted Moffett]

*Chasuk* chasuk at gmail.com
<vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20Warning%20from%20Copenhagen&In-Reply-To=6BCF0D21-DABC-4459-99D0-6F07C5A0E133%40gmail.com>
*Wed Jul 1 12:47:15 PDT 2009* wrote:

"Most importantly, they are largely theoreticians, and the confirmation (or
not) of their theories can only be judged over many, many lifetimes.  I have
no pragmatic or obvious evidentiary reasons for trusting climate
scientists..."

"Obviously," you don't live in a hurricaine zone on the world's sea coasts
where rising sea levels threaten this century, nor on a low lying island in
the ocean where plans are already underway to resettle the residents when
sea levels rise.  Nor apparently do you think it "obvious" or
"pragmatic," based on climate science, that profound negative impacts from
climate change are predicted regarding agriculture, snow pack and water
supplies, extreme drought, wildfires and flooding, or the melting
of Greenland ice and the deterioration of the Arctic, in the next century,
not "over many, many lifetimes."

I suppose it's a matter of how you define "obvious" or "pragmatic" regarding
the reliability or reality of the science involved.  The predictions of
climate scientists regarding these serious impacts (some of which are
already happening) are rather "obvious," to anyone studying climate
change, and should be taken very seriously, given the credibility of the
science.

If the theory of greenhouse warming of the atmosphere from greenhouse gases
(CO2, methane, et. al.) is correct, and the physics and evidence is
overwhelming that it is, the impacts of this theory are fundamental for life
on our planet.  They are every day "pragmatic" and "obvious."  It is rather
"evidentiary," if you understand climate science, that if all CO2 and
methane were removed from the atmosphere, Earth would be a much colder
planet.  Enjoy the warm weather, a result of the greenhouse effect from
greenhouse gases (much of which is of course a natural phenomena).

There already exists a growing body of paleoclimate data, that extends back
long before humans walked this planet ("many, many lifetimes" indeed!), that
is a source of scientific information regarding greenhouse gases and the
impact on climate.    And given the IPCC predictions regarding climate
change this century, as a guide to verifying or not if the theory that human
emissions of greenhouse gases, and other human impacts, are radicallty
altering our climate, it will not take "many, many lifetimes" to judge if
IPCC scientists are mostly correct.  The generation born today (given a
70-80 year life span) will know if the IPCC was a hoax, a result
of incompetent science, or a truly Nobel Prize (they won the
Nobel Prize) winning effort.

Of course it is possible climate changing variables (large scale volcanic
activity, an asteroid, or something else not predicted) will dramatically
alter Earth's climate in the next century in a manner that renders the IPCC
predictions of temperature change problematic.

Stephen Hawking predicted that information loss in the physics of black hole
mathematics challenged the underpinnings of modern science, of causuality,
and continuity of natural law.  If someone wants to shed doubt on well
established scientific theories, the scientific method is more than willing
to supply arguments to shed doubt.

Ted Moffett

On 7/1/09, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:


> Now consider climate scientists. Their expertise exists in  a wide
> variety of disciplines. I never see the fruits of their work, and
> often neither do they, except for in the receipt of a paycheck.  I may
> benefit from their expertise, but only indirectly. Most importantly,
> they are largely theoreticians,  and the confirmation (or not) of
> their theories can only be judged over many, many lifetimes. I have no
> pragmatic or obvious evidentiary reasons for trusting climate
> scientists, whereas I do for doctors, layers, and gardeners.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090701/7b28625b/attachment.html