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

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Wed Jul 1 21:38:11 PDT 2009


Just to clarify, I wrote "in the next century" in the post below when
perhaps I should have wrote "in this century."  I meant in the next 100
years, but some may think when writing "in the next century" is meant
2100-2200.

Ted Moffett

On 7/1/09, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> *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/20090701/943432cd/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list