<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your posting in August 2006 of the global warming skeptic website </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html">http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>offered me a chance to consider the validity of what this website was claiming, so I should thank you for the educational opportunity. It was useful in the discussion, just as you thought! I relish a good challenge to my assumptions about the world.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's true after my response to your post containing what I thought was "junk science," that you indicated in a Offlist communication, which you may have totally forgotten, you would answer my response, and never did. No big deal really, given the informal, voluntary and insignificant nature of Vision2020 discussions.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I did not think you were being "rude" in your recent responses. At least you responded! Being ignored is perhaps the worst offence! Perhaps you did not directly address the theme of discussion I was seeking, but I appreciate your engagement on the issue of global warming.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seemed you claimed you did not know enough to offer a definite opinion, while offering the definite opinion that there was no scientific consensus on global warming that you could comment on, after I presented significant verification that there was such a consensus. Maybe I misread your intent.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your detailed questions on important variables to analyze if human impacts are significantly increasing global warming, or if these increases are a danger, are important. And your humility regarding the expertise required to answer these questions is laudable. I lack the academic qualifications to claim any professional credibility on climate science.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have been focused on these questions for years, from an admitidly layman's perspective. But after surveying the scientific literature, I think I can quickly identify what is blatant "junk science," when this is presented in an oversimplified manner that contradicts the mainstream science on, for example, the relative global warming potential of water vapor versus CO2, the way
<a href="http://clearlight.com">clearlight.com</a> presented these variables. I might be wrong, but if so, so aren't hundreds of credentialed scientists!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Debate," "discussion," either way, I only wish to discover what the scientific community is determining to be the majority opinion on whether human impacts on global warming are enough of a potential danger to mandate significant action...This is not a trivial question, given how the potential dangers are being portrayed by credible members of the scientific community.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The question of how biased the scientific community has become when presenting their findings on global warming is a valid concern. My perception of this politicization is that the weight of politicization has primarily slanted towards asserting that the scientists who warn of the dangers of global warming due to human impacts are exaggerating their claims. Surveys of the published articles in the popular media support this view. A much larger percentage of articles in the popular media that shed doubt on human induced global warming appear than do the percentage of articles in the peer reviewed scientific literature that also assert this doubt.
<br> </div>
<div>This slant towards denial of the scientific evidence for human induced global warming may be shifting toward an uncritical acceptance of the claims of human induced global warming. One way or the other, the public view of science is not likely to approach the ideal educational goal of a full understanding of the scientific method and how it proceeds, so we cannot expect popular literature on this subject to be fully "scientific," absent of bias.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my response to your August 2006 post referenced here, I made a list of the critical variables involved in the science of climate change. No doubt this list is incomplete and oversimplified. I wonder what should be added after my "etc. etc." ending to this paragraph, or how my depiction of these variables is in error?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034778.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-August/034778.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course it can be argued that these significant changes are just a natural cycle of some sort. But these changes are sudden (in the grand time scale of the planet) and dramatic, and must be caused by some variable or variables. We can examine the dominate climate change variables. We can measure output from the sun, the content of water vapor in the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases, the contribution of albedo, the effects of cloud cover. We know of the variations in the Earth's orbit, precession of the equinoxes, and of the influence of volcanoes and aerosols. We can estimate influences of farming and animal food impacts, along with deforestation. We understand how plants and the ocean absorb CO2, how natural methane releases
<br>occur, and the potential impacts of methane hydrates, etc. etc.</div>
<div>----</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ok, I've taken a deep breath. My apologies for being rude. I was<br>reacting to your having "called me out" about that message that I had
<br>posted some number of months ago that I've since forgotten all about.<br>Now I've realized what (I think) the issue is: you are wanting to have<br>a debate; I'm wanting to have a discussion.<br><br>I'm thinking of this more as a group of college students late at night
<br>eating pizza, drinking beer, and discussing a topic in the news. There<br>are lots of "what about such-and-such" kinds of comments, and rebuttals<br>to those comments, and so forth. It appears that you are thinking of
<br>this as two groups holding hardline positions on the subject who are<br>each working to best support their case. So when I posted about a<br>website I ran across, it was basically with the idea that it might<br>(given what I knew at the time) be useful in the discussion. It seemed
<br>reasonable to me, and as this was a new subject to me, I based much of<br>my opinions about global warming on it. It was pretty handily stomped<br>upon, which to me was an educational experience. I got out of what I
<br>wanted, which was your reaction to a different perspective and I learned<br>from it. That's how I like to learn: look at things from all angles<br>until my knowledge about it generally gels into an opinion. Your
<br>response was a good one, and it changed how I think about global warming<br>a bit. I did not, however, expect to have to go rebut your rebuttal of<br>my post. I didn't do the work to create the pages I linked to, it's not
<br>my position that I feel obligated to defend; in fact, my views on it<br>changed enough that I'm not sure I even want to defend it anymore. As<br>I've mentioned previously, I'm not knowledable enough about this to do
<br>that kind of thing and I don't feel strongly enough about it to do the<br>underlying learning that I would need to do to be able to argue<br>knowledgably about this subject. That would require more than just<br>reading a few webpages and the wikipedia entry on it. I've too many
<br>irons in the fire for that.<br><br>So, I might pop in a question here or there, but I don't have any stakes<br>in the answers and will not be taking whatever new perspective I'm<br>currently evaluating as a position that I will expect that I will have
<br>to defend in the future.<br><br>I also want to say that this is nothing personal. I appreciate your<br>posts and look forward to reading your opinions on a variety of<br>subjects. Don't let my emotional reaction to being (or so I felt)
<br>called on the carpet in front of an audience dissuade you from<br>continuing to post your well-thought out emails. Even today, after<br>years of trying to rid myself of this, I still hold too much self-worth<br>in how intelligent I appear to others.
<br><br>Paul<br><br>Ted Moffett wrote:<br><br>><br>> Paul et. al.<br>><br>> I did not seek debate with you as some sort of personal contest to<br>> "win" an argument. I would much rather discover the scientific
<br>> evidence mostly argues against dangerous human induced climate<br>> change. I would sleep better for it. And feel less need to cut back<br>> on my fossil fuel use.<br>><br>> I asked you to answer why I should not trust the evidence presented in
<br>> the Science magazine article on the scientific consensus for human<br>> induce global warming. In short, if you think this article in general<br>> to be wrong, explain why the article and its sources are false. Your
<br>> skepticism appears to suggest you think the article to be false, or at<br>> least not well grounded to a high probability in the best science.<br>><br>> I guess you are saying you really don't give a damn about whether
<br>> there is or is not a current scientific consensus on global warming,<br>> or at least care enough to defend your skepticism based on<br>> science...You have "other projects... to focus on..." Well, why
<br>> didn't you just say so? I was wasting my time responding, well,<br>> unless by some miracle someone else read my response to some positive<br>> effect.<br>><br>> I do not buy your "I'll leave saving the world to somebody more
<br>> qualified" line...<br>><br>> Those who are most qualified to speak on the global warming issue are<br>> for the most part not those controlling governments, armies, and<br>> multinational corporations, and most scientists are not among the
<br>> super rich who have more power over the decisions regarding fossil<br>> fuel use than those of modest economic means. Everyone has some<br>> obligation, I am inclined to feel, to educated themselves about the
<br>> dangers of environmental degradation, and take action to address the<br>> problems. If the scientists who study these issues and are the most<br>> "qualified" are the only people attempting social/political/economic
<br>> change, they will face an overwhelming task.<br>><br>> Thanks for your skepticism. Rene Descartes "all powerful evil<br>> deceiver" should always be kept in mind.<br>><br>> Just don't be so open minded that, in the words of another Vision2020
<br>> subscriber who sent me this advice in an Offlist message, your "brains<br>> fall out on your lap."<br>><br>> Ted Moffett<br>><br>> Paul wrote on 4/1/07::<br>><br>> Ted,<br>><br>> I'm not going to debate with you about the science of global warming.
<br>> Like I said in my previous post, I'm not qualified to do so. You are<br>> probably right, hell you probably have a 90% confidence level of being<br>> right. So strike one up in the win column for yourself and move on.
<br>><br>> However, you ask why I'm so skeptical about this. I'm 41 years old.<br>> Just a youngster to many on this list, I'm sure. Still, I've spent<br>> the last 20 years of my life relearning what I thought I knew from the
<br>> previous 20. Our knowledge about the world has grown that quickly. I<br>> can't keep up any more. The funny thing is, though, that every person<br>> who told me what they thought was true believed it to be true just as
<br>> vehemently as those who tell me what they think they know do now.<br>> Hence the skepticism. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out 20 years<br>> from now that what we thought we knew about lots of different things
<br>> (including Global Warming) is wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm<br>> not saying it's going to be wrong, I'm just not going to be surprised<br>> if it goes the way of global cooling in the 70's.
<br>><br>> Global warming has all the hallmarks of a subject that could turn out<br>> to be wrong. Big money is behind one side of it, a "save the world"<br>> mentality is behind the other side. Lots of interests to protect,
<br>> lots of damage if we guess wrongly. And still, too many variables<br>> that affect each other.<br>><br>> On a more practical front, we are not at odds. I think we should<br>> reduce our consumption of fossil fuels or even eliminate it entirely
<br>> as a fuel source. We should work to make energy production as clean<br>> as possible. And, even if we lived in a world where the Middle East<br>> was a peaceful place and oil was non-polluting with respect to other
<br>> dangerous toxins except for CO2, I would be advocating cleaner<br>> technologies because of the looming threat of global warming even if I<br>> don't have a 90% confidence level in it being true. It's just a smart
<br>> thing to do.<br>><br>> So, I have no interest in trying to defend my skepticism on this<br>> point. It's simply an effect of my upbringing. Besides, I have other<br>> projects I wish to focus on right now. I'll leave saving the world to
<br>> somebody more qualified than me.<br>><br>> Paul<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>