<div>Chas et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I disagree that none of the Vision2020 list members are "qualified to make a useful judgement" about the probability that anthropogenic warming is occurring due to human impacts, and that it is a serious problem that should be addressed substantively and soon. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am not a certified climate scientist, and even if I was, I would still require the assessment of the community of climate scientists around the world to make the sort of judgement we are considering regarding the scientific consensus on this issue. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have been corresponding with a few of the most published climate scientists in the world, and they do not take the elitist "the hoi polloi can't comprehend the arcane, esoteric and genius level cognition involved" view of the public ability to understand the basics of climate science. They know very well that for this issue to be addressed substantively, on the level of personal commitment and political action, the public needs to be scientifically educated enough on the issue to not be susceptible to the well funded attempts to shed doubt and uncertainty regarding the science involved, for very transparent financial motivations.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the IPCC 2007 report, representing thousands of climate scientists around the world, gives a 90%+ probability that global warming is primarily human caused, and represents a high probability of negative impacts, I respect the scientific community and the scientific method enough to conclude this is a reliable analysis. Might they be wrong? Might they be motivated by politics, career advancement on the global warming bandwagon, pursuit of grants and publishing kudos, big money book sales on global warming scare screeds? Perhaps. Or maybe the science is just plain wrong. It is possible. There are some climate scientists who are very brilliant who dispute the basic conclusions of the IPCC, Richard Lindzen of MIT being one of the more notable.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But to give the impression that the understanding of current climate change science, when viewed from an open minded assessment of all published peer reviewed work, is uncertain regarding the basic conclusion that the human impacts of CO2 emissions on the Earth's climate system are significant, is to just plain distort the truth. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some think that Al Gore has done more harm than good, in his role as a spokesperson for human caused climate change, given his history as a controversial politician distracting the discussion away from the objective science, onto the more emotional and biased realm of political subjectivity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Naomi Oreskes work exposing the deliberate campaign to shed doubt in the public mind, using the media, about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, is compelling. No one directly addressed her work when responding in this thread, which is what the subject line is all about:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459"><em>http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459</em></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</a><br><br>-----------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/14/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chasuk</b> <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>> Chas, what "unqualified pronouncement" are you referring to?<br><br>Rereading my post, I see that my wording was poor. To be clear, I am<br>not talking about the pronouncements of any of the qualified<br>
scientists. I am talking about the pronouncements of Vision2020<br>members. No matter how many appeals to authority we might make<br>(supporting one side or the other), very few (if any) of us are<br>qualified to make a useful judgment.<br>
<br>Most of the squabbling seems to be along party lines. Well,<br>Gore-haters, just because Gore said it doesn't make it false.<br>Gore-lovers, just because Gore said it doesn't make it true.<br><br>I feel like I am listening to my mother-in-law and my wife debate the<br>
relative merits of football teams during the Super Bowl. Neither one<br>of them understand a single whit about the game, nor watch it at all,<br>but they get caught up in the huge PR machine that is the Super Bowl.<br>Before this is interpreted as a sexist rant, let me add that I hate<br>
football. My wife is probably more knowledgeable about the game than<br>I am, as she at least occasionally watches the halftime. Me, I just<br>watch the amusing commercials when they appear on YouTube.<br><br>I'm not saying that we should ignore Global Warning. I believe that<br>
we should proceed as if we are all in the<br>Global-Warning-Humankind-Is-Causing-It camp. If nature is causing it,<br>maybe dramatic action on our part can slow it or prevent it. Nature<br>sometimes slings asteroids in our path. I'm not one of those we<br>
should just accept Acts of God people. If we can minimize the impact<br>of Global Warming, we should, regardless of its cause.<br></blockquote></div><br>