<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/1/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Moffett</b> <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><span class="gmail_quote"><strong>Chasuk</strong> <a title="[Vision2020] Warning from Copenhagen" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20Warning%20from%20Copenhagen&In-Reply-To=6BCF0D21-DABC-4459-99D0-6F07C5A0E133%40gmail.com" target="_blank">chasuk at gmail.com </a><br>
<i>Wed Jul 1 12:47:15 PDT 2009</i> wrote:</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">"Most importantly, they are largely theoreticians, and the confirmation (or not) of their theories can only be judged over many, many lifetimes. </span><span class="gmail_quote">I have no pragmatic or obvious evidentiary reasons for trusting climate scientists..."</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">"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 </span><span class="gmail_quote">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." </span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">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.</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">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).</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">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. </span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">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.</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">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.</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">Ted Moffett</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/1/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chasuk</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com" target="_blank">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Now consider climate scientists. Their expertise exists in a wide<br>variety of disciplines. I never see the fruits of their work, and<br>
often neither do they, except for in the receipt of a paycheck. I may<br>benefit from their expertise, but only indirectly. Most importantly,<br>they are largely theoreticians, and the confirmation (or not) of<br>their theories can only be judged over many, many lifetimes. I have no<br>
pragmatic or obvious evidentiary reasons for trusting climate<br>scientists, whereas I do for doctors, layers, and gardeners.<br><br></blockquote></blockquote></div><br>