<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Seriously Debi? The motley crew that I out hang with just clings tightly to their own blind biases on this issue. They just reject any report and / or attack the source that doesn't align with their own unalterable belief. The sad reality is that throughout history science has been routinely trumped by politics and religion until it can be proven beyond all doubt. And personally, I'm OK with that to some extent because the effect is that it forces very comprehensive and far reaching studies to unearth all the facts and impeach all of the fiction.<br><br>This short video is a good parallel of what happens whenever the topic of climate change comes up with either my 'global warming is a myth' friends or with my 'we are going to die because of global warming' friends:<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvSjiq1pLVY" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvSjiq1pLVY</a><br> <br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: debismith@moscow.com<br>To: starbliss@gmail.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:32:23 -0700<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory<br><br>
<style><!--
--></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Thanks, Ted. this is good info, and assists me when
i talk to folks with little science background and a denier agenda---you are
always on top of it! I have watched climate denier folks melt-down when
confronted with facts that refute their disbelief---even they can only suspend
disbelief until their arms hurt a bunch....and most of them don't have the
muscle mass....</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">debi R-S</font></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#000000 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px;" dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;BACKGROUND:#e4e4e4;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;"><b>To:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Moscow Vision 2020</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 17, 2015 6:44
PM</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;"><b>Subject:</b> [Vision2020] Realclimate.org
4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory</div>
<div><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I was surprised to just today read on Realclimate.org a piece dated 13
April 2015, by climate scientist William Ruddiman, discussing how the
scientific community has received his controversial theory regarding early
(before major fossil fuel powered industrial civilization) human climate
impacts. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>His Realclimate.org piece argues, and I quote, against the
alleged "censure from a nearly monolithic community intent on imposing a
mainstream view" that is sometimes claimed to exist by those critical of the
science demonstrating major human impacts on climate change. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I was particularly interested in this Realclimate.org piece because I
referenced his theory in a 2007 op-ed in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, which
now has a Google News webpage of an actual scan of the actual op-ed page in
the Moscow-Pullman DN. How or why this scan happened I do not know, but
it can be read at the webpage below:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=20070223&id=x14zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MvAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3113%2c2791746&hl=en" target="_blank">https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=20070223&id=x14zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MvAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3113,2791746&hl=en</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>---------------------------------</div>
<div>Ruddiman's Realclimate.org article mentioned above is pasted in below,
and comments generated by his article are also available at the website
below:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/a-scientific-debate/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/a-scientific-debate/</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A Scientific Debate Filed under: Climate Science — mike @ 13 April
2015 </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Bill Ruddiman, University of Virginia</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Recently I’ve read claims that some scientists are opposed to AGW but
won’t speak out because they fear censure from a nearly monolithic community
intent on imposing a mainstream view. Yet my last 10 years of personal
experience refute this claim. This story began late in 2003 when I introduced
a new idea (the ‘early anthropogenic hypothesis’) that went completely against
a prevailing climatic paradigm of the time. I claimed that detectable human
influences on Earth’s surface and its climate began thousands of years ago
because of agriculture. Here I describe how this radically different idea was
received by the mainstream scientific community. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Was my initial attempt to present this new idea suppressed? No. I
submitted a paper to Climatic Change, then edited by Steve Schneider, a
well-known climate scientist and AGW spokesman. From what I could tell, Steve
was agnostic about my idea but published it because he found it an interesting
challenge to the conventional wisdom. I also gave the Emiliani lecture at the
2003 December American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference to some 800 people.
I feel certain that very few of those scientists came to my talk believing
what my abstract claimed. They attended because they were interested in a
really new idea from someone with a decent career reputation. The talk was
covered by many prominent media sources, including the New York Times and The
Economist. This experience told me that provocative new ideas draw interest
because they are provocative and new, provided that they pass the key ‘sniff
test’ by presenting evidence in support of their claims. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Did this radical new idea have difficulty receiving research funding? No.
Proposals submitted to the highly competitive National Science Foundation
(NSF) with John Kutzbach and Steve Vavrus have been fully funded since 2004 by
3-year grants. Even though the hypothesis of early anthropogenic effects on
climate has been controversial (and still is for some), we crafted proposals
that were carefully written, tightly reasoned, and focused on testing the new
idea. As a result, we succeeded against negative funding odds of 4-1 or 5-1.
One program manager told me he planned to put our grant on a short list of
‘transformational’ proposals/grants that NSF had requested. That didn’t mean
he accepted our hypothesis. It meant that he felt that our hypothesis had the
potential to transform that particular field of paleoclimatic research, if
proven correct. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Were we able to get papers published? Yes. As any scientist will tell
you, this process is rarely easy. Even reviewers who basically support what
you have to say will rarely hand out ‘easy-pass’ reviews. They add their own
perspective, and they often point out useful improvements. A few reviews of
the 30-some papers we have published during the last 11 years have come back
with extremely negative reviews, seemingly from scientists who seem deeply
opposed to anything that even hints at large early anthropogenic effects.
While these uber-critical reviews are discouraging, I have learned to put them
aside for a few days, give my spirits time to rebound, and then address the
criticisms that are fair (that is, evidence-based), explain to the journal
editor why other criticisms are unfair, and submit a revised (and inevitably
improved) paper. Eventually, our views have always gotten published, although
sometimes only after considerable effort. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The decade-long argument over large early anthropogenic effects
continues, although recent syntheses of archeological and paleoecological data
have been increasingly supportive. In any case, I continue to trust the
scientific process to sort this debate out. I suggest that my experience is a
good index of the way the system actually operates when new and controversial
ideas emerge. I see no evidence that the system is muffling good new ideas.
</div>
<div>---------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div></div>
<BR><hr>
<BR>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994.<br>
http://www.fsr.net<br>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================
<BR><hr>
<BR><a target="_blank"></a>
<p align="left">No virus found in this
message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus
Database: 4311/9564 - Release Date: 04/17/15</p></blockquote>
<br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
=======================================================</div> </div></body>
</html>