From: Martin Striz (mstriz@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 15:45:43 MST
On 11/25/05, Herb Martin <HerbM@learnquick.com> wrote:
> > > A common misconception fostered because it is useful to some
> > > ideological factions. When global temps rise, CO2 levels tend to
> > > rise, not the other way around.
> >
> > Ah, yes, the grand conspiracy of the cabal known as the entire
> > scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> > (that bastion of political ideology), a body which collates published,
> > peer-reviewed data from hundreds of papers, representing the findings
> > of thousands of scientists, has deteremined that humans are
> > contributing significantly to the global climate changes that we are
> > facing. But Mr. Rogers knows better.
>
> "The ENTIRE scientific community..." (emphasis added) makes
> it clear that either you are willing to exaggerate to the
> point of fabrication OR you have been thoroughly taken by
> the propaganda on this subject which is precisely what the
> previous poster was referencing when writing "useful to some
> ideological factions."
> You should be extremely suspicious of any such universal
> quantifiers (e.g., Entire scientific community) on such
> controversial issue, or else we must be suspicious of you,
> your posts, as to accuracy or honesty.
The conclusions of the IPCC, which has gathered data from a large body
of scientists, is taken as the concensus view of the scientific
community. Michael Behe may be a scientist, and he may disagree with
naturalistic evolution, but I would still say that the ENTIRE
scientific community supports naturalistic evolution. I don't think
I'm being remiss in that claim.
> Maybe there is a problem; maybe there isn't. Maybe
> human activity is staving off the expected (due in
> geological times) 'next Ice Age' but more likely human
> activity is having a small effect on natural swings of
> global temperatures.
The IPCC concluded that about half of the 1 degree centigrade rise in
temperature in the last 100 years can be attributed to human activity.
When something accounts for 50% of the variance, that's signficant to
me.
> Before making up one's mind to the point of being
> "certain" and unwilling to consider additional facts it
> would do well to hear the explanations of Patrick J.
> Michaels.
I'm always open to new data. I don't think that there's such a dearth
of evidence on this matter that the "jury is still out" as some would
say about evolution. Evolutionary theory involves a complex,
multidisciplinary body of knowledge, with gaps and ostensible
inexplicables, but there's enough data there to be make a sound
conclusion. I feel the same way about climate change.
> Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at
> the University of Virginia, past president of the American
> Association of State Climatologists, past program chair
> for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American
> Meteorological Society, contributing author and reviewer
> of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change...
>
> Wait a minute! Isn't that the UN Panel you quoted as
> providing definite evidence and proof of your position?
>
> Maybe you should READ what Michaels has to say on this
> subject so that you can know the disagreements and
> understand how the actual findings are frequently
> misinterpreted by the press and others with a political
> axe to grind.
>
> Start with the very affordable:
> Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
> Politicians, and the Media - Patrick J. Michaels; Paperback
> <
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1930865791/002-8714361-7898438?v=glance&n=2
> 83155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance >
>
> Or the more expensive:
> Shattered Consensus: The True State Of Global Warming
> by Patrick J. Michaels (Hardcover - October 28, 2005)
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-8714361-7898438
>
> Keep and open mind and research both sides.
>
> Things are NOT so clearly decided (among the experts)
> as the press would have us believe.
I don't look to the press. I look at the primary literature. I'm
aware of the controversy. The job of the IPCC is to winnow the data
and come to an honest and objective (as far as humanly possible)
conclusion. Their conclusions often are not as alarming as the press
would have you believe. In the 2001 report (the last full report), as
I said, they attribute half of the 1 degree rise in temperature over
the last century to human activity. CO2 and halocarbons are major
contributors to that.
Thanks for the references. Here are a few for you:
Climate Change: Scientific Basis (2001):
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
CO2 specifically (2005): http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/ccsspm.pdf
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:53 MDT