Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant

Subject: [OM] Re: [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:54:30 -0400

Andrew Fildes wrote:

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>> List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_gl 
>> obal_warming>
> 
> Which states - "This article lists scientists and former scientists  
> who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal  
> conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming.  
> It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics.  
> Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily  
> reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or  
> that such change could be large enough to be harmful."
> 
> Please read that statement VERY carefully. If you are looking for  
> support for a stridently anti-global warming position in this list,  
> then you'll be shit out of luck.

I understand full well that that is not a list of stridently anti-global 
warming advocates.  But neither is it a list of television botanists.  I 
assume you were referring to Bellamy.  But next on the list after 
Bellamy is Tennekes and my view of the matter is much more akin to his.
<http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Climate%20models-Tennekes.htm>

> 
> 
>> I'm afraid you won't win your point with me by character assassination
>> of the opponents.  
> 
> I did not indulge in any ad hominem attacks (unlike your comment  
> here). I have managed one above but I have my reasons.

Well, I'm afraid that is another matter of opinion.

> Repeat, most  
> of these are not opponents in any sense - they merely take issue with  
> one or more conclusions or models. Hardly unusual or surprising given  
> the intolerable complexity of meteorological and atmospheric modelling.
> The problem is that we tend to indulge in polar thinking - in much  
> the same way that we think about politics. People tend to assume that  
> scientists are either 'for' or 'against' some big hairy thing called  
> global warming. That's like claiming that biologists are either for  
> or against evolutionary theory. In fact there is a broad spectrum of  
> views and major internal disagreements within the broad framework  
> that considers the warming trend to be a problem.

But Tennekes (for example) would say that the "intolerable complexity of 
meteorological and atmospheric modeling" makes the models themselves 
intolerable for the purposes to which they are applied.  I agree.

  > I note that you did not choose to comment on the Pascal approach.
> That is, we are much better off doing something about it, even if it  
> is as serious a problem as we imagine. The side benefits are  
> substantial.

It would probably surprise you to know that I strongly favor the 
development of alternative energy sources.  But not because I fear the 
atmospheric effects of carbon dioxide or methane.  We're simply running 
out of the stuff the world runs on today.  Whether it takes 50 years, 
100 years or 500 years it will eventually all be gone or outside of 
economic reach.

Chuck Norcutt

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz