On 20/06/2008, at 12:59 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> So, all of the folks listed here are not "reputable"?
Actually one or two at first glance I would have real problems with.
(Note the construction Piers).
By reputable, I mean having standing in the relevant science. I think
that we can safely ignore television botanists, however entertaining.
> <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'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. 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.
If we look at what started this thread, the incidence of floods in
one year or a period of years is virtually irrelevant - but people
are running around claiming that it is a significant indicator. That
is rather ignorant behaviour - the same people used to blame bad
summers on atom bomb tests. Those in this country who live in a
constant flood and drought regime would find these claims bizarre. We
are talking about very gradual trends here - a couple of 500 year
floods in areas well separated is neither here nor there. Unfortunate
for the victims but blaming a politician is risible, however comforting.
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.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|