Hi All: The synopsis text "Dire Predictions: Understanding global warming" by M.E. Mann and L. R. Kump (ISBN 978-0-1360-4435-2 provides (in my opinion) a very understandable and visual summary of the 2007 IPCC. The publisher - Pearson Education - also has the figures available for download after registering. I have used some of the material in lectures in an Environmental Science and Sustainability course. There is a good description of anthropogenic GHG versus Background or natural.
Sincerely, Len Scinto Leonard J. Scinto, Ph.D. Assistant Research Scientist, Freshwater Biogeochemistry Southeast Environmental Research Center and Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Environment. OE148 Florida International University 11200 SW 8th Street Miami FL 33199 phone: 305-348-1965 fax: 305-348-4096 email: [email protected] www.fiu.edu/~fwbgchem/ -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Schauber Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Wayne -you ask for "data supported fully referenced studies" that are "clearly enough presented that anyone, "scientist" or "non-scientist," should be able to understand the conclusions and their foundations at any level and be able to follow the logic back through the analysis to the raw data." Your request leads me to presume that you find the IPCC 2007 report inadequate (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). What specifically are you looking for that it does not provide? Eric M. Schauber, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Zoology Wildlife Ecologist -- Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory Center for Ecology Southern Illinois University Carbondale 618-453-6940 618-453-6944 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Sarah and Ecolog: Thanks for your suggestion. Re: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Again, I apologize if I have failed to make my question clear. I am not contesting whether or not human activities affect climate; my question has to do with the ratio of that activity's effect to the "background" change, the degree of its significance, the trend and its significance, and upon what basis policies and actions (or their lack) rest. There seem to be two "straw-man" fallacies on each pole of this epistemological see-saw: On the one hand, "deniers" claim that since there is uncertainty, more study is needed before action is justified; on the other hand "believers" cite "consensus of expert opinion." I suggest that neither of these is adequate for science. Am I missing something or misinterpreting something? WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah Bray To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:39 AM Subject: Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Dear Wayne, In response to your post on Ecolog, you may be interested in the following essay: Oreskes, M. 2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science 306: 1686. Cheers, Sarah Dr. Sarah Bray Assistant Professor of Biology Transylvania University 300 N Broadway Lexington, KY 40508 859-233-8169 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Successfully Scanned by the McAfee SIG 3200 Appliance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release Date: 03/30/09 08:40:00
